Thread: Paedo vs Credo: Main point of contention?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.

Nonsense - and a little thought should show you why. Unless you hold to a form of baptismal regeneration, valid water baptism is not the ground on which we may recieve one another as brethren, nor the means by which the unbaptized professing convert actualizes his membership in Christ's visible church. If the only basis we have for accepting someone as a Christian brother or sister is that they are baptised as infants, how can you possibly justify baptising an adult raised in a non-Christian home when they now profess conversion? If you baptize such a person as likely regenerate based on their confession of faith and a life now marked by turning from sin, why can't we recognize you as equally regenerate and thus our brethen in Christ?

A false dilemma. Baptismal regeneration refers to a mechanical effect of baptism on the spiritual condition of the person baptised. The denial of a spiritual effect does not require one to deny all effects of baptism. Baptism effects visible church communion. This is clear from the fact that the book of Acts relates how the apostles always required it in connection with repentance. Repentance is invisible and known only to God; baptism is visible and can be seen by men.

That water baptism was required by the Apostles in connection with repentance does not entail as necessary consequence that proposition that water baptism grants the right to enter the communion of the visible church. When an unbeliever is regenerated, he at that moment has the right to be called a child of God (John 1:12,13) and the right to enter visible church communion. Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Confession of faith and new life should never be separated from baptism. The New Testament constantly appeals to the new life of the brother in terms of baptism. E.g., Colossians 2:12, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This leads to a specific visible and admonitory relation whereby brethren may address each other in terms of "If baptised, then..." You cannot appeal to us and say, "If baptised, then..." Hence your description of us as brethren is emptied of all visible and admonitory significance.

In post 106 I wrote:

“While some passages concerning "baptism" have been taken as you note, the problem with such readings is whether or not the baptism referred to is really water baptism or whether such passages are intended to refer to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in 1 Cor 12:13.”

If the word baptism in Col 2:12 and other places (esp. Rom 6) refers to the regenerating activity of the Spirit described in 1 Cor. 12:13, then CB's may with propriety both admonitively address our PB friends as brethren and members of the visible church using the “If baptized (regenerate) then…”, even though we differ in our understanding of who should receive water baptism when.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

John 1:12, 13 makes it certain that all "those who received [Christ] who believed in his name have the right" to be recognized as "children of God...born ...of God".

This is invisible and known only to God. We are speaking about visible saints.

John, in context, is making a contrast between two visible groups, marked out as different by their differing actions. After speaking of Christ's historic people, who have not received him, he now speaks of those who have received him. It is a visible people, identifiable by their reception of and belief in Christ, who have received the “right to become children of God.”

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.

Then baptism isn't actually a "sign" of anything in your perspective. There is no point raising a contention about its administration -- who, what, where, when, why, or how. Nothing actually depends upon it. It obviously only matters in play churches.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Ron

Matthew, I built a sound argument based upon a simple analogy that employed a premise that should be obvious to all Reformed pastors. That premise was: ... all Arminians have a view of free will that if true would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism. You just denied that premise, which is basic to Reformed thinkers. Plainly put, LFW requires that a future choice is neither metaphysically true nor false with respect to its outcome prior to it occuring, which means that God cannot know the outcome of a LFW choice because God cannot know anything that is not true!

This is slander to the conservative Arminian. You are requiring the difficulty of his position to be answered in terms of the Open Theist solution. From Calvin to Edwards the reformed have answered the conservative Arminian in terms of God's choice of creation notwithstanding foreknowledge of evil. That answer is without bearing on the Open Theist. By requiring such consistency you are cutting off an important tactical argument that has been successful in showing the conservative Arminian the error of his belief.

Matthew,

1. If LFW is true, then God cannot be omniscient
2. Arminian theology affirms LFW
3. Therefore, consistent Arminianism denies God’s omniscience (Open Theism)

That is not "slander to the conservative Arminian" as you say. It's the ugly truth of one of their guiding tenets, LFW.

Are you willing to deny 1, that God cannot know a future creaturely choice that defies an eternal truth value? Are you willing to deny 2, that Arminian theology affirms LFW? Are you going to deny that 3 follows from 1 & 2?

It's irrelevant that there are other ways to refute Arminian thought because that truth does not refute the truth that is before you, which you have openly denied. The point stands that consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism and you have yet to defend your assertion to the contrary. In the like manner, the Baptists you are arguing with, if consistent, would not consider many OP elders (for instance) as true elders (let alone part of the visible church) if they never were baptized as adults. Yet they, like the Arminian who affirms God's omniscience, are happily inconsistent. We can be glad for that because consistency in such cases would be worse. You are willing to rejoice over the plain vanilla Arminian not being an Open Theist, but you do not allow for such inconsistency with the Baptist regarding his willingness to commune with those never baptized as adults, etc. If you care to respond, please address what is now before you and maybe we can work backwards. How does LFW not lead to Open Theism when taken to its logical conclusion? You have denied that premise and I would simply like to see a logical argument in the defense of that denial. Do you dare argue like a Molinist?

Ron

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

“When an unbeliever is regenerated, he at that moment has the right to be called a child of God (John 1:12,13) and the right to enter visible church communion. Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.”

Tim,

Let’s consider an adult who has never been baptized who gets converted late in life. Such a one may immediately be considered a believer (without full communion privileges); yet consistent with that profession he must be willing (even happy!) to submit to believer’s baptism in a reasonable amount of time. Of course if he refuses the ordinance, then the profession may no longer be considered credible.

It seems as if you are suggesting that one may disobey the ordinance of baptism yet commune with God’s people. How can such disobedience to the great commission mandate be consistent with a credible profession of faith? One’s doctrine and lifestyle would have to come into question in such a case. Accordingly, if you truly reject infant baptism, the same reasoning should apply to those baptized in infancy who will not submit to baptism after making a credible profession of faith.

But here is my major point: If you are consistent with your tradition (i.e. acting according to Reformed Baptist confessional standards), you will affirm that “all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.” In other words, for one to be worthy of communion he must also be in a position to be censured by the elders. Membership presupposes accountability and elders may not presume to rule in the name of Christ over those who have not been subjected to Christ’s baptism with water. In a word, one cannot be censured without having been baptized. Moreover, if one refuses the sign of baptism, he may not be regarded as one who possesses what the sign signifies. With respect to what water baptism signifies, let me again remind you what all Reformed Baptists are to embrace: “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.”

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron

It's irrelevant that there are other ways to refute Arminian thought because that truth does not refute the truth that is before you, which you have openly denied. The point stands that consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism and you have yet to defend your assertion to the contrary. In the like manner, the Baptists you are arguing with, if consistent, would not consider many OP elders (for instance) as true elders (let alone part of the visible church) if they never were baptized as adults. Yet they, like the Arminian who affirms God's omniscience, are happily inconsistent. We can be glad for that because consistency in such cases would be worse. You are willing to rejoice over the plain vanilla Arminian not being an Open Theist, but you do not allow for such inconsistency with the Baptist regarding his willingness to commune with those never baptized as adults, etc. If you care to respond, please address what is now before you and maybe we can work backwards. How does LFW not lead to Open Theism when taken to its logical conclusion? You have denied that premise and I would simply like to see a logical argument in the defense of that denial. Do you dare argue like a Molinist?

On conservative Arminians, you want to use their teaching on free will to push them away from a belief in omniscience and drive them to open theism; I want to use their belief in omniscience to chase them away from their teaching on free will and draw them to Calvinism. It doesn't take a great deal of insight to see which is the more Christian of those two options.

On "Baptists," I haven't attributed anything to them beyond what they themselves have stated -- we are not baptised and we may not become members of their church. They accept us as brethren in Christ but reject us as brethren in Christ's church. They sit and talk with us on Puritanboard, but we may never be permitted to sit with them as fellow-members around the Family table and commune together. These are the simple facts as they themselves have stated them. I rejoice we are accounted brethren in Christ and lament that we are rejected as brethren in Christ's church.

Please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would argue like a Molinist.

On "Baptists," I haven't attributed anything to them beyond what they themselves have stated -- we are not baptised and we may not become members of their church. They accept us as brethren in Christ but reject us as brethren in Christ's church. They sit and talk with us on Puritanboard, but we may never be permitted to sit with them as fellow-members around the Family table and commune together. These are the simple facts as they themselves have stated them. I rejoice we are accounted brethren in Christ and lament that we are rejected as brethren in Christ's church.

There was a thread on the PB a while back that dealt with church discipline against credo parents who refused to have their children baptized. The general gist of the majority of Presbyterian responses was that "gentle" church discipline would be initiated in order to convince the credo parents of their sin. Eventually, if the parents did not submit to the paedo position, they would be subject to varying degrees of church discipline such as: being barred from the Lord's table, formal admonishment, and even excommunication. Barring from the Lord's table and excommunication seems like harsh positions to take against members of Christ's church, doesn't it?

In most instances where a Presbyterian wishes to join a Baptist church, it's because of a change of conviction on doctrine. It's the same thing for the majority of Baptists who join Presbyterian churches. Why would a Presbyterian wish to join a Baptist church if he was not in agreement with that church doctrinally? There a few reasons that come to mind. One may be because there are no sound Presbyterian churches in the area, or maybe the Presbyterian church they were a member of has ceased to proclaim the gospel. If there are extenuating circumstances that would find a convinced Presbyterian attending a Baptist church long term, that is something that should be discussed with the elders. There may be some accommodation in extenuating circumstances, but it certainly would not be normative.

What of a visiting Presbyterian who professes faith in Jesus Christ? Are they not welcome in our church? Are we not to break bread with them, either at the Lord's table or in our homes? Should we warn the rest of our members, "Beware! A paedo infidel is in the house!"? Of course not! They are welcome to worship, break bread, and fellowship with us. They are welcome to come again and again. If they wish to join our church it is our responsibility, as elders, to introduce them to our doctrinal positions. As Baptists, we cannot ignore the command to believe and be baptized. You may disagree with it, reject it, and despise it, but Baptists believe it is what scripture teaches. Our confession echoes the belief. If a person disagrees with our position on baptism, why would they want to join our church (notwithstanding the exceptions mentioned in the previous paragraph)? Why would a convinced Baptist want to join a Presbyterian church if they were going to face church discipline for not baptizing their children?

I believe the majority of Presbyterian PB members already knew, before the creation of this thread, what would be required of them if they decided to join a Baptist church. You are preying upon this obvious doctrinal distinction to paint Baptists in a negative light. If there is any lamenting to be had it is over your exasperating a doctrinal disagreement to a level that creates this division you speak of.

It's a difficult one Herald, but look at Moses.

He was attacked by God and his life threatened for not circumcising one of his sons, maybe not circumcising him in accordance with his wife's wishes.

Who knows how important paedobaptism is?

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

It's a difficult one Herald, but look at Moses.

He was attacked by God and his life threatened for not circumcising one of his sons, maybe not circumcising him in accordance with his wife's wishes.

Who knows how important paedobaptism is?

Richard, I have no problem with the reason Presbyterians place such a high value on infant baptism. I understand their covenant implications. I can take your question and ask, "How important is credobaptism?" The knife cuts both ways. We understand the differences between us, and I am not advocating that we gloss over those differences. They are real. But what good does it do for us to use incendiary rhetoric to further the divide between us?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.

Then baptism isn't actually a "sign" of anything in your perspective. There is no point raising a contention about its administration -- who, what, where, when, why, or how. Nothing actually depends upon it. It obviously only matters in play churches.

Are you being deliberately obtuse as a teaching device for fellow readers here? I ask because I find it hard to believe that you really not know that Baptists know that Scripture comnmands water baptism, since our recognition of that command is inConfessionated (LBC 29:1). (If I may paraphrase your request to Ron in post 125, "please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would" ignore a plain Scriptural command.) Whatever water baptism's full purposes may be, it is a straw man argument to try to claim that Baptists believe water baptism only matters in play churches. We recognize it as "a sign of [our] fellowship" with Christ in his death, resurrection etc. (LBC 29:1), but the Confession does not mandate it as the sole sign by which we identify Christian brothers and fellow members of the visible church.

Instead, the Confession provides 26:2, 5-14 as a means by which we identify Christian brothers and members of the visible church. You will find nothing in these statements that necessarily excludes pb's from being recognzied as "brethren in Christ's church" if the church referred to is the visible church.

While pb's may be excluded from membership in local Baptist churches it is for the same reason that cb's are excluded from membership in particular Pb churches: to wit that church history has shown that the differences in this doctrine usually make it very difficult to achieve and maintian a strong Christian fellowship and witness.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 09:13:12 EST-----

Originally Posted by Ron

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

“When an unbeliever is regenerated, he at that moment has the right to be called a child of God (John 1:12,13) and the right to enter visible church communion. Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.”

Tim,

Let’s consider an adult who has never been baptized who gets converted late in life. Such a one may immediately be considered a believer (without full communion privileges); yet consistent with that profession he must be willing (even happy!) to submit to believer’s baptism in a reasonable amount of time. Of course if he refuses the ordinance, then the profession may no longer be considered credible.

It seems as if you are suggesting that one may disobey the ordinance of baptism yet commune with God’s people. How can such disobedience to the great commission mandate be consistent with a credible profession of faith? One’s doctrine and lifestyle would have to come into question in such a case. Accordingly, if you truly reject infant baptism, the same reasoning should apply to those baptized in infancy who will not submit to baptism after making a credible profession of faith.

I am not at all suggesting that one ought to disobey a clear biblical command and freely commune with God's people. But I recognize that cb is not clearly commanded, but only indicated and exemplified and that pb is an inference from Scripture, even if arguably not GNC thereof. Unless a pb believer recognizes the holes in the logic by which pb is justified, pb looks biblical. The OLC recognizes (26:3) that the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error, which means that Christian individuals are subject to mixture and error. That someone has not undergone water baptism as a believer, while an error, is not an error of such nature that Baptists are confessionally required to deny recognition as Christian brethen and fellow members of the visible church to those committing it.

Originally Posted by Ron

But here is my major point: If you are consistent with your tradition (i.e. acting according to Reformed Baptist confessional standards), you will affirm that “all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.”

I am not denying that a pb cannot be properly admitted into membership in a local Baptist congregation. I affirm regenerate local church (i.e., congregational) membership. But Matthew started this rabbit trail by denying the possibility that Baptists may legitimately recognize our Pb friends as Christian brothers and fellow members of the visible church, a denial that I and others are attempting to show is incorrect.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

On conservative Arminians, you want to use their teaching on free will to push them away from a belief in omniscience and drive them to open theism; I want to use their belief in omniscience to chase them away from their teaching on free will and draw them to Calvinism. It doesn't take a great deal of insight to see which is the more Christian of those two options.

Dear Matthew,

God’s omniscience certainly necessitates that he knows in his prescience all creaturely choices he determines. In fact, all thinking Arminians will gladly grant the point. However, that point does not logically imply that God cannot know libertarian fee choices too. Accordingly, it is most appropriate to perform a reductio ad absurdum of LFW, which is no less than to show that LFW would destroy God’s omniscience. Such a mode of exposing the error of the Arminian view of the will hardly needs to be seen as an attempt to “push” someone toward Open Theism. Moreover, you seem to have a double standard; for you are most diligent in pointing out to our Baptist brethren that their doctrine if taken to its logical conclusion would lead them to no longer fellowship with Presbyterians. Certainly we ought not construe from your reductio of their position that you are trying to drive them away from inter-denominational fellowship! Indeed, it should be our hope that the logical end of LFW might actually scare the true Christian away from such a view of the will. In light of that, I hope you will reconsider your most recent statements on this matter. At the very least, if you don’t agree with that line of reasoning, please keep in mind that the reductio of the LFW position was offered among Reformed brethren and not in an effort to move someone way from LFW, but rather to illustrate by way of analogy that Christians are often happily inconsistent. You seem to want to take a perfectly sound argument and turn in on its head as being uncharitable toward Arminians (even though the polemic that employs modus tollens is in fact appropriate when used with Arminians, as I believe I showed above). With that said, let me say with all due respect that to suggest that such a mode of argumentation is not appropriate, let alone less Christian, is at the very least not indubitable though it might sound pious to the untrained ear.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

On "Baptists," I haven't attributed anything to them beyond what they themselves have stated -- we are not baptised and we may not become members of their church. They accept us as brethren in Christ but reject us as brethren in Christ's church. They sit and talk with us on Puritanboard, but we may never be permitted to sit with them as fellow-members around the Family table and commune together. These are the simple facts as they themselves have stated them. I rejoice we are accounted brethren in Christ and lament that we are rejected as brethren in Christ's church.

I have agreed with you on this point all along, as the thread bears out. Let me say again that if Baptists are true to the implications of their doctrine, then they must count us as outside the church. Thankfully, they act in accordance to the true reality of our position in the church when they fellowship with us. In other words, they are better in practice than they are in doctrine. I hope we all will be.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would argue like a Molinist.

Regarding keeping to the point of the thread, I simply argued one specific point by way of one analogy, which is a mode of argumentation I rarely wish to employ, unless of course I believe it is becoming apparent to me that my addressing of the actual point is becoming (in my estimation) fruitless. I’ll try to be more conscious of that in the future. Thank you for the reminder.

Regarding your statement that you did not give any cause to believe that you would argue like a Molinist, with all due respect I think you should take more responsibility for what you actually wrote. Let me briefly review the bidding since you found my statement unfounded. I pointed out to you that the Arminian view of “free will” would destroy God’s omniscience (i.e. leads to Open Theism). You explicitly denied that point. Please appreciate, Matthew, that to deny that point is to affirm Molinism - for Molinism is the only articulated form of Arminianism that affirms both LFW and God’s omniscience. That is why I made the statement. Obviously you don’t affirm Molinism but you did so, maybe unwittingly but certainly implicitly, by denying that LFW logically leads to Open Theism. My hope is you will appreciate and own what you so clearly stated without ambiguity.

With warmest regards,

Ron

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I am not at all suggesting that one ought to disobey a clear biblical command and freely commune with God's people. But I recognize that cb is not clearly commanded, but only indicated and exemplified and that pb is an inference from Scripture, even if arguably not GNC thereof. Unless a pb believer recognizes the holes in the logic by which pb is justified, pb looks biblical.

Tim,

I appreciate the point you are making. I really do. My problem is that the Bible requires true baptism for membership and not a mere intention of baptism. So you are left with the problem of discounting what you believe to be true baptism as a condition for membership, which Scripture does not afford you. In the like manner, the Galatian error of the gospel does not get a B- for effort. It fails outright, as does infant Baptism in your estimation. And NO - I am not equating the importance of the two doctrines.

Pax,

Ron

My reply is going to be brief, and to the initial question:

To what single (!) issue can we boil-down the paedo-credo debate?

My answer is not going to be single but dual (sorry).

1) How should we read the Bible? This is a general-description, and a thread post is really insufficient to adequately elaborate on all the nuance of this issue, but the fact is that both sides read, hence interpret, the Bible in significantly different ways. This is not to say that as believers, we do not together often arrive at substantially the same conclusions. Thank God we do, however the basic difference remains.

Credos read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves in the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice. At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.

One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."

Paedos (who understand their theology) read the Bible "front to back." That is, they understand that they are right there with Abraham when his covenant was made; in fact they are metaphorically "in his loins," regardless of their ethnic heratige. They are his "seed" by faith. They walk with Israel through the wilderness, and the Red Sea, and covenant with God at Sinai. They are shepherded by David, and are among the sons of Israel who are carted off to Babylon with their brothers, Daniel and his three friends. The names of the fathers are their own fathers' names.

The NT is understood as completing the theology of the OT. The OT is understood, read through the lens of Christ come, but the NT is also understood through the lens of the OT faith.

More could be said, but this must suffice.

2) Is the meaning of baptism objective or subjective?

This question could also go on at length. However, because it has already been stated here, I will summarize: Baptists believe baptism is basically a statement BY the Christian about himself. The Presbyterian sees baptism as a statement BY GOD about his GOSPEL, true irrespective of the intent of the person being baptized. Which is why no baptism need ever be re-performed. God only has to speak once.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Credos read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves in the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice. At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.

One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."

Those are some strong allegations from one who is not a credo. I am a Baptist who is a member of a Psalms only church. It might be better if the Baptists spoke for themselves instead of being told what we are by someone who is not one. I apologize if my tone sounds harsh, it is not meant to be so.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Credos read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves in the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice. At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.

One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."

Those are some strong allegations from one who is not a credo. I am a Baptist who is a member of a Psalms only church. It might be better if the Baptists spoke for themselves instead of being told what we are by someone who is not one. I apologize if my tone sounds harsh, it is not meant to be so.

Speaking as one who was raised in Baptist churches and who has many, many Baptist friends and acquaintances, I will jump in and tell you that Rev. Buchanan's description is the norm by about a billion-to-one ratio against churches like yours, if yours does not fit the description.

Originally Posted by austinww

Speaking as one who was raised in Baptist churches and who has many, many Baptist friends and acquaintances, I will jump in and tell you that Rev. Buchanan's description is the norm by about a billion-to-one ratio against churches like yours, if yours does not fit the description.

I was merely pointing out that he attributed it to all of us. I do agree for some this would be true but not everyone. Like I said, I was not meaning to be harsh in my comments but only pointing out that a blanket statement like that is not true. It may be the norm but is not true of all of us. Forgive me if I sounded rude as I was not trying to be.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by austinww

Speaking as one who was raised in Baptist churches and who has many, many Baptist friends and acquaintances, I will jump in and tell you that Rev. Buchanan's description is the norm by about a billion-to-one ratio against churches like yours, if yours does not fit the description.

I was merely pointing out that he attributed it to all of us. I do agree for some this would be true but not everyone. Like I said, I was not meaning to be harsh in my comments but only pointing out that a blanket statement like that is not true. It may be the norm but is not true of all of us. Forgive me if I sounded rude as I was not trying to be.

My mistake. I got the impression you were suggesting the description was a caricature of Baptist churches, when in reality it fits most Baptist churches very well IMHO. More accurately, it is a generalization; and like all generalizations, it is not universal.

This thread has been pretty good at demonstrating the dynamics of the credo/paedo debate, while occasionally hitting upon the original question.

I think Bruce's observation, while broad-brushed (as I know he admits), is a pretty good starting point. I think historically it is correct, but the debate has evolved and become more nuanced. Certainly the old paedo arguments have been refined and adjusted, as have the credo's. A lot of LBCF chuches I know would be chafed at being said that they place the OT in a subordinate position. I have no doubt this is because the paedo adherents had some good points that corrected and sharpened Baptist thought. By the same token, I sense that some of the older paedo arguments have been dropped because they appear inconsistent (as in using historical arguments to support paedobaptism while ignoring historical precedent for paedocommunion--please this is an example--don't discuss).

The problem is that the subject is very complex--it has been debated for centuries and a lot of emotional baggage has attached itself to the subject. I know many Baptists are sensitized at accusations of hating their children or being stupid, and I am painfully aware that many paedos are stung by the condescending tone of some Baptist arguments and practices.

It is all too easy to impute bad motives to the other side. Those motives may even exist, despite our best efforts at good will.

Let me turn the tables, and yield some ground, by admitting that many Baptist arguments are poorly thought out. Yet, I cannot be persuaded by strident and emotional arguments that would seek to bully me into changing my position to the Paedo position either. Frankly, I've been studying both versions of covenant theology for quite some time and I still find myself reading the paedo position and occasionally thinking to myself "What?!"

Integrity demands that we cut through the emotional arguments, and make a good-faith effort to understand both sides of the issue. As I said before, the issue is complex. This is because not only is the historical and biblical data not clearly expressed, but also your choice of how to interpret the data is based upon preconception or worldview. It's a tough nut to crack, and, as Bahnsen stated, your worldview is what you would rather die for than give up.

I take as a given that both sides want to understand God's Word properly. Both do not want to stray from the clear direction of Scripture. Both agree that lack of conformity to what God prescribes is sin. And we don't want to sin.

Even more, we don't want to be accused of sin. Sinful as we are, we have a need to be right in our own eyes.

Acknowledging that zealous folks on both sides have their hands on their daggers ready to attack what they see as heresy, or at least as gross misunderstanding, we find ourselves in a delicate dance in which we seek not to kill each other and yet we seek to kill error.

I sometimes think, speculatively, that God has rendered us in such a fashion that the answer to this issue remains obscure. Because it ignites such passion on both sides, it drives us to study Scripture all the more. Perhaps this is the effect that God had in mind. I would not presume this, but it gives me some cheer.

Originally Posted by Ron

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I am not at all suggesting that one ought to disobey a clear biblical command and freely commune with God's people. But I recognize that cb is not clearly commanded, but only indicated and exemplified and that pb is an inference from Scripture, even if arguably not GNC thereof. Unless a pb believer recognizes the holes in the logic by which pb is justified, pb looks biblical.

Tim,

I appreciate the point you are making. I really do. My problem is that the Bible requires true baptism for membership and not a mere intention of baptism. So you are left with the problem of discounting what you believe to be true baptism as a condition for membership, which Scripture does not afford you. In the like manner, the Galatian error of the gospel does not get a B- for effort. It fails outright, as does infant Baptism in your estimation. And NO - I am not equating the importance of the two doctrines.

Pax,

Ron

And you here beg the question on whether the baptism that is required for membership is in fact water baptism. If you haven't seen it you should examine the presentation given in the relevant chapters of Lloyd-Jones' commentary on Romans 6:3-6.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 04:30:35 EST-----

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Credos read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves in the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice. At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.

One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."

Those are some strong allegations from one who is not a credo. I am a Baptist who is a member of a Psalms only church. It might be better if the Baptists spoke for themselves instead of being told what we are by someone who is not one. I apologize if my tone sounds harsh, it is not meant to be so.

Thank you John, I particularly appreciate your support in calling out an error found more than once - the tendency for one side of an intellectual argument to misread how the consequences of the other view appear to those holding it.

Originally Posted by Herald

Barring from the Lord's table and excommunication seems like harsh positions to take against members of Christ's church, doesn't it?

Actually, no; household discipline is part and parcel of belonging to a family, as Hebrews 12 points out. The difference is that the antipaedobaptist is treated as one who is a baptised member of the visible church.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Are you being deliberately obtuse as a teaching device for fellow readers here?

Do you mean "abstruse?" If you would like to engage in discussion please stick to the points being discussed and refrain from side-commentary.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I ask because I find it hard to believe that you really not know that Baptists know that Scripture comnmands water baptism, since our recognition of that command is inConfessionated (LBC 29:1). (If I may paraphrase your request to Ron in post 125, "please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would" ignore a plain Scriptural command.)

This is irrelevant. The confessional conviction of the "Baptist" is not at issue, but the consequent conviction that professors who have only received infant baptism are not actually "baptised." So yes, as stated to Ron, please do keep the discussion in context.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Whatever water baptism's full purposes may be, it is a straw man argument to try to claim that Baptists believe water baptism only matters in play churches. We recognize it as "a sign of [our] fellowship" with Christ in his death, resurrection etc. (LBC 29:1), but the Confession does not mandate it as the sole sign by which we identify Christian brothers and fellow members of the visible church.

And my statement was fitted to bring this very point to your attention. Please note that the Scripture texts adduced by the Confession include Colossians 2:12, which you explained as referring to the regenerating work of the Spirit. If now you are willing to follow your Confession and refer such texts to water baptism, then you are obliged to answer my original point in terms of water baptism. You can't simply refer to paedobaptists as Spirit baptised and satisfy yourself that this meets the visible and admonitory nature of brotherly fellowship. You are now obliged to say, "If water baptised, then ...," which by your disowning of our baptism you are unable to do.

[Moderator]
Please note, Matthew Winzer has not affirmed Molinism; to say that one position is not another is not to affirm either position. The fact is that Arminianism, as articulated by Arminius and Episcopius [this is the extent of my knowledge] is consciously not "Open Theist," and to argue most successfully against the position we need to argue against the position which they actually consciously maintain.

But, as noted above, as a moderator I request that for the purposes of remaining on topic, we drop the tangential Arminian/Open Theist topic. It was brought in as a parallel; let's not let it overtake the thread.
[/Moderator]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Are you being deliberately obtuse as a teaching device for fellow readers here?

Do you mean "abstruse?" If you would like to engage in discussion please stick to the points being discussed and refrain from side-commentary.

No, I meant obtuse in the sense of deliberately "playing stupid" as a teaching device. And it was intended as a serious question. I found it hard to believe that you would not know the LBC's statements on the matter. And if you did, it would appear that you were either engaging in unhelpful rhetoric or "playing stupid" as a teaching device.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I ask because I find it hard to believe that you really not know that Baptists know that Scripture comnmands water baptism, since our recognition of that command is inConfessionated (LBC 29:1). (If I may paraphrase your request to Ron in post 125, "please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would" ignore a plain Scriptural command.)

This is irrelevant. The confessional conviction of the "Baptist" is not at issue, but the consequent conviction that professors who have only received infant baptism are not actually "baptised." So yes, as stated to Ron, please do keep the discussion in context.

No, it is not irrelevant. Your entire point is an attempt to make the point that we Baptists must reject pb's as both brethren and members of the visible church on theological grounds. But our theology is determined by the LBC, and even though we believe that those who have received only infant baptism are not truly baptised, if the LBC does not force us to reject pb's as brethen in Christ and members of the visible church, you are wrong in your argument. So confessional convictions are indeed at issue. And you seem to recognize this: for we find you attempting to use the Confession to make your point 2 pps. down.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Whatever water baptism's full purposes may be, it is a straw man argument to try to claim that Baptists believe water baptism only matters in play churches. We recognize it as "a sign of [our] fellowship" with Christ in his death, resurrection etc. (LBC 29:1), but the Confession does not mandate it as the sole sign by which we identify Christian brothers and fellow members of the visible church.

And my statement was fitted to bring this very point to your attention. Please note that the Scripture texts adduced by the Confession include Colossians 2:12, which you explained as referring to the regenerating work of the Spirit. If now you are willing to follow your Confession and refer such texts to water baptism, then you are obliged to answer my original point in terms of water baptism. You can't simply refer to paedobaptists as Spirit baptised and satisfy yourself that this meets the visible and admonitory nature of brotherly fellowship. You are now obliged to say, "If water baptised, then ...," which by your disowning of our baptism you are unable to do.

While we can't say "If water baptised, then..." to a pb, we don't need to. The Baptist Fathers of yesterday and their descendants today most certainly can say with the confession If "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying [your] own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation," then....

Incidentally, how came you to overlook the fact that the LBC only adduces Col. 2:12 (and Rom. 6:3-5) to support the statement that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign ..." of various things, rather than adducing these verses as supporting the idea that only cb's may be recognized as Christian brethen and members of the visible church, which is the point for which you need to find support.

(BTW, I fully support the LBC's statement even though I would derive it from other Scriptures than the Rom. 6 and Col. 2 passages)

As I understand the matter, the Scriptural citations in confessions do not carry the same weight as the statements. Even if that is not correct in the case of the LBC, what is certain is that even though the original writers of the Confession held that Col. 2:12 and Rom. 6:3-5 referred to water baptism, they clearly did not press possible antipb implications of their readings of those Scriptures so far as to make your point. It is illegitimate to read a possible implication from the Scriptures an assembly uses to support one doctrine in such a way as to force them to contradict their plain statement of another doctrine. Anyone making such an attempt will be presuming that the authors of the confession saw the same implications as you do, and the Confessional writers may not have done so. Certainly, their doctrine of the visible church, as stated in LBC 26:2,3 does not exclude pbs.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

No I meant obtuse in the sense of deliberately "playing stupid" as a teaching device. And it was intended as a serious question. I found it hard to believe that you would not know the LBC's statements on the matter. And if you did, it would appear that you were either engaging in unhelpful rhetoric or "playing stupid" as a teaching device.

Well, I wasn't deliberately playing stupid, and I was only trying to teach by plain statement what would be the consequence if you reject the fact that water baptism actually represents visible church communion.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

No it is not irrelevant. Your entire point is an attempt to make the point that we Baptists must reject pb's as both brethren and members of the visible church on theological grounds. But our theology is determined by the LBC, and even though we believe that those who have received only infant baptism are not truly baptised, if the LBC does not force us to reject pb's as brethen in Christ and members of the visible church, you are wrong in your argument. So confessional convictions are indeed at issue. And you seem to recognize this: for we find you attempting to use the Confession to make your point 2 pps. down.

Of course I am using the Confession, to show what you ought to believe concerning the significance of baptism; but the precise point you brought up from the Confession -- baptism on profession of faith --is not the confessional point at issue. Now can we get back to the point at issue?

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Yes, but how came you to overlook the fact that the LBC only adduces Col. 2:12 as supporting the statement that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign ..." of various things" (a statement which I fully believe biblical even though I would derive it from other Scriptures than the Rom and Col passages): it does not adduce that verse as supporting the idea that only cb's may be recognized as Christian brethen and members of the visible church, which is the point for which you need to find support.

That is not the point, again. The point was that Colossians 2:12 is referenced as teaching "water baptism signifies..." I originally appealed to Colossians 2:12 to show visible and admonitory brotherhood on the understanding that they were water baptised. You rejected this understanding in favour of the view that such passages speak of spiritual baptism. I then showed how the Confession appeals to these passages in its statement on water baptism. If you don't accept your Confession's adduction of such passages, then say so; further, show how you would substantiate the point without adducing such passages. The fact is, unless "baptism" in these passages contains at least an allusion to water baptism there is no scrptural basis for saying that water baptism is a "sign" of anything. Given your yea and nay approach to this discusson, it would appear that in reality you don't actually think baptism signifies anything at all, or if it does, the sign is not important and can be replaced with other signs for discerning visible Christians. Please make yourself clear and stop hiding behind rhetorical smokescreens.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Herald

Barring from the Lord's table and excommunication seems like harsh positions to take against members of Christ's church, doesn't it?

Actually, no; household discipline is part and parcel of belonging to a family, as Hebrews 12 points out. The difference is that the antipaedobaptist is treated as one who is a baptised member of the visible church.

Mmm. So if a Baptist church admitted a paedobaptist into membership who refused to be scripturally baptized (as Baptists believe scripture teaches), we would eventually have to bring church discipline to bear on this person. And if a Presbyterian church goes so far in church discipline as to excommunicate a professing believer who will not submit their child to baptism, they have turned that person over to Satan. What is wrong with this picture?

It would seem to me that the wisest course of action would be to understand that their are those for whom Christ died who have different opinions on covenant theology and baptism. They are no less saints because of their differences. I am not advocating an acceptance of the other's position; simply a realization that that difference exists and cannot be bridged by harsh or pointed rhetoric. Sometimes we need to know when a fight can't be won and commit the other person to Christ.

Originally Posted by Herald

Mmm. So if a Baptist church admitted a paedobaptist into membership who refused to be scripturally baptized (as Baptists believe scripture teaches), we would eventually have to bring church discipline to bear on this person. And if a Presbyterian church goes so far in church discipline as to excommunicate a professing believer who will not submit their child to baptism, they have turned that person over to Satan. What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong with this picture? Bill, you don't know what excommunication is. No Presbyterian declares an antipaedobaptist unbaptised and therefore no member of the church. Nor does he exercise church discipline to the extent he exercises church discipline on an antipaedobaptist simply because he is an antipaedobaptist. In so far as he exercises church discipline on such it is on the basis that such is understood to be a baptised member of the church of Jesus Christ. If he is disciplined it would be for contumacy, not because he holds a specific belief.

Again, the difference is, paedobaptists acknowledge antipaedobaptists to be baptised members of the visible church, the family of Jesus Christ on earth; whereas antipaedobaptists who reject the baptism of infants and attempt to extricate themselves from the label of "anabaptists" do not acknowledge professors who were baptised as infants as baptised members of the visible church, the family of Jesus Christ on earth. Folk like John Bunyan would be the exception.

[quote=armourbearer;712403]

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

No I meant obtuse in the sense of deliberately "playing stupid" as a teaching device. And it was intended as a serious question. I found it hard to believe that you would not know the LBC's statements on the matter. And if you did, it would appear that you were either engaging in unhelpful rhetoric or "playing stupid" as a teaching device.

Well, I wasn't deliberately playing stupid, and I was only trying to teach by plain statement what would be the consequence if you reject the fact that water baptism actually represents visible church communion.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

No it is not irrelevant. Your entire point is an attempt to make the point that we Baptists must reject pb's as both brethren and members of the visible church on theological grounds. But our theology is determined by the LBC, and even though we believe that those who have received only infant baptism are not truly baptised, if the LBC does not force us to reject pb's as brethen in Christ and members of the visible church, you are wrong in your argument. So confessional convictions are indeed at issue. And you seem to recognize this: for we find you attempting to use the Confession to make your point 2 pps. down.

Of course I am using the Confession, to show what you ought to believe concerning the significance of baptism; but the precise point you brought up from the Confession -- baptism on profession of faith --is not the confessional point at issue. Now can we get back to the point at issue?

I have never left the point. The point at issue, the one you are attempting to force, and which you think cb's must necessarily hold, is that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of the invisible church. You adduced the LBC's citation of Col 2:12 as referring to water baptism as support for the inference you draw. And as I pointed out the confession does not use Col. 2:12 to make your point, instead using it to make another. So you still need to find LBC justification for your point. Absent such justification,common honesty should teach you not to make such a charge againnst brothers in the visible church unless you can find a Scripture that does support it.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Yes, but how came you to overlook the fact that the LBC only adduces Col. 2:12 as supporting the statement that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign ..." of various things" (a statement which I fully believe biblical even though I would derive it from other Scriptures than the Rom and Col passages): it does not adduce that verse as supporting the idea that only cb's may be recognized as Christian brethen and members of the visible church, which is the point for which you need to find support.

That is not the point, again.

Oh yes it is the point. If Col 2:12 is not Confessionally used to deny pb's are brethren in Christ and members of the visible church, it cannot be cited in support of your claim that cb's must reject pb's as such.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The point was that Colossians 2:12 is referenced as teaching "water baptism signifies..." I originally appealed to Colossians 2:12 to show visible and admonitory brotherhood on the understanding that they were water baptised. You rejected this understanding in favour of the view that such passages speak of spiritual baptism. I then showed how the Confession appeals to these passages in its statement on water baptism. If you don't accept your Confession's adduction of such passages, then say so;

I did say so.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

further, show how you would substantiate the point without adducing such passages.

Matt. 28:19, Mark 1:4, Acts 22:16 are a start. And one could also point out that the Confession may be using Rom. 6 and Col. 2:12 to refer to water baptism as a sign of the baptism by the Spirit which is the primary referent of those passages. Or it may not be. But notice that of the things said to be signified by water baptism in the confession, the fact that it is "ordained by Christ unto the party baptized" is enough, so that when one is baptised in obedience to Christ's command, the mere fact of one's baptism witnesses to the one baptised that one has fellowship with Christ and thus all the rest of the blessings follow.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The fact is, unless "baptism" in these passages contains at least an allusion to water baptism there is no scrptural basis for saying that water baptism is a "sign" of anything. Given your yea and nay approach to this discusson, it would appear that in reality you don't actually think baptism signifies anything at all, or if it does, the sign is not important and can be replaced with other signs for discerning visible Christians. Please make yourself clear and stop hiding behind rhetorical smokescreens.

I have not taken a yea and nay approach and my own position is not the issue, yours is. You have made a charge that misrepresents Baptist confessional obligations that to date you have failed to justify. Either justify your charge or quit posting this thread.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I have never left the point. The point at issue, the one you are attempting to force, and which you think cb's must necessarily hold, is that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of the invisible church.

"Visible church" has been my point all along. If you go back and carefully read my posts again you might grasp the actual point I have been making and be in some sort of a position to respond intelligibly to it. You might also think about constructing something of a coherent and self-consistent reply, as well as get your interpretation straight on such passages as Colossians 2:12 and whether baptism is a visible sign of inward grace. Of course the Confession is using such passages to show water baptism is a sign of spiritual baptism; what else would it have meant by adducing them? You don't seem to have any idea as to what a visible sign actually is. Perhaps you could study up on it a little. And I have not alleged anything more nor less than Bill himself has stated. I'm not sure who you think you are that you can tell me to quit posting to the thread.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Either justify your charge or quit posting this thread.

Wow. You're quite arrogant. Maybe you need to read Ephesians 4:3, "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." If anything, at least try and maintain a spirit of stoicism. Stay away from personal and direct attacks. Attitudes like this not only make the said views non-credible but also misrepresent credo-baptists. Personally I'm a paedo, but conservations like this make me more confident in the belief that credo-baptists are sectarian. Maybe you should show a spirit of catholicity yourself by staying away from this sort of dialog.

Baptism was always a testimony of the conversion of the believer by the hand of God. It was a sign of the covenant the believer came into through and by Christ. My main problem with paedobaptism is this. How can a baby come into the covenant when they have not shown signs of regeneration, and no fruit of repentance? If they are being brought into the covenant, how then is this possible?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Herald

Mmm. So if a Baptist church admitted a paedobaptist into membership who refused to be scripturally baptized (as Baptists believe scripture teaches), we would eventually have to bring church discipline to bear on this person. And if a Presbyterian church goes so far in church discipline as to excommunicate a professing believer who will not submit their child to baptism, they have turned that person over to Satan. What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong with this picture? Bill, you don't know what excommunication is. No Presbyterian declares an antipaedobaptist unbaptised and therefore no member of the church. Nor does he exercise church discipline to the extent he exercises church discipline on an antipaedobaptist simply because he is an antipaedobaptist. In so far as he exercises church discipline on such it is on the basis that such is understood to be a baptised member of the church of Jesus Christ. If he is disciplined it would be for contumacy, not because he holds a specific belief.

Again, the difference is, paedobaptists acknowledge antipaedobaptists to be baptised members of the visible church, the family of Jesus Christ on earth; whereas antipaedobaptists who reject the baptism of infants and attempt to extricate themselves from the label of "anabaptists" do not acknowledge professors who were baptised as infants as baptised members of the visible church, the family of Jesus Christ on earth. Folk like John Bunyan would be the exception.

Matthew, my comments are taken from what other Presbyterians have said regarding progressive church discipline if a member-parent of a Presbyterian church will not submit their child to baptism. If someone is eventually put out of the church, or it's suggested that they leave, I really don't have a problem with it. I was using it as a example of a Presbyterian core theological belief that is taken every bit as serious as Baptists and baptism. If circumstances found me in an area where they only bible believing church was Presbyterian, I would approach the elders and inform them of my Baptist convictions. I certainly would not join if I were to eventually face discipline over my belief, but I would gladly attend.

I know what the difference is between Baptists and Presbyterians regarding baptism and the visible church. We simply have a difference of opinion. As far as trying to extricate myself from the anabaptist label, there is no such attempt being made. I believe the label is fallacious, therefore it doesn't apply. YOU can believe it, and it even promote it as an accurate term to describe Baptists. In fact, I'm sure you do believe it. If anything this dialog has provided the OP with the difference between credo and paedobaptists. I don't believe it has resolved anything, but it certainly has highlighted the theological rift.

Hey Austin, hard for me to catch up with the flow of discussion, but I wanted to revisit your earlier post.

Originally Posted by austinww

I agree that baptism has everything to do with one's spiritual state, but as I have already said, I think the children of believers, who are raised to believe unlike pagan children, are to be expected to be truly God's unless and until they apostasize; however, we can no more assume their spiritual state than we can my pastor's. We do act like it is so and expect it to be so, though.

I don't know if "expected to be truly God's.." does it for me. The NT doesn't make assumptions about discipleship and union with Christ through the Spirit. If you consider Paul's encounter with disciples who had received John's baptism, Paul insisted on them needing to receive the Holy Spirit, then he "re"baptized into the name of Jesus, and they were filled with the Spirit. (I understand that talking about John's baptism vis a vis new Covenant may take us down a bunny trail, and may be this is unique in salvation in history), but my point is Paul does tend to link baptism with being filled by the Holy Spirit.

Regarding explicit references to infant baptism:

The evidence here is clearly in our favor. There is neither (a) an instance of an infant explicitly said to have been baptized nor (b) an instance of a child of believers having a coming-of-age baptism later. All we can do is look at principles established in Scripture, and they all point to the inclusion of infants, e.g. Peter's re-echoing of Gen. 17:7 in Acts 2:39, the 5 household baptisms out of 9 total baptisms in the NT (!), and yes, even Jesus' statements about letting the children come to him are relevant, even if they aren't prooftexts.

Edit: All the examples used to prove that personal professed faith is the prerequisite for baptism are examples of adults converting for the first time. None of them were raised in a family of believers

Yes, silence does seem to abound in this situation. But let's look closer:
1. The Acts 2:39 account (this promise is for you and your children and all who are far off). I would be careful to use this to support familial discipleship, because taking this verse literally, one would have to admit universalism. ie. "all who are far off." I think Peter was simply highlighting the extent and availability of salvation beyond Israel.

2. Household baptisms
In regard to Cornelius:

Acts 10:44 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

Cornelius' 'household' is mentioned when Paul reiterates the story:

Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.

Acts 16:15 "When she [Lydia] and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house."

Acts 16:33 "At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family."

Acts 18:7 "Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized. "

1 Cor 16:15 "You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints."

In these 5 mentions of household baptism in the NT, correct me if I'm wrong, but in each case the baptism of the household was tied to either belief, or Holy Spirit filling, or devoted service. If the paedobaptist is to the argue for household baptism as the key scriptural proof, then exegetical consistency requires that infants are capable of speaking in tongues, believing, and devoting themselves to service.

So, if 'household' is the hermeneutical key, then the evidence it is certainly NOT in favour of PB, but rather CB. The text regarding Jesus welcoming the children to come to him does not, IMO, require a baptismal reading.

To be fair, I still agree with you that there remains silence on the matter, but it's simply not true that the scriptural evidence is in favour of PB; it doesn't even look neutrally split down the middle either. It seems that a preference for an Abrahamic reading of baptism is dominating PB interpretation, rather than a New Covenant reading. In which case, Rev Bruce's point #1 is right.

Dennis,

I'm glad we've had a short break because I've had some time to think. I really believe your OP is key here - we are somewhat skirting around the central issue, IMO. This is my fault, but let me try to get us into some sort of common ground now.

Would you agree with me that we cannot reach an agreement on the subjects of baptism unless we first agree on the purpose and meaning baptism? With that premise in mind, please answer this question:

What is the primary purpose of baptism?

Or to put it another way: Why do we baptize people at all?

Originally Posted by austinww

Dennis,

I'm glad we've had a short break because I've had some time to think. I really believe your OP is key here - we are somewhat skirting around the central issue, IMO. This is my fault, but let me try to get us into some sort of common ground now.

Side note: Regarding the household baptisms, I will try to find one of the threads I have read related to belief being associated with the baptisms. There were good points from both sides and I'm not sure I am equipped to answer those questions myself at this point.

Now, I have a few questions that I believe will help us get to the heart of the matter, which will both answer your OP and help us pursue our discussion more profitably:

1) Would you agree that in order to know the proper subjects of baptism, we must first understand the purpose of baptism?

2) Why did Christ command baptism? What purpose does it serve?

3) What exactly is baptism?

4) Why did John baptize; and how is Christian baptism similar and different?

Please give me your perspective on these questions to the best of your ability and I will try to see if we can find common ground and pursue the question at hand with more focus.

Short, direct answers are best, unless you believe further elaboration is necessary for your answer to be clear.

Hi Austin,

answers to your questions:

1. Yes, absolutely.
2. Baptism in the Gospels was 1. a call to repentance (Luke 3:3); 2. Identification with Christ (eg Mark 10:34); 3. A mark of discipleship (Matt 28:18-20). I would say the fuller NT purposes included identification with Christ, sign of being immersed in the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sin, spiritual circumcision.
3. Baptism means being dipped or washed with (or in) water.
4. John baptized to call Israel to repentance and obedience. I think it was the beginnings of Christian baptism, in its "primative" form, whose meaning came to its fullness post-Pentecost.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 10:00:49 EST-----

Different people baptize for different reasons - so it seems. I believe the NT pattern for baptism was for individuals who believed and were recognized by the church as having (or seeking) union and identification with Christ

Sorry, I didn't realize you were online and I edited. Disregard the edit - Later I will answer your response to what I originally posted.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 10:24:17 EST-----

Good answer. Would you agree that the purposes you listed (identification with Christ, repentance, forgiveness of sin, being Christ's disciple, etc.) all fall under "cleansing of sin," since that is what baptism visually depicts (with water) and since the other things you listed are all intimately connected with cleansing of sin by the blood of Christ?

Originally Posted by austinww

Good answer. Would you agree that the purposes you listed (identification with Christ, repentance, forgiveness of sin, being Christ's disciple, etc.) all fall under "cleansing of sin," since that is what baptism visually depicts (with water) and since the other things you listed are all intimately connected with cleansing of sin by the blood of Christ?

Cleansing of sin would be a natural outworking of baptism, sure, but whether all of those categories "fall under" the rubric of cleansing of sin ... I'd prefer to view baptism in relation to Christ, rather than to sin per se. but it sounds ok for now.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I have never left the point. The point at issue, the one you are attempting to force, and which you think cb's must necessarily hold, is that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of the invisible church.

"Visible church" has been my point all along.

"Invisible" was a typo. Please read it as "visible", something that should have been obvious from my previous posts where I had repeatedly quoted or cited the LBC on the visible church.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

If you go back and carefully read my posts again you might grasp the actual point I have been making and be in some sort of a position to respond intelligibly to it.

I think I understand your point. You have been repeatedly claiming:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

[water] baptism marks entrance into the visible church and without baptism one has no basis upon which to accept an individual as a visible saint, and therefore as a "brother."

a point which you attempt to support from Col 2:12 as in the following post:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Confession of faith and new life should never be separated from baptism. The New Testament constantly appeals to the new life of the brother in terms of baptism. E.g., Colossians 2:12, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This leads to a specific visible and admonitory relation whereby brethren may address each other in terms of "If baptised, then..." You cannot appeal to us and say, "If baptised, then..." Hence your description of us as brethren is emptied of all visible and admonitory significance.

(

Originally Posted by armourbearer

You might also think about constructing something of a coherent and self-consistent reply, as well as get your interpretation straight on such passages as Colossians 2:12 and whether baptism is a visible sign of inward grace. Of course the Confession is using such passages to show water baptism is a sign of spiritual baptism; what else would it have meant by adducing them?

I was guarding against a potential misunderstanding I saw, which, in the event, thankfully, you did not make.)

Originally Posted by armourbearer

You don't seem to have any idea as to what a visible sign actually is. Perhaps you could study up on it a little.

Let's not get diverted to straw man arguments. What is really at issue here is not any alleged inconsistencies or ignorance on my part, but whether or not your charge that cb's cannot recognze pb's as brethen or members of the visible church can be justified. You have attempted to justify your charge by claiming that:
a) since Col. 2:12 was used by the LBC to refer to water baptism, cb's cannot recognize pb as legitimate, and are therefore prohibited from saying in brotherly admonition, "If (water) baptized, then...", . If that is so, then a necessary consequence of that prohibition is that
b) cb's must deny brotherly recognition to pb's and equally deny that pb churches are true churches.
If this is not what you intended by your reference to Col. 2:12, what other point or points did you intend to draw from it?

On the other hand, the point I am making, and the one you have not sufficiently answered, is that forced cb denials of Christian brotherhood and visible church membership to pb's are not necessary consequences of Col. 2:12, even if that verse is held to refer to water baptism.

Let me reiterate my counterpoints in a way that attempts to avoid rabbit trails.

Your argument would be indeed be valid if "If (water) baptized, then..." was the only Scripturally and Confessionally authorized ground by which cb's may recognize Christian brethren and accepting assemblies as true Christian churches. But my entire point is that "If baptized, then... " is not the sole ground upon which Confessional Baptists in particular are Scripturally and Confessionally authorized to extend such recognition.

Here are my reasons.

1) Confessional.

The LBC, in defining the visible church, does not draw your corollory from Col. 2:12 when it defines the visible church. Instead, it defines the visible church as "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted." (LBC 26:2) and it recognizes (26:3) that not all errors make the erring church a synogogue of Satan. This second statement brings pb's within the Confessionally defined visible church: for unless it can be shown (and I don't think the case can be made), that the Confession elsewhere plainly holds that pb is an error of such nature as to turn a pb holding church into a synogogue of Satan, one cannot issue a Confessionally based denial of Christian brotherhood and visible church member status to those holding pb. Instead pb's must be and are regarded as being brethen and their churches true churches, although erring on this one point. (Which is exactly the same way pb's regard cb's and cb churches, (i.e., as Christian brothers and true churches although making the reverse error on this same point.)

(BTW, it is illegitimate to try to show that the implications one may see arising from Col 2:12 must govern how the Confession is understood at 26:2,3. Such a procedure is an attempt to interpret the clear by the unclear. In addition, if one attempts this justification, one is presuming that the Confession's writers worked out the implications in the same way as oneself. Neither of these procedures are usually recognized as good exegetical technique. For example, non-theonomic Reformed readers rightly criticize Greg Bahnsen for his attempt to justify his Theonomic interpreation of WCF 19:1-4 by casting it as a necessary mplication of the original vesrsion of chapter 23, rather than relying on the Divine's explicit doctrine of the Law of God in the first part of ch. 19. NB to Theonomists-this point is provided as illustration of present Reformed opinion on exegetical technique, not to open discussion of Bahnsen's views.)

Now you appear to make the same type of error as Bahnsen when you rely on the implication you see in Col. 2:12 while ignoring the plain testimony of the LBC 26:2 and 3, statements which are stated in such a way that they open the door of brotherly recognition to pb's and their churches. So it is quite possible that the Baptist forefathers did not see these matters in the way you do. And it is how they inConfessionated these matters, and not your opinion of how we should see them, to which Reformed Baptists are confessionally bound.

2) Scriptural.

Were the Baptist fathers justified in not explicitly identifying pb believers as false brethen and pb churches as synogoges of Satan? Yes, because as I have earlier shown (and it is a point to which you have yet to effectively respond), Col. 2:12 and 'if baptised, then..." is not the sole Scriptural ground upon which we may recognize Christian brethren and visible churches. For...

Originally Posted by timmopussycat #102

John 1:12, 13 makes it certain that all "those who received [Christ] who believed in his name have the right" to be recognized as "children of God...born ...of God". Since we can sufficiently identify the likely regeneracy of adult individuals turning from non-Christian backgounds by a profession of faith accompanied by a turning from sin to God's ways, both pb's and cb's baptize them. But recognizing the likely regeneracy of such converts necessarily entails also recognizing them as entitled to membership of the visible church, even if they haven't yet formally become members of a local church by formally joining that organization (however that is done).

To this you replied:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

This is invisible and known only to God. We are speaking about visible saints.

but you have yet to address my rejoinder ...

Originally Posted by timmopussycat post 121

John, in context, is making a contrast between two visible groups, marked out as different by their differing actions. After speaking of Christ's historic people, who have not received him, he now speaks of those who have received him. It is a visible people, identifiable by their reception of and belief in Christ, who have received the “right to become children of God.”

(And here are a couple of seriously intended question for you. If the visible church is known only to God, and not knowable to us (although fallably) because of observable changes in individuals' behaviours and professions, how can you accept a profession of faith accompanied by a turning from sin to God's ways, as identification of a believer sufficient to entitle him to baptism and church membership – as pb's regularly do? And if you do so because such signs are the likely indicators upon which baptism may be scripturally administered, then why cavail at cb's because we recognize you as brethren upon the same grounds you use to accept the yet unbaptised but professing candidate as both a brother and entitled to membership in Christ's visible church? We're doing exactly what you are doing.)

3) State of the debate.

While you rightly note that cb's cannot say to pb's "if baptised then...", the problem you must still address before you can say that cb's may not recognize pb's as brethen and members of the visible church is that you must prove that there are no other possible Scriptural and Confessional grounds for granting such recognition, and that all other alleged grounds for doing so (and I've only submitted 2 for discussion; there may be others), are demonstrably unConfessional (by LBC) or unScriptural.

Until such proof is provided, cb's are free to gladly recognize pb's as brethren and fellow members of the visible church based on what we see as pb's falling within the group that has a Scripturally stated right to be so recognized in John 1:12,13 or, (00for that matter any other subseqently issued justification not adequently refuted). We can therefore rightly and properly issue brotherly appeals on the basis of your "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying [your] own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation."

How then can you justify your charge and save us from our (on your hypothesis) errors in recognizing pb's as true brethren and pb churches as valid? ISTM that before you can attempt to claim that "If baptised, then..." is the only ground cb's have to issue such recogntion, you must at least first show the LBC defintion of the visible church untenable and the deduction I have drawn from John 1:12,13 is not GNC, and as noted above, the present state of the argument is that you have done neither of these things. Until you can do them, however, you cannot rightly say that cb's cannot Scripturally and Confessionally recognize pb's as brethen and members of the visible church.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

And I have not alleged anything more nor less than Bill himself has stated.

Bill has not claimed that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of visible churches based on your reading of Col. 2:12's implications. In fact, his practice of addressing you as a brother in Christ denies that he agrees with your reading of that verse's implications.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I'm not sure who you think you are that you can tell me to quit posting to the thread.

I think I am someone fraternally advising you that you face a choice of imperatives and appealing to you to choose wisely. My statement was given in the form of two alternatives: "Either...or....", not as a command to do one of them. (And in the second alternative, I did not say exactly what I meant, alas. Instead of "quit posting this thread", the second alternative should have read "stop repeating a yet to be founded charge without providing a better foundation". (Forgive me, brother, my bad.)

Here is the situation I see you facing. The current state of the argument is this: even though cb's cannot address pb's on the basis of "if water baptized then," I have shown, and you have yet to successfully refute, Scriptural and LBC reasons why "if baptized, then..." is not the only ground upon which cb's may rightly recognize pb's as brethren and members of the visible church.

Until you can prove that Confesssional Baptists must believe that "if water baptized, then..." is the only Scriptural and Confessional ground for recognizing a man as a brother and visible church member, your charge that cb's cannot rightly accept a pb as Christian brother and member of the visible church remains unfounded, and hence either a real, or at least a potential, slander. If you are "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying [your] own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation," then why would you want to continue making even a potentially slanderous charge against those who name Christ as Saviour and Lord without accepting the responsibility to demonstrate the soundness of the charge against a well meant objection that appears to have some Scriptural and Confessional support? And if you won't accept the challenge to demonstrate the soundness of your charge, why should you expect cb's to accept it as valid?

(To avoid presumption of motives or spiritual states on anyone's part, may I say that the two questions I pose in the above paragraph are seriously intended.)

That's fair. My point is that baptism doesn't visually symbolize identification with Christ or repentance; it visually gives us a picture of cleansing (hence the water). So those other purposes are connected to cleansing of sin. We are cleansed from sin in our identifcation with Christ and given new, penitent hearts. Those things are all related, but the one that baptism depicts visually is cleansing, and the others are intimately connected with that. Furthermore, we are baptized "for the remission of sin". I'm not suggesting baptismal regeneration; I'm suggesting that the key purpose of baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (Peter wrote that, but I don't have the reference because I'm on my iTouch). So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance? After all, that is what baptism looks like. That is what it is a visual sign of. Agreed?

Edit: That reference is 1 Pet. 3:21 .

Originally Posted by austinww

That's fair. My point is that baptism doesn't visually symbolize identification with Christ or repentance; it visually gives us a picture of cleansing (hence the water). So those other purposes are connected to cleansing of sin. We are cleansed from sin in our identifcation with Christ and given new, penitent hearts. Those things are all related, but the one that baptism depicts visually is cleansing, and the others are intimately connected with that. Furthermore, we are baptized "for the remission of sin". I'm not suggesting baptismal regeneration; I'm suggesting that the key purpose of baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (Peter wrote that, but I don't have the reference because I'm on my iTouch). So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance? After all, that is what baptism looks like. That is what it is a visual sign of. Agreed?

Edit: That reference is 1 Pet. 3:21 .

Sounds good.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Originally Posted by austinww

That's fair. My point is that baptism doesn't visually symbolize identification with Christ or repentance; it visually gives us a picture of cleansing (hence the water). So those other purposes are connected to cleansing of sin. We are cleansed from sin in our identifcation with Christ and given new, penitent hearts. Those things are all related, but the one that baptism depicts visually is cleansing, and the others are intimately connected with that. Furthermore, we are baptized "for the remission of sin". I'm not suggesting baptismal regeneration; I'm suggesting that the key purpose of baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (Peter wrote that, but I don't have the reference because I'm on my iTouch). So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance? After all, that is what baptism looks like. That is what it is a visual sign of. Agreed?

Edit: That reference is 1 Pet. 3:21 .

Sounds good.

Excellent! On to my next premise: Would you agree that the proper subjects of baptism would be those to whom the meaning rightly belongs; that is, cleansing of sin?

Originally Posted by austinww

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Originally Posted by austinww

That's fair. My point is that baptism doesn't visually symbolize identification with Christ or repentance; it visually gives us a picture of cleansing (hence the water). So those other purposes are connected to cleansing of sin. We are cleansed from sin in our identifcation with Christ and given new, penitent hearts. Those things are all related, but the one that baptism depicts visually is cleansing, and the others are intimately connected with that. Furthermore, we are baptized "for the remission of sin". I'm not suggesting baptismal regeneration; I'm suggesting that the key purpose of baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (Peter wrote that, but I don't have the reference because I'm on my iTouch). So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance? After all, that is what baptism looks like. That is what it is a visual sign of. Agreed?

Edit: That reference is 1 Pet. 3:21 .

Sounds good.

Excellent! On to my next premise: Would you agree that the proper subjects of baptism would be those to whom the meaning rightly belongs; that is, cleansing of sin?

Yes, but let's also remember that those who are baptized, whether within the PB or CB framework, are not necessarily elect/regenerate. ie. we cannot be certain; i'm just safeguarding against baptismal regeneration ...
But I'm with you so far.