Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim From the Baptist point of view especially Bunyan was wrong, and IMO he was wrong in general. Baptism has always been seen as preceding church membership and coming to the Lord's Supper by paedo and credo alike, but Bunyan disagreed, arguing that a profession of faith was all that was required. Bunyan's charity toward all was laudable, but I don't find the argumentation convincing. If the PB is any indication, increasingly, some baptists today, especially Calvinistic ones, agree with Bunyan, largely because they want to avoid the "odious consequences" of close communion, etc. described by Dabney here .
Those who drafted the 1689 London Baptist Confession were strongly opposed to Bunyan's views. |
IMHO the views of the men who opposed John Bunyan seem to be the logical conclusin of a consistently Baptistic view of the sacraments.  |
I think that's right. Remember, from our point of view Baptists joining Presbyterian churches have been validly baptized, although it may have been performed "irregularly" as some have put it. However, Presbys, Anglicans, etc. joining Baptist churches without being immersed do not have valid baptisms from the Baptist point of view. That is unless the Baptist is going to argue that immersion is not of the essence of baptism, which I believe contradicts every Baptist confession that has ever been drafted that addressed the issue.