The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Re-baptism by any other name is still "re-baptism"

toddpedlar · #54 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "Believer's Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.

As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).

Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.

Which is exactly how the Kingdom of God on earth is described in Scripture.

If you only baptize true believers, then what happens to your understanding of the perseverance of the saints when one of your members apostatizes? Perhaps it's never happened in YOUR church, but it happens ALL THE TIME in both credo- and paedo- baptistic churches. You might AIM to baptize true believers, i.e. the elect and regenerate, only, but that does NOT guarantee that it is so, and experience shows us that you are making a demonstrably false claim if in fact it is your contention that you IN FACT only baptize the elect.