Thanks go to Tommie Kidd for actually recognizing that confessional Protestantism may be a category distinct from evangelicalism (all about me alert):
The second group are Reformed/confessionalist Christians, often associated with traditional Presbyterian or Reformed denominations such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. This is the easiest category of the four, because many of these Christians would tell you that they are not evangelicals, even if the media would regard them as such. Some of these folks will tell you that they might be evangelicals, but that the doctrines and confessions of Reformed Christianity are the center of their faith, not the born-again feelings of typical American evangelicals. D.G. Hart is one of the preeminent examples of the Reformed critics of evangelicalism.
But Professor Kidd is not going to abandon evangelicalism. He merely wants to create space between evangelicalism and American nationalism (read exceptionalism):
there are many evangelicals who have reservations about the blending of American national history with their faith. Our faith needs to be focused on Christ, the paleos say, and rooted in the deep, wide tradition of orthodox church history. We do not base our faith, in any sense, on the personal beliefs of Jefferson, Washington, or Adams. Especially when viewed from the perspective of the global church, American civil religion looks peculiar, at best. Yes, Christianity played a major role in the American founding, but that fact does not place the founding at the center of Christianity. The paleos admire many of the founders, but do not wish to read the founders alongside Scripture, as Barton would have us do in his Founders’ Bible.
This concern would be a lot more forceful if Professor Kidd were to identify with a particular communion rather than a generic evangelicalism no matter how paleo (like Oleo?). He may so identify in his personal life, but he like a lot of historians who write in Conference on Faith and History (instead of a Conference on Church History) circles claim to belong to Christianity without actually being restrained by the shape and teaching of a particular church. And this is where Kidd’s description of confessional Protestantism could take a correction. Yes, the doctrines of Reformed Protestantism are important to confessional Presbyterians but that is at least because those doctrines are confessed by a communion and bind its officers and members together (in some way).
The alternative to an ecclesial Protestantism is the very sort of evangelicalism with which Kidd seemingly identifies. And part of the reason why evangelicals since Whitefield have held the visible church in low esteem is because it gets in the way of those cooperative endeavors from orphanages and Sunday school to solving world hunger and forming academic guilds. When the United States broke with Theodosius and disestablished religion, Christians did not give up national churches but they — evangelicals included — turned the nation into a church.
If paleo-evangelicals like Kidd want to disabuse evangelicals of their nationalism, a quick remedy would be to turn denominational or churchly by adopting a higher allegiance to the church (and letting it be tested by submission to ecclesiastical authority) rather than turning a critical eye to the nation. But the problem there for Protestants on both the evangelical “right” and the mainline left is that allegiance to a particular church and its teachings, liturgy, and government looks sectarian — sort of like attachments to states like Michigan or Pennsylvania look backward. The solution to one big, vacuous, and uncritical allegiance (American exceptionalism) is not another big, vacuous, and uncritical allegiance (evangelicalism).
Old Life 
Scott Clark—One overlooked reason why Hodge did not favor a closer form of subscription to the Westminster Standards is that it would cause the Presbyterian Church to fragment such that it would no longer be a “national” (read “mainline” and “influential”) Presbyterian Church. He was right and wrong. He was right. Any form of subscription that required Presbyterian ministers to believe every proposition in the Standards would reveal the fissures that Hodge knew existed in the Presbyterian Church.
Scott Clark—Hodge knew that, already in the mid-to-late 19th century, the foundation of the Presbyterian Church was weak. Perhaps he thought that, if given time, Princeton could shore up that foundation? In principle, however, Hodge was wrong. By preserving the status quo as long as he (and implicitly Old Princeton) did he helped to provide safe haven for ministers who no longer believed the Reformed faith. That rot in the foundation fundamentally weakened the Presbyterian house. By the early 20th century, it was the quest to preserve a “national” Presbyterian Church and its cultural influence (even if that influenced was disguised as a desire to “reach the lost”) that fueled the prosecution of Machen for daring to point out that emperor had no clothes.”
http://heidelblog.net/2013/11/machens-enemies-then-and-now-and-the-myth-of-influence/
Christ Our Righteousness Fellowship (Lancaster Pa) has no influence. We do not even have the comfortable myth of being connected to a regional presbytery of “the church” which in theory governs the confessional and moral integrity of its officers..
“Moses and Merit addresses a relatively recent appearance of the view that the Mosaic covenant embodies a republication of the covenant of works, a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology—namely, that during the Mosaic era of the covenant of grace, in pointed antithesis to grace and saving faith in the promised Messiah, the law given to Israel at Sinai was to function pedagogically as a typological overlay of the covenant of works made with Adam, by which Israel’s retention of the land and temporal blessings were made dependent on maintaining a level of meritorious obedience (works), reduced in its demand to accommodate their sinfulness.
—Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology emeritus, Westminster Theological Seminary
LikeLike
One of the guiding principals of evangelicals is to intentionally (in a good way) minimize micro theological differences that exist and maximize areas of common ground that believers of many stripes can share. That does make evangelicalism “big” (certainly compared to the OPC), but hardly makes it “vacuous”. (You can critique Keller or Carson at the GC for a few things, I suppose, but not empty-headedness.)
I think you are right in saying that a strong allegiance to a particular church can look sectarian. It does. Whatever the many ills are in the world of evangelicalism, those ills pale compared to the proclivity towards sectarianism that permeates the ‘higher’ church. For instance, one of the main informational and entertainment values that your blog offers here, is to offer a closeup view of presby-vs-presby internecine theological warfare.
So, for both practical (ability to make the evangelical tent ‘bigger’) and theological (separating the gospel from linkages to American politics) reasons, Kidd is right to disabuse evangelicals of nationalism.
A more interesting question may be is how to disabuse denominationalists of their sectarianism?
LikeLike
Maybe, but don’t mess with Texas!
LikeLike
Peter, what you say is sectarian I say is the truth. Prove me wrong. Was the Bible really given so we could come up with 13 points and pray together?
LikeLike
DGH,
I understand that you feel the OPC is the finest/highest/purest/most true form of Christianity. Who knows, you may be right. I’ve no motivation to try to prove you wrong. What’s definitely true is that you’re sectarian.
You’ll have to clarify what on earth you’re referring to about “13 points and praying together”. (It’s intriguing where/why you make such curious, out of the blue, statements.)
LikeLike
The most intolerant people are those who claim not to sectarian. “Catholic” dividing teaches us that religion and propositions are acceptable but that sacramental salvation is necessary. Ironically, where ecclesiology (and ethics) becomes a matter of indifference, the correct sort of ecclesiology tends to get mistaken for the gospel.
Broadly “evangelicals” are so catholic that they can’t tolerate people who are too intolerant to be members of a broadly “evangelical” church. When they insist that no group of Christians is ever to separate from another group of Christians, they also are teaching that those who separate from “them” are perhaps not Christians.
A local assembly of believers who have agreed together about which historical narrative (which creed for which king or parliament) best informs what they name as “gospel” is not any more (or less) a “religious ghetto” than organizations with more clients and consumers.
Burning an unitarian at the stake is not a “sectarian” thing to do. Anybody really “catholic” would approve.
LikeLike
Was the Bible really given so we could come up with 13 points and pray together?
This.
Although the truly “concise” might have this down to 11 points.
LikeLike
Petros, exempli gratia:
http://www.calvarynow.com/what-we-believe
Down to 7, even.
LikeLike
McMark,
Your posts are generally more scholarly and informative than the one here. You may (or not) be right about exactly “who” is more intolerant of ‘what’. And, you may (or not) be right about where the worst ghettos can be found (where there are large numbers of people at the GC? small numbers in the OPC? or?).
Personally (all about me), I’ve benefitted from, and am continuing to read/study, Reformed traditions. Much good stuff.
As an evangelical, I’ll opt for Phil 1:18 as a guide for evaluating churches with voluminous confessions as well as those with only 7 key points (thanks, d4, for clarifying).
LikeLike
One might also ask if the Bible was given so that voluminous confessions could be written, that few of the masses actually read or understand (for better or worse), and that more scholarly types can endlessly debate?
LikeLike
McMark, I’m hardly an expert on sectarianism. But, when higher church denominations close the communion table to true believers (who don’t happen to be part of their particular denomination), you’ve got some significant sectarianism going on. They may have the ultimate truth, of course, and they obviously have what they perceive to be their prudential reasons for closing the communion table. Some will differ whether that type of sectarianism is a virtue, or possibly something else.
LikeLike
Petros – That does make evangelicalism “big” (certainly compared to the OPC), but hardly makes it “vacuous”.
Erik – Is Joel Osteen an evangelical?
Is Joel Osteen vacuous?
LikeLike
Evangelicals are every bit as sectarian as anyone else. Sure, “high church” types might ask a person to meet certain biblical requirements before being admitted to the Supper, but evangelicals require a person to suffer through someone’s personal taste in contemporary Christian music or, worse yet, to sit through some new creative way form of ‘worship’ that has sprung from someone’s idolatrous imagination. Evangelical necessarily exclude anyone who rightly believes the clear and unmistakeable teaching of the Bible that God is to be worshiped only as he has commanded.
On top of that, is it not sectarian to send your children out of the worship service to a service of their own, or to withhold from them the sacrament of baptism, or to divide up the older believers (traditional) from the younger (contemporary)?
In any event, most evangelical baptist churches would withhold the Supper from a person who was only baptized as an infant, so that point isn’t even well taken, unless it is somehow sectarian to require biblical church membership for admission to the Supper but not sectarian to force upon someone the un-biblical practice of re-baptism before being admitted to the Supper.
LikeLike
Peter, if you’ve read the history of the OPC that I’ve had a hand in you’d know that I don’t think the OPC hung the moon. I am a pretty strong proponent — surprise — of Reformed Protestantism. You look for it where you can find it. And it is a lot more than the National Association of Evangelicals 13 points and their “fellowship.” Surely if you’re a fan of Keller and Piper, you might have some sympathy for proponents of Reformed Protestantism. Then again, you don’t seem to be able to tell that Keller and Piper are sectarian compared to the ecumenism in which confessional Reformed churches participate.
LikeLike
Peter, you mean those confessions that have “much good stuff”?
Which is it? Or are you the typical cosmopolite — your only home is where you lay your head and park your laptop?
LikeLike
Peter, how do you know anything about the communion practices of Reformed churches? None that I know bar persons who have been baptized and are members of a church that proclaims the gospel. That would even include members from Piper and Keller’s congregations.
LikeLike
Our minister welcomes any “member in good standing in a Bible-believing church.”
LikeLike
I think that some URCNA consistories read the “biblical church membership” (Church Order Art. 45) requirement to mean Reformed church membership and would thus exclude a ‘reformed baptist’ like Piper. I think older documents (1619 Church Order of Dort) required profession of the “Reformed religion” to be admitted to the table, which I think was meant to exclude Lutherans and anabaptists.
LikeLike
Have some of you overlooked that it was DGH himself who wrote in his post above that “allegiance to a particular church and its teachings, liturgy, and government looks sectarian” ? I happen to agree with that statement.
For those of you that want to assert that evangelicals are sectarian, well, that’s a bit curious. Perhaps they are, and maybe everyone is, at some point. It’s just that the more traditional critique of the evangelical world is that it’s too broad-and-squishy and has an anything-goes approach, not that it’s overly narrow.
LikeLike
I must say, however, that Keller and Piper and Carson, et al, seem very ecumenically chummy, compared to the presby-vs-presby battles that often take place on this blog. Maybe it’s just the manner in which you folks express your love to each other?
LikeLike
Chortles weakly
Posted July 17, 2014 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
Our minister welcomes any “member in good standing in a Bible-believing church.”
Which Bible?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/deficientgeneva.htm
Whose Bible?
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2014 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
Peter, what you say is sectarian I say is the truth. Prove me wrong.
LikeLike
Peter, you say I merely look sectarian but am not? “Look” is not “is”.
LikeLike
Peter, do evangelicals have fellowship with Calvinists?
LikeLike
Peter, let me ask you—what did you come out of? Or was it your “evangelical” grandparents who “came out” of something? Were you always out? Was there ever a need for you to come out of what you were born in?
..
Infant water is about a hope that the infant will not leave. But a lot of the fellows on this list left their parents being “baptist”. I myself never left being fundamentalist to become something “sacramental”, But that does not mean that I don’t continue to have plenty of stuff I still need to come out from….
Isaiah 52:1 —Awake, awake,
put on your strength, O Zion;
put on your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for there shall no more come into you
the uncircumcised and the unclean.
52:11 Depart, depart, go out from there;
touch no unclean thing;
go out from the midst of her; purify yourselves,
you who bear the vessels of the Lord.
II Cor 6—“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
17 Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
18 and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
LikeLike
“Maybe it’s just the manner in which you folks express your love to each other?” Better is open rebuke than hidden love; faithful are the wounds of a friend.
Keller and Piper seem chummy because they’re members of a mutual admiration society. It has nothing to do with theology or ecumenism. Piper would require that every child that has been baptized at Redeemer to be re-baptized to become members of his church. Even adults who were baptized in a normal Presbyterian fashion would need to be re-baptized because Piper’s church holds that immersion is the only valid form of baptism. Can you really be chummy, in an ecumenical way, with a fellow pastor who thinks your church’s sacramental practice is a violation of Christ’s commands to the church?
LikeLike
I don’t agree with Piper, but–before he retired- Piper wanted his congregation to become more liberal on giving membership to those who think that not watering infants is sin.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2010/05/27/our-church-and-baptismal-dual-practice/
Would you administer the baptisms to infants?
No. As a convinced credobaptist, my conscience would not allow me to administer the infant baptisms myself.
Per the bylaws, paedobaptisms will be administered by a person that I select and who has been approved by the deacon board. The likely suspect is our deacon who is a covenantal paedobaptist.
If you want paedobaptism in the church but you won’t administer it, doesn’t this make you a hypocrite?
I am convinced this position does not make me a hypocrite, because it is neither right nor safe to go against conscience — to quote Luther — and my conscience is convinced before God that I can shepherd paedobaptists without administering their baptisms.
In the same way, I will pastor Arminians without becoming or “practicing” Arminianism, pretribulationists without believing in pretribulationism, etc.
LikeLike
Here are the particular proposals of Piper for Bethleham Baptist.
Click to access baptism_and_membership.pdf
mcmark: I don’t mean to imply that I think most pca clergy think it’s a sin to not water your own infants. Most of them don’t even think it’s sin to be Arminian….
LikeLike
Wow, McMark — I had no idea that Piper was a practical dual-moder. Did they enact this? Is it the law of their church? There’s no evidence on the current site:
http://www.hopeingod.org/search/node?keys=infant+baptism&x=0&y=0
Maybe the rationale was “We’re/I’m so awesome even benighted paedobaptists shouldn’t be deprived of our/my ministry.”
LikeLike
DGH,
So you concede you ‘look’ sectarian, but really ‘are’ not sectarian? That’s wonderful. I’m not sure how/why you or others would run from the term ‘sectarian’. The comments on this very post illustrate the very point that there are all kinds of differences (eg, communion, baptism, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc) that you and others feel are important to differentiate yourself. (I enjoy learning what your and others’ thinking is that animates these differences than inform where you draw your boundaries.)
Of course, evangelicals and the GC draw boundaries, too. They are just much broader boundaries than the denominational heritages represented typically on this blog (yes, including Calvinists). I’m not sure why this is even debatable or provocative, and not merely accepted as a fair descriptor of life as it is.
Your original post above argues that Kidd should have advocated for a higher allegiance to a denominational church. Seemingly, you concede that that would come with the cost, at least in appearance if not reality, of greater sectarianism. I’d agree.
LikeLike
the last I heard, the proposals by Piper and the elders did not pass. As I said, Piper is now retired.
Mark Dever, as I remember, had some of the clearest responses to the “well we do that also” plan.
I also recommend Robert Gundry’s Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian,
1) Jesus is the Word to the world in spite of the world
2) The Gospel of John is primarily for the elect, all of whom will believe the gospel.
3) The love of God is not universal. John’s vision of the Christian community flows from a view of Christ that is separatist toward the world. The Fourth Gospel is unalterably sectarian.
LikeLike
Mark, it’s just evidence of the squishy niceness that New Calvinists over-compensate with — since many are so defensive about how their Arminivangelical brethren (and now Presbyterian smarter cousins?) perceive them. Hey, if you’re independent you can make it up as you go.
LikeLike
McMark – I’m a bit unclear on what your inquiry is about what I “came out of”, but fwiw, I am a first generation believer who came to faith in Christ in my late teen years. I was baptized as an infant in a stone-cold-dead-ultra-liberal mainline denomination, and then re-baptized as a believer, so maybe that gives me an entrance pass to both presby and Baptist churches? (I’m 100% with you on being a credo-baptist-guy.)
LikeLike
One of the problems with conversations like the ones above is that the term “sectarian” is thrown around without any clear definition of the term being offered and agreed upon. I know doing so may result in the discussion being less entertaining, but it might actually help to cut through the fog if someone proposed a clear definition of “sectarian” that everyone could agree upon, and then the discussio can go from there. Otherwise, the conversation will continue to be like two ships passing in the night.
Clear communication, people. Try it, you might like it… 🙂
LikeLike
Definitions are good. Those who continue to assume the church/sect typology of Troeltsch and the brothers Niebuhr will stayed trapped in the “liberal” idea that there is only one culture, one covenant, and one church. This is true even of those who attempt to walk the “balanced” high wire which is the “Lutheran” two-kingdoms.
We do not burn you at the stake for your failure to water your infants, but it must be said that you cannot influence the culture if you merely wait for God to call individuals out of the darkness.
Was “exile” a punishment? Was “exodus” a punishment? Was “exile” also the new way of diaspora by which God kept the promise that the seed of Abraham would be born who would bring in righteousness? And what about for now? Is “exile” a good thing for now? Or was “exile” only a transitional dispensational event, which is over now that Christians also have the vote?
I Peter 1: 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile,
Click to access cgr-16-2-s1998-3.pdf
LikeLike
To go back to Kidd and his concern about “those for whom American politics is the center of Christianity, at least as communicated in public”, one subset of that group is those who do “identify with a particular confessional communion”. They might not call themselves “evangelicals” but these committed confessionalists do not hesitate to identify as “Americans” or as “capitalists” or with “what was once quite ordinary moral reflection ”
Is this concern to conserve the present experiment in empire “only in their personal lives”? There are confessionalists who do not confuse church with family, and that is good. I have even encountered some confessionalists who seem to have very little left invested in being Americans.
http://www.crosscurrents.org/Weaverwinter2003.htm
LikeLike
RL, clearly the answer is yes to chummy, no to Christian fellowship. Why Alliances happen.
LikeLike
Peter, I say “look” because I don’t define sectarian the way you and the secular press does (how’s the fellowship there working for you)? Word, sacrament, discipline — these are all features that have long characterized the church worldwide. They do not characterize the Gospel Coalition or the generic dumbfounding term, evangelical. Did you ever consider that 1.2 billion Roman Catholics would say that you evangelicals look sectarian?
The only cost, btw, to Kidd, would actually using a word different from evangelical and abandoning the pre-fix, paleo. Baptist is easier to spell.
LikeLike
Petros,
TGC booted Tullian over blog exchanges about Law & Gospel. I haven’t seen the PCA laying charges. Who’s more sectarian? At least I know where the PCA stands – it’s in writing (you know, the confessions they subscribe to)?
LikeLike
Did anyone actually read those links to the Yoder and Kaufmann views of cultural theology. It certainly is a different view from what I have read and know about 2K theology. I thought they were provocative and interesting reads. There needs to be more discussion about their views- either pro or con.
LikeLike
JohnY, I thought the article on Yoder and Kaufman was good, the one discussing Yoder and Said not so much (I refuse to take Said seriously). McMark has linked to several good pieces on Yoder which I have not seen before. I like Yoder and heard him on a panel once when I was exiled to Atlanta back in the early 80’s. I came away from that presentation convinced that he would be sharpest knife in most any drawer, yet a man of a surpassingly sweet spirit who wore his gifts lightly. (His recently punlicized sexual antics seem totally out of character). Too many of his neo-Anabaptist followers,(I am thinking of folks like Shane Claiborne) though, seem to want to cudgel us into agreeing with them by any means necessary. That kind of discourages dialogue.
LikeLike
Not exactly sure about what is being promoted here but we need to answer one question. That question is, how did Christianity play such a major role in the founding of a country that relied on the ethnic cleansing of the land’s indigenous people and the enslavement of another people to grow physically, militarily, and economically?
LikeLike
For those of you that want to assert that evangelicals are sectarian, well, that’s a bit curious. Perhaps they are, and maybe everyone is, at some point. It’s just that the more traditional critique of the evangelical world is that it’s too broad-and-squishy and has an anything-goes approach, not that it’s overly narrow.
Petros, it’s the irony of broad eeeevangelicalism. Anything might go, but not paedobaptism (unless you’re E-Free where it all weirdly co-exists). But the irony of a narrow confessionalism is how much ecumenism it fosters between those who adhere to their respective confessions. Not all of us who share your background have such a hard time seeing that.
ps your re-baptism might get you in with the Baptists but your renouncing of it would go farther with Presbies.
LikeLike
Zrim, but there are plenty of paedobaptists in at the GC, are there not?
Btw, there’s no difficulty in seeing ecumenism within a particular narrow confession. Nothing remarkable there (notwithstanding the occasional internecine fights on this blog about which section, or sub-section, of a particular presby confession may apply to a circumstance). It’s a bit more remarkable (and admirable!) that the Pipers and the Kellers of the world (along with lots of other evangelicals) demonstrate ecumenism.
LikeLike
Dan,
Cudgel or sexual misconduct not-with-standing, let’s listen to what they have to say before adding on ad hominems. The Anabaptist view of culture is not even given a hearing here. The neo-Cals, evangelical right and Catholics are the only players in the game. I’m not sure what Curt Day thinks of the Anabaptists. And I am sure there are varied Anabaptists views of culture. The evangelical left is a lot different than the evangelical right too (who adhere to an American exceptionalism). The Yoder and Kaufmann view gets me interested in cultural issues again.
I think Curt’s question needs to be given a satisfactory answer too. The 2kers and Anabaptists can answer the question better than the evangelical right, neo-Cals or Catholics can. Anabaptists and 2kers have rejected the inherent Constantinianism of the Catholics, neo-Cals and evangelical right.
LikeLike
A quote from the Friesen essay on Yoder’s and Kauffman’s views of cultural engagement by the church, pg. 19:
“Both Yoder and Kaufman believe that christology is the controlling or
orienting center for Christian theology and discipleship. Both develop
christologies which are linked to ethics and to discipleship, a central emphasis
in the Anabaptist tradition, and both are critical of christologies which
disconnect the cross from ethics (i.e., substitutionary atonement). Both stress
the centrality of the love of enemies and servant love in describing Jesus’
ethic. Both are critical of how, in the history of the church, God language has
been used to justify oppression and violence. Kaufman argues that the problem
is the God language of the Bible itself which needs to be deconstructed and
constructed in new ways, whereas for Yoder the problem is that the church
after Constantine substituted other authorities for Christ, or found ways to dismiss Christ as relevant for social ethics.”
John Y: Paul did not seem to think that substitutionary atonement would disconnect the cross from ethics. A greater understanding of the Gospel should fuel a gratitude that makes one more ethically conscious even as we fail to implement those ethics. It forces us to turn to the Gospel for power as we walk out the Christian life.
LikeLike
Comrade Curt the Christian Socialist, ask Howard Zinn.
LikeLike
CCCS, looks like it was all good to me:
LikeLike
Petros, what is so remarkable about starting an alliance when other alliances (ACE) and associations (NAE) already exist. In the history of American Protestantism there is a long history of such remarkable and admirable endeavors. And now Piper and Keller (and you) think they are doing something original. Recipe for narrowness and pride? You betcha.
LikeLike
Petros, sure, but TGC isn’t pure eeeevangelicalism. For that, see the local Bible or megachurch where paedobaptism isn’t only absent but also scorned as latent Catholicism. And my point about ecumenism among narrow confessionalists wasn’t about it being within particular Protestant denominations but across various ones, i.e. there is more ecumenism between confessional Reformed and Lutheran than there is among TGCers. What you’re seeing on the screen among the latter isn’t ecumenism but kumbaya—there is a difference, you know.
LikeLike
JohnY, the Anabaptist label covers a lot of territory on the question of how to engage with the culture, from separatism from the world to full on transformers. There are conservative Anabaptists who would hold absolutely to the substitutionary atonement, but I suspect the dominant strain in today’s US (at least ones who write journal articles) would not. I did not, by the way, mean anything I said to be interpreted as ad hominem against Yoder– he was a force of nature who left behind a body of work that is as impressive as anything achieved by any modern theologian. If, as Kaufman said, the task of a theologian is to keep our eyes focused on God instead of idols, Yoder was wildly successful.
LikeLike
Z, maybe ‘Tros is mistaking professionally-coordinated marketing & mutually-assured admiration for ecumenism.
LikeLike
Chortles,
No need to ask him when his books are available. But asking him doesn’t address the issue anyway since some Christians want to make the claim about Christianity and the nation and others don’t.
LikeLike
Zirm–it’s the irony of broad eeeevangelicalism. Anything might go, but not paedobaptism (unless you’re E-Free where it all weirdly co-exists). But the irony of a narrow confessionalism is how much ecumenism it fosters between those who adhere to their respective confessions. Not all of us who share your background have such a hard time seeing that. ps your re-baptism might get you in with the Baptists but your renouncing of it would go farther with Presbies.
mark: surely there are plenty of “bible churches” in Michigan, which will “do it your way”. I don’t agree with the coexistence policy, but surely it’s not limited to e free folks. I am not sure what you mean by “your renouncing of it”. Are you attempting to say that it would please you personally if credobaptists repented of baptist water? Why would you want that renunciation from baptists if you don’t want it from Roman Catholics?
As in the case of the papists, most of these baptists being “accepted by” Presbies (not only the “co-existing” pca) have only had the water one time. So what happens if a person from either group renounced that water? Would there then be presbyie water (sacramental God is doing it we are not doing it water)? if so, that looks very much to some folks like “second baptism” Perhaps I have simply got lost in the syntax and missed your point.
Historically, “anabaptists” are the people accused of “second baptism” but who claimed that papist water was not that of the true church and not true water. The label “anabaptist” would attached to them by other folks, and at a certain point they accepted the name (and the irony involved). ie, As with quakers, calvinists, lutherans, protestants, etc
LikeLike
Mark, not repentance from “Baptist water” (nor “Catholic water” for that matter) but from re-baptism. Belgic 34 says in part:
For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it—for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives. For that reason we reject the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized
and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.
It’s an error for those baptized once to repeat it and should be repented of if one wants Reformed membership. If one wasn’t baptized as an infant but as an adult in “Baptist waters” then there is no more a problem than if one was baptized with “Catholic waters” as an infant–done and done.
Historically, the first generation ABs were baptized in “Catholic waters” as were the Prots. That is why it was referred to as a re-baptism, which is to say a legitimate baptism illegitimately repeated. After the first generation passes, the situation changes dramatically since credos don’t baptize their kids anyway–they require a profession of faith from the recipient first. Irregular, but sufficient for Reformed membership. However, if like Petros (and yours truly) one was legitimately baptized as an infant in the name of the Triune God and again later, then repenting of the subsequent baptism I would contend needs to be repented of as an error per Belgic 34.
LikeLike
Zrim, re: your “needs to be repented of as an error per Belgic 34”. As soon as I start to warm up to some P&R stuff, you lay out a statement like that (which leaves me ice cold!), and I’m reminded why I’m an evangelical, whatever the warts may be in the greater community of evangelicals. What’s baffling is how you would harmonize sola scriptura with extra-biblical Belgic 34’s. Or, equally baffling, why you’d contend that a stupid infant water sprinkling, administered by godless people, before a godless family upon a godless-dead-in-his-sins-infant could be legitimate (like, who gives a rip about that?), while a believer’s baptism should be repented of. These kinds of views (and I’m sure you have ways of explaining them away) smack of pharisaic formalism that misses the spirit/essence of what baptism is all about.
LikeLike
Petros, sola scriptura and confessions go hand-in-hand. It’s biblicism and confessions that don’t, which means eeeevangelical versions of confessions called “statements of faith” need to be harmonized with the bare Bible crowd. But, yeow, stupid and godless? Here I am affirming perfectly good Catholic and Baptist baptisms as sufficient and you repay with “pharisaic formalism that misses the spirit/essence of what baptism is all about”?
And I didn’t say a believer’s baptism needs to be repented of. I said a re-baptism does. So what do credos do with someone who by-passes infant baptism, is baptized upon profession of faith and then wants to do it again for whatever reason? I presume the more principled among you would say nein, and for very similar reasons by which we also oppose the re-doing of perfectly good infant baptisms. See, that’s how you have a civil exchange, i.e. presume the best of one’s partner, which sort of beats the stupid and godless and formalism that doesn’t understand anything about anything crap.
LikeLike
Zrim, well, actually you did state that a believer’s baptism would need to be repented of, if it is subsequent to an infant baptism. You said: “It’s an error for those baptized once to repeat it and should be repented of if one wants Reformed membership.” I, and countless others, were baptized by godless clergy in godless churches witnessed by godless families. Since that counts as being legit for you, yes, that smacks of formalism. The bottom line is that your Belgic 34 is extra-biblical, and if it’s a benchmark for you for what ‘sin’ is that needs to be repented of, you’re ascribing an authority to your confession that should only be reserved for Scripture.
LikeLike
Zrim, btw, somehow your ongoing references to “eeeevangelicals” just doesn’t strike me as your presuming the best about them. Perhaps you had some traumatic personal experience you’re trying to work through there? Or, just need a better spell-check?
LikeLike
Do any paedo-water churches accept people into membership who have not been watered even once?
I don’t think so.
Therefore, if credo-water churches deny that paedo-water is obedient to the new covenant command, for credo-water churches to accept into membership those with paedo-water is to accept into membership those who –according to their confession– have not been watered even once.
Is the only “non-sectarian” position to accept into membership (and the Lord’s Supper) those with no water? By that notion, both paedos and baptists are both sectarian.
There is some complexity to the question, like the relationship of water to the supper, and of membership to water and supper, but it comes back to the question of agreeing that Romanist water for infants meets the standard for “water once”. What made the magisterial reformers still “catholic” was that they would not stand for the discontinuity which repented of Constantinian “christening”.
They did eventually agree to a discontinuity from the old covenants (which pre-emptively included everybody in the parish, even without one professing parent) by stipulating that water was only for those with at least one parent who had not “opted out”, So “opting out” became a possibility, and for the sake of practical success of their “retrievals”, the magisterial reformers accepted some iconoclasm. But they would not and could not accept a “small body of Christians consisting entirely of adult recruits”. (T S Eliot, The Idea of a Christian Society)
https://marshillaudio.org/addenda/dead-end-privatized-faith
Eliot—“ By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents…the Liberal notion that religion was a matter of private belief and of conduct in private life, and that there is no reason why Christians should not be able to accommodate themselves to any world which treats them good-naturedly, is becoming less and less tenable.”
Eliot—“This notion would seem to have become accepted gradually, as a false inference from the subdivision of English Christianity into sects, and the happy results of universal toleration. The reason why members of different communions have been able to rub along together is that in the greater part of the ordinary business of life they have shared the same assumptions about behaviour. . . . The problem of leading a Christian life in a non-Christian society is a very different problem from that of the accommodation between an Established Church and dissenters
Eliot—“The Church is not merely for the elect…. Nor does the church allow us to be Christian in some social relations and non-Christian in others. It wants everybody, and it wants each individual whole. It therefore must struggle for a condition of society which will give the maximum of opportunity for us to lead wholly Christian lives, and the maximum of opportunity for others to become Christians. It maintains the paradox that while we are each responsible for our own souls, we are all responsible for all other souls,,,,”
mcmark–there you have it. Being Constantinian is a matter of being ‘responsible” for infants and others in our society who have not yet believed. Defining “sectarian” is all about certain assumptions about what our “responsibility” is. The Donatists and the anabaptists might sound like more like the new covenant in theory, but how shall we maintain or transform the culture we should be controlling if we don’t begin by including “us all” in the church (and in the covenant) in the first place?
LikeLike
@Mark
Credobaptists don’t have confessions in quite the same sense. The emphasis is on the belief that every individual is individually responsible for their obedience to God and their salvation. A credobaptists believe that paedobaptism doesn’t fulfill the command to believe and be baptized. But they can believe that a paedobaptist is to their best understanding fulfilling God’s will even if they disagree on that point of doctrine. There has never been a credobaptist doctrine that all paedobaptists are damned. The Piper compromise is that credobaptists agree to extend membership to paedobaptists, that is people who disagree on the issue of baptism it isn’t about communion.
As far as the Supper credobaptists have usually seen this as a matter of individual conscience. That’s why for example most SBA churches are open communion.
LikeLike
Petros, I’m not sure you follow the theology over here, at least the way principled credos typically do. Principled credos know why paedos consider infant baptism legitimate and thus why a subsequent baptism as a professing adult is an error, and why principled paedos would expect repentance and promise to never seek additional baptism again. Contrariwise, principled paedos know why credos reject infant baptism as an error and why principled credos would expect repentance of those seeking membership and submit to adult baptism. Are you principled or just more baptized than thou?
Your Donatist slip is showing. But the orthodox affirm that the impiety of clergy doesn’t negate sacramental efficacy. And if you consider that classic anti-confessionalism as warming up to P&R stuff, I’d hate to see what cooling off sounds like.
LikeLike
@Zrim
They allow it and in all but extreme cases they encourage it. It was standard practice when I was growing up that people who believed that a former baptism had been ineffectual could request rebaptism. The assumption was they knew best if they hadn’t really believed at the time they were baptized. If they thought their baptism hadn’t worked they had effectively renounced it anyway so they weren’t baptized. So certainly someone who say got baptized at 15, left the church at 18 for ten years and came back would generally want to be rebaptized and would be. The command is to believe and be baptized if they hadn’t really believed (which they likely didn’t) but had just gone along at 15 because it was expected it was celebrated that now they were ready to really be baptized.
Remember they are Arminians, they firmly deny sacramental theology, so there is no notion of ex opere operato.
LikeLike
mcmark,
Is that Eliot or Kuyper?
Funny thing is, Eliot never mentions Roman Catholics. If you were that kind of Christian living in England before 1830, the modus vivendi was not evident.
LikeLike
I find sacramental theology highly confusing. I am trying to understand it better by working through Horton’s PEOPLE AND PLACE but I have my doubts that it will make the subject more clear. I can’t get rid of the assumption I have that the sacraments were a big distraction during the reformation that did more harm than good in regards to understanding the Gospel better.
LikeLike
At some point, it would be helpful to look at T S Eliot’s anti-Semitism. The more one dreams of an unified society still controlled by watered Christians, the less room can tolerably given to those who dissent. If the model for the Christian polis is Israel before the exile, why not insist also on the covenantal status of Ishmael;s children? Even if in fact the efficacy of circumcision for Ishmael was as a means to his being “cut off”, why hold back water from his children? The more who are watered, the more who will hear both law and gospel, and part of our “responsibility” is “what to do about” the children not of the promise because those children used to persecute our chidlren. And would do it again, if we were ever lose control of society
LikeLike
Baptist confessionalists do not permit a second water based a changing subjective narratives. If I had to get watered again every time I change the wording in my obituary, the water would become a weekly ritual. The Baptist confessions in no way approve a Donatism, by which the vailidity of the water depends on the continuing morality of a clergyman (or non-clergy administrator)
So why bring up Donatism? Well, in the first place, the civil penalties devised by Augustine against Donatists still served as useful instruments when the Magisterial Reformers put to death the anabaptists who would not “co-exist” properly by enrolling (by means of water) their new-borns into the one (and only one) political arrangement
Secondly, Donatism does things in the wrong order. Instead of including everybody in (and being included) so that discipline becomes possible, Donatists want to do some discipline up front—since not everybody will finish up in the new covenant, why begin with the presumption that everybody needs to be automatically begin in the new covenant. Donatists instead ask some discipline questions up front. For example, what is the gospel? And, does God save sovereignly apart from any gospel?
You must “take the responsibility” to rule out questions about election when you have already decided that all these folks must be included for their own good, and as is “necessary” for the greater good. Implicit faith works with ritual gestures, and if more than that is needed, the church and parents will do some substitutionary believing in their stead….
LikeLike
John Y,
Nevin articulates his frustrations with a sacramentless Christianity brilliantly in “The Mystical Presence” alongside critiques of the Catholic and Lutheran theories. Reading him is cathartic. I’ve since tended to think of historic Catholic theology as closer to (My Private Understanding Of®) biblical religion than evangelicalism, although in practice the former are more diverse and less observant about whatever they believe.
Horton’s published works are sometimes odd but I heard great things about that particular series.
LikeLike
Zrim,
There are a couple different categories of paedo’s. One category, likely/hopefully represented by the reformed people at OL, are true believers who infer paedo-baptism is a good faith interpretation of what the Text would require of them as dutiful parents. While I don’t agree with them, I do understand their perspective and their practice is not a big yank to me, being the ecumenical evangelical that I am.
An entirely separate category is mindless/godless administration of putting water on an infant by mindless/godless people who do it for whatever their mindless cultural reasons might be. If you think that type of baptism is legit or has any efficacy to it, your pharisaic Formalist slip is showing. If you want to use Belgic (or any of the other confessions) to have a neat/tidy way of enforcing what you perceive to be doctrinal purity in your own church, you’re welcome to do that. But, why anyone would turn to Belgic 34 (or any other man-written document) for determining what needs to be repented of, particularly where there is zero Biblical hint that such a thing is a sin, is a dangerous place to put yourself, and exalts the confession to be on a par with Scripture.
LikeLike
I don’t know about Petros’ donatist slip showing, but his squishy anti-confessional independent “ecumenical evangelical” lime green Speedo is shining brightly for all to see. Get thee under a bushel!
LikeLike
And I like the way Pete starts with irenicism and ends up nasty. Why waste time? Just start nasty like (some of) the rest of us. Maybe it’s the root of doctrinal and eclesial even at work in thee, Petros.
LikeLike
“doctrinal and ecclesial envy at work in thee”
LikeLike
CW,
No envy here. But, just wondering, does your head hurt when you and Zrim tie your confessional phylacteries on so tight?
LikeLike
Come on, Petros. The Bible commands us to teach and preach sound doctrine, not just string together bible verses – and I don’t see you doing even that. After all, you believe in the Trinity, don’t you, even if the word is not found in Scripture, but the doctrine is?
IOW everyone and every church has a confession of sorts, of what they think the Bible teaches, even if, note bene, it isn’t written down officially and is only floating around amorphously in their head/collective unconsciousness as well as showing up in comboxes like this. But that self consciously/forthrightly declaring what a church believes the Bible to teach, in distinction and opposition to the JW 7th Day Roman, Mormon universalist church is sin? Well then, we need more of it.
CW, stop redlining the ick meter or your posting privileges will be revoked and you will be exiled/condemned to only remarking on the
EvangelicalismChristianity Today site. Without your hat.LikeLike
Pete, of course. Why do you think I sometimes make egregious spelling errors — my vision blurs.
LikeLike
Petros, instead of impugning a high view of the confessions you might get a little further by simply critiquing them. They are revisable after all in both theory and practice, which means we don’t actually exalt them to infallibility. (You still haven’t addressed the puzzle of how it is that biblicists have extra-biblical things like statements of faith.) But for those of us that have in good faith formally bound ourselves to the confessions as the truest explication of what the Bible teaches, it remains the case that the confessions hold that re-baptism is an error. So why should those seeking membership be given a pass on a sacramental error?
And my guess is that the godless (and stupid) bluster is really a way of making a ham-fisted point about mainline liberalism (fundamentalist slip). We’re agreed that it’s off the rails, but in a Trinitarian baptism God is the one baptizing and so it doesn’t matter whether it’s Catholic, mainline Prot, Fundamentalist, or Pentecostal waters. I’ll see your ecumenism and raise your eyebrows. But thanks for being the example to the point RL made above that eeeevagelicals are every bit as sectarian as anyone else—you hyperventilate, bluster and impugn as well as any gadfly Calvinist.
LikeLike
@Petros
I’m sorry but I don’t follow your logic at all here. Regardless of who is performing a baptism the infant is going to be equally uninvolved. From the infant’s perspective they are in a scary place with some stranger getting them wet, period. Unless you believe that the minister is the actor that creates the efficiency in a baptism: what possible difference can it make whether the person getting them wet is motivated by sincere belief or mere formalism?
I gotta agree with the OT people here. You are preaching unequivocal Donatism
LikeLike
Bob S, no one is asserting that having a confession is sin. However, I would assert that having a confession that tells you that a re-baptism is sin, when the Bible is silent on the matter (do you disagree?), is dangerous.
Donatism might have relevance in the conversation, if this were about the moral character or failings of those who administer infant baptism. It is not about that at all. It is about whether a group of people can perform a ritual, say all the right words, and yet believe NONE of it.
CDH asks “what possible difference can it make?” Well, as a credo guy, I don’t see that doing anything to an infant makes any difference at all, under any circumstances. But the issue being discussed here is whether or not it’s a sin for someone who was the recipient of a mindless/godless infant baptism to be re-baptized as an adult believer. Baptism can/should be a public renunciation of the world, and an announcement that the person is committing himself, publicly, to following only Christ. So, the difference it all makes is that you are preventing the adult believer from the opportunity of making that public declaration.
LikeLike
Petros, but you’re the one charging godlessness on the part of those who administer baptism to infants, so what do you mean this isn’t about the moral character or failings of those who administer infant baptism? Last I checked, to accuse of godlessness is to make a moral judgment, which you seem disturbingly at ease slinging. Still, if you want to make it about externalism, the orthodox point against Donatism still stands–the condition of the administrator has no effect whatever on the efficacy of baptism for the recipient.
I wonder if you think it’s possible for an adult baptism to be just as vulnerable to externalism? If so, how many times can a professor call out his administrator before you begin to get suspicious?
LikeLike
Zrim, sincere question: So, suppose a minister of a mainline lib denomination proudly does not believe in the Deity of Christ. Suppose he is a devoted universalist, and believes that God never wanted Jesus to die, because He’s a God of love. Suppose the entire congregation is a follower of his ideas. But, nonetheless, the congregation would call itself “Christian”, and have the minister administer infant baptism. Does any of that make a difference? What circumstances, if any, would make a difference? (I used the term “godless” in the Biblical sense of being ‘spiritually lost’, and would separate moral failings from outright heresy, as is the case in my example.)
Yes, anything/everything is vulnerable to externalism. Some things are more amenable than others. If an adult believer is giving a public, personal testimony at his baptism about coming to faith in Christ before a couple hundred secularists, some of whom can negatively influence the believer’s future worldly success (ie, having a public baptism has the real potential to ‘cost’ the guy something by announcing he wants to follow Christ), there’s far less chance of externalism.
LikeLike
Petros, but now you’re shifting the fulcrum from the personal condition of the administrator to a context. Interesting perhaps, but irrelevant. My question was how often may a recipient call out the condition of his administrator and be re-baptized before you begin to wonder? Maybe you don’t. What I’m trying to tease out is whether you have a singular or multiple view, whether you’re a credo from CDH’s former tribe (multiple) or Mark’s confessional Baptists (singular). If singular then I’d think more sympathy for those of us who view a re-baptism as an error for which to repent.
Re your question, chances seem pretty good that if we have all that (especially a denial the deity of Christ), we wouldn’t have a Trinitarian baptism.
LikeLike
Some P&R churches do not accept Roman baptisms, arguing that they forsook the gospel entirely at Trent, though their baptism continue to be trinitarian, and some leave it to the conscience of the member re: Roman water. They will usually accept almost any prot/evangelical baptism so long as it was administered by an ordained pastor — not the part-time unordained youth leader in a hot tub.
LikeLike
Hopefully no one would take this one: One of the Campbellite Duck Dynasty boys baptizing unnamed celebrity in the hot tub.
http://lybio.net/willie-robertson-duck-dynasty-speaks-about-his-faith-at-harding-university/people/
LikeLike
no one is asserting that having a confession is sin. However, I would assert that having a confession that tells you that a re-baptism is sin, when the Bible is silent on the matter (do you disagree?), is dangerous.
Petros, glad we’re making some progress, albeit slow as in confessions are not sinful.
Next up, what is baptism?
In that the Bible is not silent about “the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith” Rom. 4:11 being applied not only to Abraham, but also members of his household, who did not believe (cf. Jacob and Esau) the Bible is not silent about credo baptism. As in nyet.
It is a sign of the covenant and contra the donatists and anabaptists, it’s efficacy is not per se dependent on the object of or the administrator of it, but rather the God who commands it to be administered; that he will be a God to believers and their seed Gen. 17:7.
If by what used to be a Christian church now given over to liberalism or apostasy, I would be inclined to accept it, albeit irregular. If from the Mormon church which never has confessed trinitarianism, no. IOW that’s my 2 cents on it, compared to baptist congregation that require (re)baptism for membership in their congregation no matter what, credo or paedo, liberal or orthodox.
cheers
LikeLike
Zrim, my bad for being unclear. I always had in mind the overall context (and, the context I described, surprise surprise, happens to be my own context and that of many friends). And, in that context, imo, my infant baptism was a non-event and void (viewed similar perhaps to the P&R view towards Cat baptisms that CW references). As to a believer wanting to be baptized multiple times, that’s a curious hypothetical question, as I’ve never heard of such a thing. I personally wouldn’t espouse the multiplicity, but if it happened for someone, I’m not sure I’d view it as a big sin, either.
The debate that happened between John MacArthur and RC Sproul on the overall topic of infant baptism (easy to find online) is apt. Needless to say, I find MacArthur’s views to be more compelling.
Bob S – I’ll admit to not understanding at all what the word “efficacy” would mean as regards to water baptism. As a credo, I happen to think that the sacrament itself has zero “efficacy”. Baptism is merely an outward demonstration, a public proclamation if you will, of what Christ has already done in the believer’s life. To that end, I personally don’t care a bunch about who the administrator of it is either, including if the administrator is an unordained youth worker in a hot tub. The trappings surrounding the ceremony of it are quite secondary to the inner spiritual transformation that Christ effected already in the person.
LikeLike
@Petros
You are conflating a couple issues here. Let’s break this out:
A is baptized as an infant by your universalist minister
B is baptized as an infant by a solid believing paedobaptist (say DgH or Zrim).
Case 1: 20 years later they are both going to a believing paedobaptist church and they themselves are solid christians as much as you think is possible any difference in their spiritual state?
Case 2: 20 years later they are both going to a unbelieving paedobaptist church. And they fit right in any difference in their spiritual state?
Case 3: 20 years later they join a bible believing credobaptist church. Presumably both get rebaptized. Before they do any difference in their spiritual state.
C is baptized as an adult by your universalist minister
D is baptized as an adult by a solid believing paedobaptist (say DgH or Zrim).
E is baptized as an adult by a solid bible believing Baptist.
Case 4: They all 3 join a bible believing church. Any difference in their spiritual state
Case 5: They all 3 drift off. Any difference in their spiritual state?
LikeLike
Petros,
The question still needs to be answered. If “the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith” Rom. 4:11 was applied not only to Abraham, but also members of his household, who did not believe, arguably Ishmael, if not later Esau, what does that say for credo baptism?
LikeLike
CD-Host, thx for your interesting case studies. Before directly responding, let me say that Scripture makes no spiritual-state distinctions between baptized and non-baptized folks. Our spiritual state is determined whether we’re in Christ, or not, and not conditioned on a water ritual, which I would understand to be a symbolic outward public demonstration of an inner spiritual reality (That’s not to say that baptism, as a command, should be ignored or treated lightly.)
Case 1. If they are both solid Christians, then they’re both solid Christians. No diff.
Case 2. Only God knows their hearts/minds, but circumstantially, they both would appear to be equally in a spiritually hazardous place.
Case 3. If they are both solid Christians prior to their re-baptism, then they’re both solid Christians. No diff.
Case 4. If all 3 joined a Bible-believing church, I’d presume there was no diff. However, I’d have some reservations about person C, inasmuch as most true believers would never countenance being with a universalist minister.
Case 5. Only God knows their hearts/minds, but circumstantially, all 3 would appear to be equally in a spiritually hazardous place.
What 2 issues are being conflated?
LikeLike
Bob S – can you amplify and clarify what you’re getting at. I appreciate that paedo’s see continuity between circumcision and baptism. Credo’s do not. That’s one of the primary divides between paedo’s and credo’s, is it not. We may just have to disagree on the significance of circumcision. “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” Gal 6:15 The physical ritual (be it circumcision or baptism) is very much secondary, relative to what’s primary: the inner state of someone’s faith response to the gospel resulting in their being born again to be a new creation in Christ.
LikeLike
Petros, thanks. My point wasn’t to weigh the relative merits of PB and AB per se, just to say that it’s only reasonable that those who confess what we confess about it all make the kinds of demands for membership that I originally suggested. Your protest has revealed a lot, hopefully something for so-called Bapterians to consider.
LikeLike
@Petros —
Your answers here were consistent that the spiritual status of the minister makes no difference regarding baptism. Then things like, “or, equally baffling, why you’d contend that a stupid infant water sprinkling, administered by godless people, before a godless family upon a godless-dead-in-his-sins-infant could be legitimate“. My point was that the baptism is legitimate or illegitimate regardless of the status of who administers it and what the spiritual state of the person’s family is. There is no reason to bring in all the other stuff.
Whether infant baptism is following a divine dictate or outright blaspheme is the core issue. Or to phrase it another way, the core issue is whether rebaptism of those infant baptized is sinfully denying the cross or rather it is fulfilling a divine command in place of an early mockery of that command.
All the other things regarding liberal Protestants or liberal Catholics have nothing to do with the one issue of credo vs. paedo baptism unless you are going to take some form of the Donatist position that there really are differences between the spiritual state of A and B and between C, D and E in the various cases.
In terms of the rest when I was a Baptist I wouldn’t have had a problem beyond the paedo/credo issue with Zrim considering rebaptism to be sin. The sectarian issue is the underlying disagreement not the particular policy.
LikeLike
CD-Host, thanks. Yes, I’m in the camp of, as you put it “it is fulfilling a divine command in place of an early mockery of that command.”
So, what sayest the OL gallery here about Chortle’s “They will usually accept almost any prot/evangelical baptism so long as it was administered by an ordained pastor — not the part-time unordained youth leader in a hot tub.” Why isn’t that a Donatist view?
LikeLike
Pete, that’s easy. The baptism should be administered by an ordained minister in a church context. This says nothing of the character of the man administering it, only of his qualifications — it’s about oversight and discipline.
LikeLike
Petros, what C-dubs said, because churchly ordination is different from personal character (at ;east too us nasty formalists). Once again, the marriage analogy comes in handy. My duly ordained FIL married us. If we found out he was illicitly carrying on with the church organist while he married us, does that make our marriage null and void? Do we have to renew our vows in front of a more upright pastor or justice-of-the-peace?
LikeLike
Zrim and CW: Ok, thanks. What’s curious is that a baptism is “ok” to you if performed by a heretic who is duly ordained, but “not ok” if it’s performed by a faithful orthodox godly youth worker who is not ordained. Presumably we can agree that the Bible is not explicit about who can, or cannot, perform a baptism. So, when I ask myself why I would want to stop being a Biblicist (I didn’t know what that was, but I guess I am one!) and adopt a P&R confession that has extra-Biblical requirements, which if they aren’t met, are viewed to be outright ‘sin’, I’m not coming up with any good answers.
LikeLike
Pete, the “faithful orthodox godly youth worker” — is not faithful or orthodox if performing unwarranted baptisms at the hotel pool on the amusement park trip. You again are making everything hinge on your perception of the administrator. Think church — church, church, church. Look away from the fallen dude you’re so impressed with who may or may not be what he seems. This is Planet Confessional, Connected, Accountable Church. You’re not going to get it coming from Planet Revivalistic Independent, Indeterminate Fellowship.
LikeLike
Chorts, Petros has something you don’t. He has eeeevangelical X-Ray glasses so he knows true believers, he knows hypocrites, and he knows who has the spirit of sectarianism. He don’t need any confession or any ordination after Presbytery approval – he knows these things in his heart.
It’s not even Biblicism, it’s a feeling deepdeep downdown deepdown in his heart. And we should order our affairs accordingly.
LikeLike
Petros, we may not have it in black and white who is and isn’t authorized to baptize, at least to the satisfaction of the biblicist mind, but if you presume also that a child can’t baptize his cat then you’re thinking more or less like a confessionalist–the scenario isn’t explicitly addressed but good and necessary deduction leads us to conclude that whatever happened between the kid and the cat, it isn’t baptism. By the same reasoning, same goes for good but unordained fellas in hot tubs.
And no confessionalist would encourage you to embrace extra-biblical requirements. We hold that what is in the confession is biblical.
LikeLike
Petros, baptism is all about something God does. He washes us in the blood of Christ and regenerates us through the Holy Spirit. Furthermore he commands the sacrament to be administered as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace that he makes with believers and their seed. And in the OT the sign was administered to infants, some of which we know did not believe. That shoots holes in the credo paradigm for paedos. What I am getting it from your comments are a more arminian emphasis on baptism being a seal on somebody’s confession of faith, which is not what ultimately baptism is.
As far as reformed confessions making unbiblical requirements and additions to the word of God, there are more good and necessary consequences to Scripture than the Trinity
LikeLike
Bob S – I understand and respect where paedo’s derive their view from, and I think Sproul/MacArthur do a good job of explaining the merits of the paedo and credo views in their debate. MacArthur certainly is no Arminian (neither am I), and I don’t think Arminianism is at all a factor in the paedo/credo debate. As regards to extra-biblical stuff in confessions, discerning exactly what is a “good and necessary consequence” of Scripture can be a tricky thing, which sometimes has the consequence of creating artificial barriers to fellowship between believers. To that end, I remain a fan of the irreducible minimum critical doctrinal points that tend to find their way into evangelical statements of faith, rather than more voluminous confessions. But, I do respect where confessionalists come from (and the confessions themselves), even if I occasionally try to tweak them.
LikeLike
@Petros
Let me seperate off Chortles’ statement from what I think is likely for his church. Chortles himself said, “ The baptism should be administered by an ordained minister in a church context. This says nothing of the character of the man administering it, only of his qualifications — it’s about oversight and discipline.” and you were right before, that is Donatism. Obviously the Donatists believed that those people who denied Christ in a public setting weren’t proper ministers of the gospel at all anymore. Augustine’s argument was this didn’t matter for baptism, not that the Donatists were wrong on whether or not these men were still ministers. Clearly these people who were morally compromised by their own conduct couldn’t properly discipline, so that criteria would be Donatism.
Technically the rule with baptism is it can be anyone (including a non Christian) as long as they are attempting to do what ministers do when they properly baptize. AFAIK all Christians pretty much agree on that if you put their back to the wall. I suspect as this thread develops Chortles backs down from a youth minister being unable to baptize. I’d assume what Chortles’ church is asserting when they perform these baptisms again is that a youth leader baptizing isn’t trying to do what a Christian minister does when he baptizes, which frankly I believe is false as a matter of fact. I’m not sure there is a doctrinal disagreement here with his church, I think it is a factual disagreement.
I didn’t understand Zrim’s response enough on baptism enough to comment. I did think his marriage analogy was valid but in the opposite way. My understand is that all Christians have generally held that if a couple meets the 4 C’s criteria they are married:
Couple = one man and one women (no polygamy)
Covenant = they intend to form a life long bond, and have exchanged some token to establish the covenant (a relationship of concubinage, shacking up, is not marriage)
Consummated = they have had intercourse at least once as husband and wife
Communal = they present themselves as married to their community (no secret marriage)
I don’t think he would hold that a couple that was married by a justice of the peace, or even in a hippie communion 8 years earlier, had presented themselves to the church as married, had natural children could be carrying on with others like they just roommates because they weren’t married by a minister. I think he would assert that they were married, even if the original marriage had been irregular. To the best of my knowledge this is one place that from Catholic to Adventist Christians are uniform in their doctrine with no disagreement.
I guess we’ll find out in their response to this post.
LikeLike
CDH, the marriage analogy was simply a way to appeal to something more common and less particular than baptism and to say that the personal condition of the administrator has no bearing on the validity or efficacy of the ritual—until that personal condition bears on his administrative authorization, i.e. his license to perform is revoked because it’s in part conditioned upon personal character. In which case, efficacy affected. So if it was discovered that my FIL wasn’t actually licensed then the validity of our marriage would be in question.
It wasn’t a comment on marriage. But for the record, I don’t think believers married by secular officers are irregular. While it may have redemptive meaning for believers in ways it doesn’t for unbelievers, marriage is grounded in creation and so it seems perfectly kosher to be married by secular officers. In fact, the authority of sacred officers is vested by secular ones. Sure, it’s preferable for believers whose marriage has redemptive meaning to be wed by sacred officers (and in sacred settings), but given its grounding it’s not clear how being wed by secular officers is irregular the way being baptized in Catholic or Baptists waters is.
LikeLike
Muddy, would you please find out from Chorts what brand of X-Ray glasses he uses to determine how a baptism would be “unwarranted” and what his big yank is if it’s performed in a hotel pool or amusement park? Are those waters not churchly or holy enough?
To just have a baptism in a church-bubble is one thing. How comfy. How much better to have a baptism in a public place, where someone can publicly proclaim his renunciation of the world and his allegiance to Christ, before secular onlookers. The Jordan River was a rather public place, was it not?
LikeLike
Petros, as soon as they reopen Israeli airspace get thee on a 767 and get over to that muddy ditch and re-confess for all to see. And put it on YouTube, please. Sheesh, public (all church services are public) does not mean exhibitionistic, indiscriminate, or calculated to produce maximum evangelistic or culture-redeeming impact.
LikeLike
And, PetRock, those glasses are Westminster brand with Anti-Doing-Stupid-Evangelical-Stuff Coating. There, I teed that one up for you.
LikeLike
Chorts, you’re confusing those glasses with the Westminister-quasi-erudite-sedated-gloomy-brand, but you wear them well, to be sure.
LikeLike
Thanks ever so much.
LikeLike
Petros, on top of the exhibitionism you reveal another essential difference between the biblicist credo and the confessionalist paedo on baptism. For the former, it’s all about what the sinner does while for the latter it’s about what God has done for the sinner.
ps why is a river public and a church not? Aren’t they both public? One may be better than the other for the exhibitionist, but a church is plenty public…
LikeLike
Zrim, hmmm…hard to untangle so many contorted assertions of yours. Methinks you know better. So, I’ll pass.
LikeLike
Zrim, because going to a church or parking in the church parking lot is really hiding it under a bushel. We need it on our sleeves, in our shorts, in a city on a hill.
LikeLike
Tell me again, when is the day of mourning that OL folks observe to bemoan that Billy Graham preached in public stadiums, or that Whitefield/Wesley preached in parks and nearby factories?
LikeLike
@Zrim
What do you mean by that. Obviously the state could potentially contest the marriage though given that you intended to be married, presented yourself as married and acted as husband and wife you way pass the bar for a common law marriage, as well as a valid marriage contract. So even the state would consider you easily married. Are you saying that if they didn’t the church wouldn’t consider you married or something deeper.
LikeLike
Petros, we meet at the Jordan River every July on Calvin’s birthday. You know, the Jordan is such a public place.
LikeLike
Petros, how about at Calvin’s grave? Oops, it’s unmarked. Talk about a lesson against religious celebrity and exhibitionism.
LikeLike
CDH, I simply mean that authorization counts. Sure, discovering that our official wasn’t authorized could be circumvented in various ways, but the point to Petros was that what counts about him isn’t his personal character but his forensic authority. The implication of Petros’ point, it seems to me, is that just as an orthodox believing fellow may baptize another believer in the ocean, a faithfully wedded fellow at city hall may marry a couple (heck, maybe Petros even thinks personally healthy but medically unlicensed folks may write prescriptions?) Sorry, they both need more than that. It’s called a license.
LikeLike
z—while for the latter it’s about what God has done for the sinner
mark–Interesting, for them (the other) it’s “all” about…but no “all” in the contrasting clause
But to get to my question when you write “for the sinner”, don’t you mean–about what God has objectively done for some sinners, but not specifically this sinner, since it’s not about us, not about me, not about this baby?
but then why this baby, and not all the babies?
and I don’t mean “all the babies in the Abrahamic family which would bear the seed” or “all the babies back then in the Mosaic typical covenant”
I mean “all the babies”. Why not? It’s not about us. If there needs to be water before gospel, why not all babies? On the other hand, if there can be gospel before water, why water?
Bahnsen: The signs of the covenant, whether circumcision or baptism, declare the objective truth that justification comes only by faith in God’s promise. Circumcision and baptism are NOT an individual’s personal, subjective testimony to having saving faith for himself. So,those who are in the visible church but not elect are nevertheless within the covenant of grace but under its curse.
Daniel Hyde, Welcome to a Reformed Church (RT, 2010, p 137)–”As signs, they are visible means that point us to the reality that WE ARE WASHED from sin….As seals, they are means that the Holy Spirit uses to confirm our faith.”
Scott Clark (“Baptism and the Benefits of Christ”, Confessional Presbyterian 2, 2006. p 8 )– “Fundamentally, baptism is to strengthen our faith, not replace it. It is a seal to those who believe, that what baptism promises is actually TRUE OF THEM.”
LikeLike
Zrim, too bad John the Baptist didn’t get your memo against religious exhibitionism in the public arena:
Matt 3:5,6 “Then Jerusalem was going out to him (John the Baptist), and ALL Judea and ALL the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.”
Funny, Peter and Paul didn’t get the memo either. Some of us are very glad that Billy Graham missed it, too.
LikeLike
Mark, as I said, my point hasn’t been about baptism per se but following the implications of what we confess about baptism. That said, I think RSC responded sufficiently to this very same question you posed at the HB
http://heidelblog.net/2014/07/whats-the-use-of-infant-baptism/#comments
LikeLike
Petros, I thought you gave up trying to unravel my many contorted assertions? But what’s your point? It’s agreed that rivers and countrysides are public, but you seem to think churches are not. Since when?
LikeLike
Petros, Billy Graham? How old are you?
LikeLike
So it’s not about us, except that it gives us assurance? As circumcision was about the objective truth of righteousness, and not about the righteousness imputed to Abraham before Abraham was circumcised? If it’s a promise to anybody who believes, then why limit it to only our babies? But if the promise is more than that but also “covenantal assurance” for us and ours, how is that not about us? And why keep saying “the promise” without ever saying what which of the promises?.
No, z, there has not been close to a sufficient response. Not for my sake, but it’s a ” need to know” for those who first say it’s not about us, and then also say that the sign is not only objective seal but “seals us”. Was Abraham circumcised because he was justified? Was Ishmael circumcised because of a promise to Abraham, or because of a promise (or condition) to Ishmael?
the baptists–about them, but paedos–about God contrast gets a little tiresome, as in eating one’s cake and still having it…
I was not talking about “baptism” either, but about water. Baptism saves, and yes, I do believe in the incarnation even when I make a distinction between baptism and water.
Galatians 3: 6 Now the PROMISES were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, “And to seeds,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your seed,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the PROMISE void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by PROMISE; but God gave it to Abraham by A PROMISE.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the PROMISE had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the PROMISES of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the PROMISE by faith in Jesus Christ would be given to those who believe.
LikeLike
Romans 14: 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God….. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin
I Corinthians 4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart
Revelation 2:17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.’
Secret Faith in the Public Square, Jonathan Malesic
“Americans are tired of the pandering of faith. Perhaps American Christians should be ready to heed the words of the second-century Letter to Diognetus: “As the visible body contains the invisible spirit, so Christians are seen living in the world, but their religious life remains unseen.” But a solid majority of Republican primary voters told pollsters that it was important that a candidate share their religious commitments.
LikeLike
Colossians 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the CIRCUMCISION OF CHRIST, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him THROUGH FAITH in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses….
Even though it was ordained by God, the death of Christ was done by human hands. In my view, the “circumcision of Christ” is not a reference to Christ’s literal circumcision as a child. Nor is the “circumcision of Christ” a metaphor for regeneration and the work of the Spirit in the elect. It’s one circumcision, both for Christ, and for the elect. Check your commentaries–more and more exegetes notice that the context is about Christ’s death, His flesh violently killed, the death of His body. His bloody circumcision as a baby pointed to His death on the cross.
Colossians 2 is about the elect’s legal identification with Christ’s one death. Our death is His death, NOT some other death done IN us. yes, regeneration is done in us, and yes, Romans 2 talks about a “circumcision” which is regeneration. But I think the circumcision of Christ in Colossians 2 is about Christ’s death and not about Christ’s gift of the Holy Spirit giving us life to believe. I am not dogmatic about this, but check it out…
Even though God used human hands in the state murder of Christ, imputation by God into Christ’s death is made without hands. Human sinners do not make the imputation. The imputation is something you can’t see. But this legal “you also were circumcised” is the basis for God’s forgiveness of the sins of the elect and the acceptance of them into justified and adopted status.
LikeLike
Mark, who’s limiting baptism to only covenant children? PBs baptize adult converts as well. Sorry if the answers don’t satisfy, but you may be making too much of the “it’s not about us” point. PBs may be as given to anthropologize, but given how CBism inherently requires faith of the recipient and precludes those that can’t profess, it seems set up to be more given to it.
One of the beauties of PBism is how it demonstrates the sovereignty of God to seek out those who are utterly helpless–sinners no more have a hand in their own salvation than they do their own creation. How can CBism do anything like that?
LikeLike
If you trying to convince me that paedo water is different from water for those who profess to be effectually called, and that therefore that paedo water is a better sign of grace, yes, I get that distinction, and I will appreciate it as soon as
1. you stop saying “oh we have the other also”—adults converts as well
2. or if you are going to offer the second rate water (the kind that does not point as well to sovereign grace), then you begin to explain how there is not one baptism but two kinds, one of which is really better than the other, for those who missed the first boat by waiting for the effectual call, for those who had to live with the idea for a while that they were not born Christians
3. and also explain the discontinuity of these “adult convert baptisms” you also do from the Abrahamic covenant, because back then you did not need a parent professing conversion, indeed you did not even need a parent who did not do something so bad as to get cut off, because all the babies got the sign and there were no need for the “adult convert” option
When you ask if there is at least one parent professing an effectual call, are you asking if there is at least one parent “who had a hand in their own salvation”? When you “baptize adult converts as well”, are you at that point sending the message that these adults “had a hand in their own salvation”?
“We do what you do, as well”. But when we do it, it’s not about us. When credos do it, then it’s about them? I was not the one who made the accusatory generalization. It should stop being repeated. What would you think if I were to say that all who do paedo-water believe that it removes original sin and corruption? Surely, there are some paedos who have argued that.
And surely there are some credos who believe that water is as instrumental in salvation as do some paedos, and both groups have denied that this instrumentality of means contradicts sovereign grace. And many of the credos also believe that their own agency, their own hand is instrumental in salvation. But it’s not fair to say that most do, anymore than it’s fair to say that most paedos think water has instrumental efficacy in salvation….
LikeLike