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

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

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

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

I didn't get too far into Pr. J.D. Hall's post yesterday. So, here comes part 2!

Pr. J.D. Hall states: "There’s a reason that credobaptists believe that baptism is only applicable (IE should only be applied) to those who understand the Gospel. It is because only those who have heard, understood, and received (their is no receiving without understanding) the Gospel to the point of repentance should be baptized."

This is of course the standard Baptist position on baptism. The problem with this interpretation is that it runs headlong into the Didactic Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter. Pr. Hall and all other Baptist believers assert that baptism is a sign of something that already has occurred within a person. St. Paul gives us numerous Baptism passages in the New Testament. We can start with Romans 6:3-4 and then move on to passages such as Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:11-12. The problem that Baptists have here is that all of these passages say plainly that Baptism actually does something. In Romans 6, it buries us with Christ and unites us to Him. In Colossians 2:11-12, St. Paul repeats the same thing and then goes even further, claiming that Baptism raises us in faith.



My Daughter! Water and the Spirit!

Of course, then we go back to the whole bifurcation of Baptism that Baptist theology erects; creating two Baptisms instead of one, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 4:5. This might sound silly, but what is to stop a person from claiming two Lords and two faiths as well? The truth of the matter is, there is one Baptism and that one Baptism has both water and the Spirit. They're not two separate Baptisms.


We respond of course that Baptism actually gives what Scripture says it gives, and actually does what Scripture says it does. To say that it is just an outward act of worship or discipleship flies in the face of the Didactic epistles.

Pr. Hall continues: "It is for this reasons that paedobaptists must resort to hermeneutic absurdities to claim the command to coerce unwilling recipients to receive the ordinance by force (for that is precisely what infant baptism is) is biblical. As they turn to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), for example, to insist that our command to disciple and then baptize the nations is a command to baptize infants, they fall squarely away from reason. Unconverted heathen are in the nations. Are we to baptize them against their will and prior to their conversion? Muslims are in the nations. Are we to baptize them against their will and prior to their conversion? Or clearly, are we to preach the Gospel, disciple, and baptize those who have placed their trust in Christ?"

This is a very sloppy argument. In effect, Pr. Hall is attacking a strawman here to refute infant baptism. When he states that we logically should be baptising unconverted heathen against their will we respond that no, of course we should not be baptising unconverted heathen. But here is precisely where his argument breaks down. Are we actually baptising newborn infants against their will? No, we are not. We're baptising a sinner who needs grace. Infants are naturally more "givable to" than adults. This is another place where his thought falls apart. Pr. Hall infers that cognitive ability and the human will are actually helps to the person and not hinderances. This is a brutal mistake. The more developed the intellect gets, the more of an obstacle it is. Why? It's sinful, that's why.

To say that an infant is unwilling is a strawman at best. And once again we see here that in Baptist theology it's all about positive choice and proclamation and not about God giving through His means of grace. I can already hear the howls of protest, and indeed Pr. Hall himself takes umbrage with this train of thought, but how far off is it? I mean, am I missing something?

Tamara Blickhan writes: "The article from the Southern Baptist Convention website, How to Become a Christian, states: “As soon as you have decided to receive Christ into your life, you can and should be baptized.” This statement explains the position: you decide to become a Christian (not monergistic) and you then are allowed to be baptized."

Pastor J.D. Hall responds: "Here’s where I take real exception. The Baptist believes (at least, let me speak for my Reformed Baptist brethren who hold to our confessions) that when one “decides” to become a Christian (a terrible way to phrase it, granted) it has been a work done in them solely by the Holy Spirit. That is very, very Monergistic. We believe that God works in us both to will and to do (Philippians 2:13). Sadly, some in the SBC have become decisional-regenerationists, which is as much a damnable teaching as baptismal-regeneration."

Baptismal Regeneration? Say it aint so!

I am truly glad that Pr. Hall rejects the foolish doctrine of decisional regeneration. Here we run into differences in theology, plain and simple. The Baptist of the Calvinistic stripe ultimately rejects means of grace altogether and asserts that if God uses the natural world to save the natural world (baptism, preaching, etc.) then it's not monergism. That is to say, the Holy Spirit must operate apart from those means and not through those means.

I'm happy they want to uphold monergistic regeneration here, but really, this is a completely different form of monergism that Scripture teaches and actually trends towards Gnostic thought in the separation of the spiritual reality from the natural means. At the very least, it's heavily influenced by Platonism. The irony of the whole thing is, infant baptism is actually the quintessential example of monergism. The flesh hates infant baptism because it violates the infant's right to choose. It boggles my mind how any monergist would have a problem with baptismal regeneration.

Pastor Hall then says: "Let me throw this back at the paedobaptist author of the aforementioned paragraph…one who believes people are saved (to be technical, made regenerate) by pouring water on the head (which, of course, is so not baptism anyway) without their consent and at the hands of priest, pastor or parent has to suffer from cognitive dissonance to call that position “Monergistic.” While it is true that the child him or herself didn’t have anything to do with their own salvation (or to be technical, regeneration), certainly God had Synergistic partners in the whole endeavor, chiefly the hands that pour water upon the head of the unwilling participant. Of all things, that is not Monergistic."

No, Pr. Hall, you reject means of grace and the office of the ministry. That's what causes you to make these claims. The root issue that Pr. Hall has here is that to him, monergism means completely random regeneration via an effectual inward call apart from natural means through which God does this. Christ instituted an office of the ministry. It began with the Apostles and goes right on through the ages up to pastors today. They do Christ's work through means.

"The article then goes on to assert that even if one had water poured or sprinkled upon them (once again, that’s not baptism) in the pagan Roman Catholic church they need not be “baptized” again."

Well, no, they don't need to be baptised again. Think with me for a second here. Does the Roman Catholic Church affirm the Trinity and baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? The answer is clearly yes, they do.

Likewise, does a Baptism depend on the personal piety of the priest or pastor administering it? I really hope not. What if Pr. Hall is unregenerate? Wouldn't that mean that every person he has baptised were illegitimate baptisms based on Pr. Hall being a heathen?

Hence, baptism cannot possibly depend on personal piety. It depends solely on God's Word and promise. You know, like the Gospel does. It's GOD'S Word. It's GOD'S promise. The regenerate state of the person administering matters not.

And come to think of it, how many Baptist pastors can claim that they know with certainty that every person they have ever baptised is saved? I assert that none can. The pastor can hear an outward profession and make a judgment call, but he cannot say with certainty the person is saved, especially if everything depends on inward condition and not on Christ and His objective works given to us in time.

Pastor Hall then fires off a typical evangelical whopper. When in doubt, call them Catholics! "As I’ve said for some time, the move to confessional Lutheranism, for many, is just a rest stop on the way to Rome. How far Lutheranism has come, that some consider a rite administered in what they’ve confessed to be an unchristian church now accounts for Christian baptism. When Lutherans feels themselves closer with pagan Catholicism than evangelicalism, this unfortunate papal slide continues."

I mean, do I even need to answer this? And yeah, we are Catholic, just not Roman.

I guess I'm going to have to go three blogs deep on this one. Until then...

+Pax+