Quote:
Originally Posted by smhbbag  Quote:
This is the false dilemna posed by many Baptists who face the same problem as the Presbyterians.
I think the fundamental difference going forward is that Presbyterians acknowledge the obvious distinction between visible and invisible up front in their theology. They don't pretend as if the Church has knowledge of the invisible in the administration of means.
| Do you think it is credobaptism, by its nature, is forced to "pretend as if the church has knowledge of the invisible in the administration of means"? Or, is that simply a problem that exists among credobaptists, but is not necessarily bound to be a problem for every credo? |
It doesn't have to be a dilemna Jeremy. Reformed credo-Baptists face this dilemna more than their arminian counterparts because particular Baptist theology grounds the baptism of professors in the fact that the New Covenant is made with the elect alone. I've found this argument deficient to "jump the rail" from an argument based on the composition of the invisible Church to the administration of means in the visible Church. Nevertheless, in every baptism debate this is the point that is pressed over and over and over again by Reformed Baptists that the New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
I've often noted that I've never really heard a Baptism debate but simply a debate about whether or not the invisible Church is constituted of the elect alone.
I'm not noting this to be pejorative but to point out what I said above that there is sort of a projection that "because we're not like the Presbyterians" that I've noticed that many Reformed credo-Baptists don't really wrestle with whether they've gained what they set out to gain. The irony is that the insistence about the New Covenant being with the elect only gains them infallible assurance that baptism confirms membership in the visible Church alone. They are then forced to conclude that the visible Church is distinct from the New Covenant itself.
Since most credo-Baptists don't wrestle with this issue and really try to "work this all out", they sort of remain stuck in the debate about the NC being with the elect and erroneously project some sort of assurance that, because they're baptizing professors, they are immune from the fact that the reprobate are being baptized in their own Churches.
I'm honestly glad to see when Baptists are able to read a paedo-baptist like Perkins and say: "Yeah, I don't have a problem with that." I respect that you were able to see that, practically speaking, you extend the same charity to your visible membership since you only can work by the visible means and not on the infallible knowledge of God. Most, I've found, live that way but if they read a paedobaptist distinguishing between visible/invisible they go into "debate mode" and can't see how the paedobaptist is rubber and they are glue in every criticism that is levied against the distinctions made.
Blessings!
Rich