Re-baptism by any other name is still "re-baptism" - Page 2

servantofmosthigh · #41 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

There is unity, Will, but the analogy you drew about "two countries" denies this unity. If your analogy is accurate then there is no fellowship if we belong to different Kingdoms. I'm suggesting that you use better analogies to make the distinction if you concede that a man can be a believer and be baptized outside of your Church.

The "two countries" analogy is in reference to two different ecclesiolastical bodies, not two different kingdoms.

Consider another analogy. Let's say that I've been employed for 10 years with AT&T. I'm now deciding to work for Coca-Cola. Let's say Coca-Cola requires all new employees to undergo drug-testing. I tell them that AT&T made no such requirements of their employees. Coca-Cola says that if I wish to be employed by them, I must. Whereas, if a Coca-Cola employees wishes to join AT&T, there is no requirement for drug-testing.

The difference is not that the "two countries" analogy or the "two companies" analogy represent two different kingdoms, but that they represent two different local church bodies under different ecclesiology.

Semper Fidelis · #42 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

There is unity, Will, but the analogy you drew about "two countries" denies this unity. If your analogy is accurate then there is no fellowship if we belong to different Kingdoms. I'm suggesting that you use better analogies to make the distinction if you concede that a man can be a believer and be baptized outside of your Church.

The "two countries" analogy is in reference to two different ecclesiolastical bodies, not two different kingdoms.

Consider another analogy. Let's say that I've been employed for 10 years with AT&T. I'm now deciding to work for Coca-Cola. Let's say Coca-Cola requires all new employees to undergo drug-testing. I tell them that AT&T made no such requirements of their employees. Coca-Cola says that if I wish to be employed by them, I must. Whereas, if a Coca-Cola employees wishes to join AT&T, there is no requirement for drug-testing.

The difference is not that the "two countries" analogy or the "two companies" analogy represent two different kingdoms, but that they represent two different local church bodies.

I don't want to get into a debate about analogies but there are many defects in your nation and employee analogies given what baptism signifies according to even the LBCF much less the WCF.

servantofmosthigh · #43 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I don't want to get into a debate about analogies but there are many defects in your nation and employee analogies given what baptism signifies according to even the LBCF much less the WCF.

The analogies are in response to the originator of this thread charging that baptists who use the argument of paedobaptism as illegitimate baptism are guilty of fallacious argumentation. So I was using the analogies as simply to illustrate that from the Baptist church standing on the biblical basis of baptism, the argumentation is legitimate. If a pedobaptist does not agree with it, then do not consider joining a Baptist church. But if one does want to join, then they must be willing to accept the ecclesiological differences. And the biggest ecclesiological difference between Presbyterians and Baptists have always been, from the start, Baptism.

Pergamum · #44 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 01:17 AM

Rich:

"face shots"? Are you for real?

Semper Fidelis · #45 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Rich:

"face shots"? Are you for real?

It's an expression Perg.

I've just always found it interesting that some Reformed denominations are criticized for being exclusive or restrictive in some of their beliefs.

Typically, for instance, Dutch Reformed tend to be historically exclusive about what they consider to be true Churches and there is a normal uproar here when that is articulated and Baptist Churches are referred to as "sects".

Conversely, the elephant in the living room is Baptist Churches who don't recognize the baptism in Reformed Churches at all. In other words, unless a person is baptized in the Credo Church then no baptism has occurred at all and zero participation in the life of the Church is possible. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the person was not baptized in a valid Church.

I understand it for what it is as a conviction on the Baptists' part and I'm simply pointing out that Baptists ought to be self-aware of what they are really confessing and not be shocked and appalled at others when they express a similar conviction about the nature of their Ecclesiastical Bodies. You don't see a line of Presbyterians lining up in outrage that Will is saying that a person isn't baptized according to his view but a recent thread by a Dutch Reformed brother on another topic pointing out a historic conviction in the Dutch Reformed tradition drew a lot of heat.

Archlute · #46 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

There are exceptions to marriage too, but whole denominations do not get divorced and argue for divorce as an acceptable alternative. There is a difference between an alternative and an exception in dire straits. The Diache allowed pouring as an exception when water was not available. Why are we drawing teachings from the Didache anyway? How do you sprinkle someone with running water?

I am withdrawing.

This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....

Good day gentlemen and God bless.

Brother, may I offer some encouragement and peace in this...

Adam Myer's argument is based on the Presbyterian view of the matter. His argument and presupposition are laid in a way that places Baptists in a defensive posture, not in a way that could take into account Baptist history, ecclesiology and theology on this subject.

In other words, he's referring to historical lexicons that the Magisterial Reformers (paedobaptists) had embraced but English Baptists had denounced only on the issue of Baptism because the English Baptists had viewed that the Magisterial Reformers were dead wrong on this matter by not tying Baptism to the reforming of the entire church.

So I just want to encourage you to not be flustered because you felt you couldn't respond adequately. Given the way Myer laid his conclusive argument (There really can be no argument against this understanding once the sources have been studied), it does not give Baptists a fair way of answering because he's referring to the sources that Baptists had rejected on the topic of Baptism from the start.

I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):

1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.

2nd - I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but a Greek-English lexicon for use in studying a broad range of Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the various uses of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.

Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped

servantofmosthigh · #47 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):

1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.

I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but an English-Greek lexicon for use in studying Classical Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the broader use of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.

Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped

I was interpreting your statement of "Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings" as referring to Reformation period writings or prior. Dale and LSJ are definitely not patristic writings. I was thinking that you were referencing them as secondary sources to draw some kind of primary patristic source. So thanks for the clarification.

In which case, if your concluding argument that the sources to be studied that levels out any argumentation against paedobaptism are the "Classical, Jewish, Biblical and Patristic writings" of the Reformation period, then my earlier rebuttal stands. But if your concluding argument about the sources that somehow level out any argumentation against paeodobaptism as referring to Dale, LSJ, BAGD, and other more modern and contemporary reference works, I find your conclusion faulty. Yes, I agree with you that LSJ has more of a Presbyterian bent, but so is Berkhof's Systematic Theology.

As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

Semper Fidelis · #48 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!

servantofmosthigh · #49 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!

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

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

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

North Jersey Baptist · #50 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!

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

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

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

Let me take a brief break from pounding those nails into my skull.

Will, Rich's sarcasm is directed at what seems to be your perfect knowledge that Baptist regenerate membership means that all Baptists are regenerate. Credobaptism is administered to those who profess Christ. It is our earnest hope and expectation that they are saved. But the truth is that wheat and tares are together in the visible church.

I'll now go back to my nails...

servantofmosthigh · #51 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Let me take a brief break from pounding those nails into my skull.

...

I'll now go back to my nails...

Make sure to wear a safety helmet.

Archlute · #52 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):

1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.

I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but an English-Greek lexicon for use in studying Classical Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the broader use of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.

Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped

I was interpreting your statement of "Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings" as referring to Reformation period writings or prior. Dale and LSJ are definitely not patristic writings. I was thinking that you were referencing them as secondary sources to draw some kind of primary patristic source. So thanks for the clarification.

In which case, if your concluding argument that the sources to be studied that levels out any argumentation against paedobaptism are the "Classical, Jewish, Biblical and Patristic writings" of the Reformation period, then my earlier rebuttal stands. But if your concluding argument about the sources that somehow level out any argumentation against paeodobaptism as referring to Dale, LSJ, BAGD, and other more modern and contemporary reference works, I find your conclusion faulty. Yes, I agree with you that LSJ has more of a Presbyterian bent, but so is Berkhof's Systematic Theology.

As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.

As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.

One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!

As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!

The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.

Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.

DMcFadden · #53 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 01:40 PM

On the PB it is appropriate to deal with issues theologically. So far the positions for both views have been argued on biblical and theological grounds. However, it might also be interesting to look at it from an organizational intentionality angle. Viewed programmatically and organizationally (rather than theologically), both Presbyterians and Baptists attempt to deal with the practical pastoral problems inherent in their systems.

Paedo-baptists will always have the problem that Roman Catholics have of avoiding religious nominalism despite the fact of infant entrance into the community. Catholics deal with it through confirmation while good Reformed churches seem to put much more stress on the third use of the law and the "experimental Calvinism" typical of the Puritans. Most of the strict Reformed groups also emphasize church discipline in ways that free churches have generally long since forgotten (except for a rare bird like MacArthur). Is it a fail safe method for quality assurance? No, Jesus spoke of the wheat and the tares.

Credo-baptists grew out of an environment of Christian nominalism in faith and attributed it to the problem of the composition of the church. If we just insist that you can't get into the community without at least giving a credible profession, perhaps that will purify the church. So a regnerate membership became the goal, safeguarded by believer's baptism. But, with the Baptist practice of performing baptisms at younger and younger ages (sometimes as young as 4 to 6), you must wonder if it is not more of a delayed infant baptism than adult "credo baptism."

Both systems attempt to be "biblical." They both seize upon themes and verses that make sense, at least on an unbiased "common sense" first reading of the text. And, both struggle to resolve a pastoral problem of hypocrisy and false professors in a disciplined and "biblical" manner.

The law of non-contradiction convinces me that while both may be wrong, they cannot both be right. Hence, along with CT, my reading list for the next few months includes both paedo and credo books.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

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

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

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

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

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