Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 3

I continue my response to Pr. Jordan (J.D.) Hall today. I am replying to a blog post he wrote over at the Pulpit and Pen site that was very condemning of paedobaptism and baptismal regeneration. The blog was written in response to my friend Tamara Blickhan's article that was published at The Examiner.

The original article that began this discussion, written by Tamara Blickhan, can be found here:

Baptism for the Christian: Rebaptism is not biblical

And Pr. Jordan (J.D.) Hall's response can be viewed here:

It's not "Re-Baptism": It's Baptism



Pr. J.D. Hall. Sweet hat.

I got a sweet hat too, yo! Plus Aviators. I win.

I responded to Pr. Jordan Hall's blog post yesterday, which is found here:

Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 1

And I responded again in part 2 here:

Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 2

Let's get to it.

Tamara Blickhan stated: "There is no recorded instance in the Bible where someone was rebaptized in the Trinitarian formula: in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Baptist must form the conclusion that rebaptism is biblical from a source other than the Bible or from the misunderstanding that a person must be saved by Jesus Christ first and that if they realize later that they were not truly saved, they should be rebaptized to obey what they consider to be a work to be done after regeneration."

Pr. J.D. Hall responded: "This is a hilarious claim for the paedobaptist to make, considering there’s no recorded instance in the Bible of babies, dogs, or aliens being baptized (and baptism does all of the above three the same good). The idolatry of ritual, in the author’s view, is so pervasive that even if the ordinance is not conducted in the name of the Thrice-Holy God it still counts as legitimate. Here, they separate the ordinance from the ordinance-maker, giving baptism the status of idolatry."



Bearing False Witness is in there.

This accusation actually makes no sense at all and should be retracted. As someone who was a Baptist for many years, I can attest to the fact that Tamara is correct. I know numerous people who have had multiple believer's baptisms, because they weren't really saved the first couple times.

Regarding Pr. Hall's response, it's flat out untrue. It's bullcrap. More seriously, it's bearing false witness. The author, Tamara Blickhan, does not accept Baptisms that are made in another manner than in the Name of the Triune God. I have no idea what is prompting these statements. A non-Trinitarian Baptism is not legitimate. Period. Lutherans universally believe that.


The final statement here is not true either. I would hope that a pastor would know the stance of Lutheranism before going off on an online rant "refuting" it. I sort of see what he is trying to say here when he states "Here, they separate the ordinance from the ordinance-maker, giving baptism the status of idolatry." But in reality, the opposite is the truth. Baptism is only effacious precisely because it delivers the Word of God objectively to a person. This is why we are baptised in the Name of the Triune God. It's water that has power and it's not empty ritual. It's the Word of God being directly given by means of water. It's the Word that gives Baptism its power, not the water.

His non-Sacramental theology rears its ugly head throughout his blog post, but here it is paramount. As a friend of mine stated,

"It's amazing how people can reject the efficacy of the sacraments due to human involvement in administration. This thinking would reject the office of preaching and violate Romans 10. Jesus' baptism by John would be rejected and God sending the Holy Spirit would be a mistake on His part. The Crucifixion would be rejected because the Jews by "wicked hands" took and slew Him.

The aforementioned instances were Divine works in spite of human agency, and even the Crucifixion was done by man according to God's eternal foreknowledge and decree, and it is this very act which takes away the sin of the world. The anti-sacrament logic actually nullifies the Atonement." ~Steven E. Anderson

Pr. Hall continues, "Once again, the Baptist does not believe in rebaptism, because this water-pouring ritual perpetrated upon unwilling recipients isn’t baptism."

As I argued in Part 2, this is attacking a strawman. On what basis does he assert that infants are  unwilling? The only thing I can think of is that his theology, despite being Calvinistic, comes back around to positive choice for Christ as opposed to Christ giving Himself to us via objective means.

Pr. Hall continues, "To be clear, the Bible’s stance against so-called “infant baptism” has nothing to do with the age of the recipient. The prohibition against baptizing infants is because they happen to be in the same number as many of the lost, unconverted, unwilling heathen of the world that need to first hear, receive and embrace the Gospel before following Christ into discipleship and being called “Christian.”"

Which is why we baptise infants. He has pointed out the major crux of the issue within this statement. Infants are sinners that need to be saved as well. The problem is, he also argues that infants can't believe, repent, or have faith. Where does this leave Pr. Hall? I posit that it leaves him at one of two places.

A. Universal infant damnation, or

B. Pelagian doctrine of Age of Accountability that rejects Original Sin.

He correctly points out that infants are born sinners and are in the same state as the heathen. He has no solution beyond this. I am sure at this juncture he will fall back on the doctrine of election and God's infinite wisdom and assert that perhaps all infants who die in infancy are elect or that at least some of them are.

However, Scripture never tells us these things. In fact, the only way of salvation that Scripture gives us is by grace through faith. If another one is inserted, one is adding to the words of Holy Scripture. Once you deny that infants can have faith, you have shut the Kingdom of Heaven to them.

Praise be to God, He gives faith as a gift to whomever He will. Also, He does this objectively through specific means of grace. Baptism is clearly one of these means of grace, especially if St. Paul and St. Peter in the didactic epistles have their say. Baptism saves (1Pe 3:21), it buries us and unites us to Christ (Rom 6:3-4), it raises us in faith (Col 2:11-12). Only grace can do this. Baptism must be gracious. It's Gospel for you. Objectively.

It's really pretty simple. Why do we baptise infants? They need it. They're part of Adam's condemned race and are sinful and need to be saved.

He continues, "How terrible it is to tell so many lost people that they’ve been born again because water has touched the tip of their head!"

What's not terrible is telling people that God objectively claimed them via His Word of promise given specifically to them in their Baptism. They are, after all, baptised into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mat 28:18-20). It bears repeating: It's the Word of God that gives Baptism power.

And finally, "This is why, at my Baptist church, we rejoice when folks whose parents forced them against their unconverted will to take part in a water ritual, make the decision to, for the first time in their life, be baptized."

He wraps up the blog with the same old strawman. And then in doing so, violates clear Scripture. One baptism. To re-baptise a person is to question the promise of God given to that person in their first, and only legitimate, baptism. And that is not a place any Christian wants to be, for God's Word is light and truth.

There are a lot more comments to be responded to regarding things Pr. Hall has said in the comments section on his blog. I don't think I will be dealing with them. There are very able Lutheran participants in that discussion right now. Hence, I shall be finished.

+Pax+