06-20-2008, 12:29 PM
|
| Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK I agree and it was this kind of argumentation that really began to turn me off to the paedo view with which I fully intended to agree. I recommend, if the paedos truly desire to further their cause, they refrain from such statements. It makes them sound elitist.
Question: Does the paedo desire that every believing parent, regardless of their conscience, baptize their infants? Is that really what you are after? IOW, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty? | You have to remember the historical context in which this was written, it was at a time in which denying believers children the sacrament of baptism was seen as a truly radical thing, both theologically and socially.
Even if you think that Mr. Calamy is guilty of overstatement (which he may be), his basic point stands: Baptists exclude the children of believers from the visible church, and thus, by implication, from the invisible church. | I am aware of this caricature set forth by paedo baptists.
But you have not answered my question... | I desire that every believing parent have their children baptized, but only if it is in line with their conscience.
As I have said elsewhere, both sides can make this doctrine into an idol, my point with the OP was to show that the argument I made about children in the visible church (in other threads) was not a novel one.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|