I was going to answer this from a long thread that had gone far afield. I think this post sums up where I believe Reformed Baptist argumentation for professor-only baptism is weak....
I'm sorry but I missed where my circle was and where I contradicted myself. Can you point this out, please?
Also, could you point out the strong credo-Baptist arguments that don't rely on the historical narrative argument alone to make the case if you grant that the argument from the inviolability of the New Covenant does not make the case? I expect people to call me on things if I'm mistating the case. I really would like the strong arguments because these were all that James White had to offer Shishko and I've never seen anything else offered here over two years.
It is interesting that you believe I'm trivializing the strength of the Baptist argument by pointing out their insistence on the perfection of the New Covenant. James White and I became friends about 8 years ago and I asked him at the time: "Why are you a Baptist and not a paedo-baptist like everyone else?"
He was very busy to have to answer a relatively novice Presbyterian on that question. He probably gets tired of being asked it. He was patient, though, and pointed me to two sermons on the subject.
What were they on? The unbreakability of the New Covenant and how only the elect are in the New Covenant.
It was the first time I had been exposed to the argument. It was simply a sermon from Hebrews that pointed to the Jeremiah 31 passage to insist this was the case. I wasn't necessarily against the idea at the time but, frankly, my first thought was: "What does that have to do with Baptism?"
I've been asking that question ever since.
If you wanted to categorize most of the debates on this forum on the issue of Baptism and who are the proper recipients, I am quite certain you will find all your best and brightest arguing this point: the NC is perfect, with the elect alone, therefore we baptize professors only.
I'm not pointing this out to beat people up but I do think that this is an accurate representation of where Baptists spend the lion's share of their theological argumentation.
Now, as I've said, when I press them on this, they will always admit that they do not baptize on the basis of election but profession. That is when the question arises: OK, why baptize on profession alone? Then, the argument will transition to the historical narrative - "Oh, but you see all the examples in the New Testament are of professors only...." As I've noted, Pentecostals use the same logic to argue for the continuity of tongues. Inevitably, when I point that out, Baptists think I'm saying that merely to be mean or get a dig in. Not at all! I'm only trying to show them that their means to establishing their doctrine has the same weak foundation. It should give them pause. Rather than react in anger to this problem at me, why not go back and make sure your foundation isn't built on something weak like narrative.
Thus, in summary:
1. Baptists usually try to argue for the perfection of the New Covenant and that its membership is the Elect alone.
2. Even if point 1 is granted, Baptists then must admit that Election is not the basis of who they baptize at all. Why? Election is not something that can be detected by men.
3. Asked what the basis for baptism is - the basis is profession.
4. Asked why only profession - the basis is historical narrative.
Thus, the Baptism of professors alone rests upon historical narrative alone.
If I've left out an argument, I invite any Baptist to add the strong argument I've missed.
Your earlier premise doesn't logically lead to the right conclusion here Rich. You're going in circles and contradicting yourself in the end. I thought it was implicit in statement "they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration." But anyway I submit that baptist article is not well though-out objection anyway. So, why trivialize the Baptist argument by entertaining and dwelling on a weak argument, and imputing it to all Baptists?
I'm sorry but I missed where my circle was and where I contradicted myself. Can you point this out, please?
Also, could you point out the strong credo-Baptist arguments that don't rely on the historical narrative argument alone to make the case if you grant that the argument from the inviolability of the New Covenant does not make the case? I expect people to call me on things if I'm mistating the case. I really would like the strong arguments because these were all that James White had to offer Shishko and I've never seen anything else offered here over two years.
It is interesting that you believe I'm trivializing the strength of the Baptist argument by pointing out their insistence on the perfection of the New Covenant. James White and I became friends about 8 years ago and I asked him at the time: "Why are you a Baptist and not a paedo-baptist like everyone else?"
He was very busy to have to answer a relatively novice Presbyterian on that question. He probably gets tired of being asked it. He was patient, though, and pointed me to two sermons on the subject.
What were they on? The unbreakability of the New Covenant and how only the elect are in the New Covenant.
It was the first time I had been exposed to the argument. It was simply a sermon from Hebrews that pointed to the Jeremiah 31 passage to insist this was the case. I wasn't necessarily against the idea at the time but, frankly, my first thought was: "What does that have to do with Baptism?"
I've been asking that question ever since.
If you wanted to categorize most of the debates on this forum on the issue of Baptism and who are the proper recipients, I am quite certain you will find all your best and brightest arguing this point: the NC is perfect, with the elect alone, therefore we baptize professors only.
I'm not pointing this out to beat people up but I do think that this is an accurate representation of where Baptists spend the lion's share of their theological argumentation.
Now, as I've said, when I press them on this, they will always admit that they do not baptize on the basis of election but profession. That is when the question arises: OK, why baptize on profession alone? Then, the argument will transition to the historical narrative - "Oh, but you see all the examples in the New Testament are of professors only...." As I've noted, Pentecostals use the same logic to argue for the continuity of tongues. Inevitably, when I point that out, Baptists think I'm saying that merely to be mean or get a dig in. Not at all! I'm only trying to show them that their means to establishing their doctrine has the same weak foundation. It should give them pause. Rather than react in anger to this problem at me, why not go back and make sure your foundation isn't built on something weak like narrative.
Thus, in summary:
1. Baptists usually try to argue for the perfection of the New Covenant and that its membership is the Elect alone.
2. Even if point 1 is granted, Baptists then must admit that Election is not the basis of who they baptize at all. Why? Election is not something that can be detected by men.
3. Asked what the basis for baptism is - the basis is profession.
4. Asked why only profession - the basis is historical narrative.
Thus, the Baptism of professors alone rests upon historical narrative alone.
If I've left out an argument, I invite any Baptist to add the strong argument I've missed.