1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

why Don't Reformed/Covenant baptists Do Infant Water Baptism?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Oct 20, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    My baptist church does children dedication, as we hold that a child can be water baptised at 12 years and age, as we think that is the "age of accountibilty" roughly!
    also, founding Pastor and much of the beginning members ALL came out from RCC, so have a strong preference for the truth of believers baptism!
     
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Who says? What is their authority for saying that? Where in the scriptures can they find ANY church composed of nonimmersed beleivers?? Who repudiated the SECOND command in the Great Commission? Who repudiated the consistent practice in scriptures????

    If you cannot provide evidence to overturn the CLEAR and EXPLICIT Biblical evidence to the contrary then what right have you to say that baptism is not essential to form a Biblical congregation?

    ANSWER: You have absolutely no authority to define New Testament congregations to be composed of anything other than baptized beleivers AT MINIMUM! You have no authority to contradict Christ's authority in the Great commission! Baptism PRECEDES assembling to be instructed all things in the Great Commision as it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach anyone how to observe all things without actually assembling with them just as it is impossible to baptize anyone without touching them!




    Why not also get rid of the other two aspects of the Great Commission as well? Get rid of the gospel and the command to teach how to observe all things commanded as they are no less authorized than "baptizing them" is authorized by Christ????

    We are not talking about the protestant concept of an invisible assembly! We are talking about visible local congregational bodies of baptized beleivers explicitly found throughout the scriptures? Try functioning as a congregation with Presbyterian, Methodist, Assembly of God, Baptist, etc., etc., and see how far that church survives???? Try to observe any ordinance in unity by that kind of congregation?? It is absurdly rediculous!

    Who gives you the right to say what part of the Great Commission AUTHORIZED by Christ (Mt. 28:18) is essential and what part is not essential? Why did you only select the first aspect "go preach the gospel"? How can any congregation observe the third aspect "teaching them to observe all things" if part of the assembly teaches Presbyterian doctrine, another part teaches Baptist doctrine, another teaches Weslyn doctrine, another teaches Anglican doctrine? How can such a church even survive???

    Your position is unscriptural in that it opposes the clear and explicit command to baptize beleivers and because Christ and the apostles place baptism BEFORE congregational membership in the Great commission precept (Mt. 28:19-20) and practice (Acts 2:41) and because there is NO EXAMPLE of ANY NEW TESTAMENT CONGREGATION to support your theory in the Scriptures and scriptures are NOT SILENT on this issue.


    Tell me, what kind of material or exactly who it is that Jesus is authorizing in the Great Commission to be taught how to observe all things? Simple gospelized material? Or baptized believers? How does Matthew 28:19-20 read to you?
     
    #22 Dr. Walter, Oct 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2011
  3. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Baptists and their progenitors were persecuted and killed precisely because of their views on baptism.

    When they insisted on baptism of believers only, that didn't sit to well with their enemies.

    They weren't too popular when the refused to baptize infants, or otherwise attach any sacramental value to baptism.

    When your view on baptism can get you killed, burned at the stake or beheaded, I would not describe it as a non-essential, or something we can agree to disagree over.
     
  4. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you rather a person attend a Baptist church who does not preach the Gospel or a Presbyterian Church who does preach the Gospel?

    The other parts you continue to stereotype my beliefs which makes me think you have no category between essentials, highly important, important, and optional. You seem to make this an essential, when I think it is important but not an essential.
     
  5. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Originally Posted by Martin Marprelate [​IMG]
    Well obviously, they don't do it. At least, not in Britain so far as I know.
    BTW, the big evangelical Anglican church near where I live will do baby dedications on request and baptizes adults by immersion.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    Martin, if anyone wishes to check this out they can examine the floor of older Anglican churches in England and they will find baptismal tanks for those requesting baptism as an adult. Further, an Anglican must baptize by immersion any adult so requesting it.

    Traditionally, infant baptism, usually done at age 9 months, rid the infant of original sin. They those who stood with the child were responsible for spiritual direction up Confirmation at 13. This is where one is to acknowledge Christ as Saviour. Evangelical Anglican churches will vary these procedures to fit the evangelical vewpoints.

    The high church I attended in Wales immersed infants, and I did acknowledge Christ as my personal Saviour at Confirmation. I was later baptized in a Plymouth Brethren assembly in London.

    The so-called age of responsibility is a myth.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  6. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are essentials to be saved and to be recognized as such, but there are essentials to be a New Testament congregation and be recognized as such - UNLESS you confuse the two??? Those who confuse the two disregard anything essential to be a New Testament congregation but salvation. Do you confuse the two?

    Again, What right do you have to classify baptism as non-essential when Christ places it in the Great Commission BEFORE church membership? It would seem that the congregation itself is less essential than baptism by its order in the Great commission if we go by the order?

    What right do you have to jump from the gospel to church membership in the Great Commission? Should we consider teaching how to observe Christ commandments a non-essential to be a church? Isn't the doctrine of God found only in baptism in the Great commission? "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" - Is that also a none essential of the Great Commission in your view?
     
    #26 Dr. Walter, Oct 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2011
  7. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't, but the vast majority of Church history agrees with me. What right do you have to change what church history has said? The Bible never says that certain elements make up a church. We get a good exposition of a church in church history and NEVER is this mentioned as a criteria. The closest one comes is the writings of Calvin, but even that you must admit is not from a Baptist viewpoint.

    Thus, I once again state, I would rather someone go to a church who meets the essentials over one who does not but is a Baptist. Would you not agree?
     
  8. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    The vast majority in church History are Roman Catholic! Should I be a Roman Catholic?

    Since when is TRADITION final authority for doctrine and practice?

    Since when should TRADITION be used to overrule the Scriptural precepts and examples?

    It most certainly does! Do you regard the Great Commission as a COMMAND? Do you regard going with the gospel listed first because it is more essential than baptism? The apostles did (Acts 2:41). Should we not then regard baptism more essential than being assembled to observe all Christs command, thus more essential than membership in the church? The apostles did (Acts 2:41).
    The Bible does explicitly teach and exemplify churches are made up of ONLY baptized believers and no precept, practice or example can be found to the contrary! What right have you to say such a precept or practice of unbaptized congregations is right, acceptable or NOT IN DISOBEDIENCE TO SCRIPTURES????

    What value is the Bible IF tradition is final authority to determine faith and practice?? What value is the Bible if POPULAR OPINION is final authority to determine fiath and practice?
     
    #28 Dr. Walter, Oct 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2011
  9. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why not admit the truth? You have no Biblical authority to define a congregation of unbaptized persons to be a New Testament congregation?

    What did Christ say to those who violated the Scriptures by their tradition? You have no right to overule the plain precepts and examples of Scripture by tradition?

    You have no right to rearrange the Biblical order of essentials of the Great commission to accomodate those who are disobedient to them!
     
  10. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    It is rare to find a "Baptist" Church that does not preach justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works? What essentials are you talking about? It is rare to find a "Baptist" church that denies the Trinity, virgin birth, second coming, etc.? What "essentials" are you talking about?

    After a person is saved, the next PRACTICAL essential is NOT membership in a church but BAPTISM. Can you find any other PRACTICAL order for Christians in the New Testament? Can you find any PRECEPT/COMMAND that gives another PRACTICAL order? Can you find any EXAMPLE that gives another PRACTICAL order?

    According to the scriptures baptism is the next PRACTICAL essential? What "essentials" are you talking about?
     
  11. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    It's not an issue if you are a SBC. You believe in paedo baptism like the Presbyterians- you just think they have be run through a week of VBS first!

    HAHAHA!

    I am SBC, btw.
     
  12. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    You shouldn't be Roman Catholic, but that does not mean you can make up a fairly new theology and input it onto the church. As I always say, "If it is new it probably isn't true and if it is true it probably isn't new." Your criteria for a church is new in the scheme of things, it is not true. You are building up a litmus test for a church that is not found in the Bible. The Bible says you should appoint "Elders" in every church. Does that mean that churches with only one Elder is not a church? Does that mean that those who vote for Elders instead of appointing them is not a church? You see, the essential elements of a true church is related to the ordinances, but only because of the Ordinance's display of the Gospel. Thus, it is the Gospel that is the essential element, not the ordinance. I will explain more in a second.

    What is most concerning is that you are avoiding simple questions I have asked you, probably to grind your own theological axe. Simply, would you recommend someone attend a Presbyterian Church who preached faithfully the Gospel over a Baptist Church who did not? This is a fairly simple question and I do not know why you are avoiding the question because it is a fair question and a question my wife and I have been faced with, so it is not merely a hypothetical question.

    Baptists did not traditionally call other denominations "non-churches." That began in the 1800's with Landmarkism. Landmarkism sought to input onto the church a theology and give that theology prominence that was neither taught in Scripture nor understood as having been taught in Scripture. They made a cataclysmic error in putting Baptism higher than the Bible itself placed Baptism.

    Secondly, I do believe the Bible is the final authority, but the point I am making is that you insinuated that I was arrogant in using my own interpretation. I countered and said that you are the one who seems to be smarter than the history of Christianity. In combating one argument, you proceed to attacking me for traditionalism. No, it is not traditionalism to support your argument, which was attacked for being my own belief, by use of history. Rather, that is a proper response. Once again, you demonstrate that you would rather attack than really engage in the discussion.

    What is the Church?

    First, let's be honest, nowhere in the Bible is the church completely defined, this is done by a traditional definition passed down through history. Yes, there is the command to Baptize believers and it appears that people were saved then immediately Baptized, however, there are no didactic teachings that could lead one to believe that Baptism was initiatory into the Church.

    I want to remind you that I believe two things (two things that I have continued to grant and you continue to attack despite my granting those issues): 1. Baptism is commanded. 2. Believer's Baptism is taught in the Bible. Thus, those are my stances.

    There are issues you fail in your exposition.

    First, the Great Commission does command Baptism, but never is Baptism explicitly linked to Church Membership in the Bible. It maybe inferred in the Bible in Acts, but as you know that is not a great case as Acts is not a book of doctrine (didactic teaching) and it is often conveying activity not doctrinal standards (as we note with the charismatic crowd). Thus, if you want to use Acts as you primary source, I would want to ask how you can convey such and reject other doctrines charismatics hold to (these doctrines I denounce as well).

    So, where do we get the understanding of Baptism being linked to church membership? I contend we get this theology from Covenant Theology. In fact, without Covenant Theology you cannot derive Baptism as an initiatory right into the Church. This is because we do draw from the Covenant idea God's people and Israel, something that Dispensationalists out rightly reject. I can develop this further, but you must believe in the sign and seal of the New Testament Church, without which I believe that Baptism is meaningless. Some say that since the Great Commission was given to the church then so is Baptism, but this is on shaky ground. Case in point, if you don't reject Acts' practice as conveying didactic teaching then you have a problem with the Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunic. This was not a local church Baptism nor an initiatory right into the church of Jerusalem for membership. Thus, to embrace Acts causes more problems. Thus, the only way we can see it as initiatory, is through an understanding of Covenant Theology. That, my friend, was the initial question.

    Secondly, John the Baptist did not Baptize people into the the church, but unto Repentance (Matthew 3:11). Yet, it was the people in Acts who stated they had John's Baptism but still did not know the complete Gospel. Thus, Baptism, while closely aligned with the Church, is not entirely related to the Church. Apollos in Chapter 18 and some disciples of John in Chapter 19 show that Baptism can be separated from the Gospel. The Eunich shows it can be separated from the church. Again, without Covenant Theology, you cannot link Baptism and the Church together as most Baptists do.

    Thirdly, you said that we should not divide the Gospel from Baptism and you use Matthew 28 as your example. However, Paul himself divided the two by saying that he did not come to Baptize but to preach the Gospel (I Co 1:17). Thus, not even Paul sees Baptism as important as the Gospel, for he spent much time only preaching the Gospel and felt Baptism was not his most important job. Let's develop this further, it was the Corinthian Church who uplifted Baptism beyond the intended purpose and level of importance. They uplifted Baptism to the Gospel and they divided over who Baptized them (much like modern Landmarkists) rather than upon the Gospel that saved them. Paul's rebuke was seemingly harsh, that he was glad he didn't Baptize them. It is noteworthy that Jesus never Baptized (John 4:2). The importance is not in the work of Baptism, but in the Gospel it represents. Baptism is clearly a secondary issue even within the Bible. It is you who are taking a command in Scripture and placing an importance on this issue that not even Jesus placed on the issue.

    Fourthly, can a church exist without Baptism? This is a tough question. John Calvin believed in the proper use of the sacraments being intrinsic to the church. However, relating to my third point, Baptism is a representation of the Gospel message (Colossians 2:12; I Peter 3:21). Because Baptism represents the Gospel in full array, it was important to include it in the Great Commission. However, in practical outworking, the Gospel was pre-imminent in teaching by Paul, to the almost exclusion of Baptism (I Co 1:17). Baptism, thus, was deemed important because it communicated the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but not essential. It was a secondary issue.

    In conclusion, I do believe that Baptism is a sign for inclusion into the local body. However, I believe that the church and the Biblical teachings of the Bible show that Baptism, while a command, was a secondary issue in both doctrine and practice. This was a secondary issue that was to be kept subornation to the Gospel itself. I am not saying baptism is unimportant, I am saying it was important because of what it represented, not essential to a local body being a local body.

    Thus, I ask you my question once again, if you had to choose between a Presbyterian Church who preached the Gospel and a Baptist Church who did not, what would you choose?
     
  13. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most Baptist Churches add to the Gospel message or have the Gospel message rooted in moralism, not in the Gospel. Others root the Gospel into emotionalism, not the Gospel. Still some root it into unBiblical ideas like "ask Jesus into your heart" and not the Gospel. Other churches make God your life "helper" who can make your life better in some tangible way. Rather, the Gospel is haphazardly demonstrated and conveyed in church services. If we are not careful in demonstrating the Gospel, we are haphazard with the Gospel, we should consider another church. In my experience, most Baptist Churches are haphazard with the Gospel.

    Secondly, I include within this realm the proper preaching and hearing of the Gospel, which I believe is essential to a church. Thus, I look for expository preaching. This is rather rare in today's climate, but something I use as a litmus for choosing a church. I find more Presbyterian Churches (PCA and OPC) engage in expository preaching than do Baptist Churches. When Paul said to "preach the Word", he didn't say preach whatever you want to for that Sunday, but preach the entire word. I belong to a church that takes that command serious, and would not belong to a church who didn't.
     
    #33 Ruiz, Oct 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2011
  14. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2

    Every single response you make is based upon a FALSE premise - every time!

    Anabaptism is not a new theology but is OLDER than the Roman Catholic church. Arguably, Rome has no early history than the fourth century as a STATE CHURCH and its other doctrines are much newer. However, even Rome identies Anti-Nicene Christians as "Anabaptists" as early as 250 A.D.

    Acts 19:1-6 provides a Biblical instance of rebaptism.

    Yes, I know you will attempt to argue the interpretation of both but the fact remains there is sufficient historical criteria that requires you to argue! Hence, to say it is "fairly new theology" is false. There are Christians who have been regularly killed by Rome between the fourth century and the Reformation that Rome called "anabaptists."

    Furthermore, how can you suggest it is new "theology" when baptism is explicitly taught both by precept example in the New Testament to precede congregationalism???????

    Your premise is completely and utterly false! Every argument you make is based EVERY SINGLE TIME on a false premise!

    Another completely FALSE premise! You cannot find in the Bible a church of unimmersed members and yet you say such a church is not found in the Bible?????? What kind of rationale is this????

    Please find one congregation in the New Testament that was not composed of immersed believers and you have proven your premise! Otherwise, you have stated another complete falsehood!


    Another FALSE premise. The very command to appoint Elders in already existent churches prove they are not criteria to be a church whether "one" or "many" elders!

    However, look at your own words "You see, THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS of a church is related to the ordinances" and that is my point exactly but you do not really believe they are ESSENTIAL ELMENTS of a church. Salvation is essential for an individual TO BE saved but ordinances are essential for a group of believers TO BE a congregation. Where there is no baptism there can be no true congregation of Christ BUT there can be true saved persons. Why? Because baptism is not essential TO BE a Christian but it is essential for a Christian TO BE a member of true congregation of Christ.


    Another argument built upon a completely false premise! Have you not just said the ordinances are essential to a church because they reflect the true gospel? Don't you understand that the true gospel is preached more than one way and therefore can be perverted more than one way? How do the ordinances of the Presbyterians preach the true gospel? Was Christ "sprinkled" into a grave? Are infants true believers of the gospel? Their very ordinances pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ more than any Baptist church perverts the gospel.

    You have this unbiblical idea that any kind of gathering of professed Christians is a congregation regardless of what they teach, regardless of government they implement, regardless of the ordinances they administer, regardless of anything they do or don't do. Another idea built upon a completely false premise!




    Another argument built upon a completely false premise! What in the world do you think ancient "Anabaptists" said concerning Roman Catholic Churches? What in the world do you think Reformation Anabaptists said about both Reformed Roman Catholic and Regular Roman Catholic churches? Read the words of Henry Bullinger in late 1500's (much earilier than the 1800's).

    "The Anabaptists think themselves to be the only true church of Christ, and acceptable to God, and teach that they, who by baptism are received into their churches, ought not to have communion [fellowship] with [those called] evenagelical, or any other whatsoever; for that our [i.e., evangelical Protestant, or Reformed] churches are not true churches, any more than the churches of the Papists." - Henry Bullinger quoted by J.R. Graves, OLd Landmarkism What Is It?

    However, I could care less about secular history, Landmarkism or any other theological classification you might want to attach to clear Biblical teaching! You have not provided one single solitary Bibical text to support your TRADITON?

    Are you kidding me? I do not know of anyone that disputes the "church" at Corinth was anything other than a local visible congregation? Do you know any other kind that you can attend with your family????? Do you know any other kind that can be Pastored by an ordained elder? Do you know any other kind that can exclude members? Do you know any other kind that can administer the ordinances to people?

    We are not talking about POST-Biblical churches but congregations as they are found IN the New Testament pages!

    Didn't you say that the gospel is an essential to be regarded as a New Testament congregation??? Well, put that into practice then? Doesn't the gospel alone eliminate the Roman Catholic Church whose membership comprise 60% of the 2.1 billion professed Christians on earth? How many congregations can this one essential eliminate as "New Testament" congregations, unless you believe those who preach "another gospel" can be classified as "New Testament" congregations????

    How many congregations can be eliminated by this one principle when their ordinances preach "another gospel"??? Are infants beleivers in the gospel?? Is the gospel perverted by sprinkling and pouring or is baptism symbolic of the gospel in your opinion?




    Another argument built upon a complete false premise. Just ask yourself WHO does Christ command to be taught how to "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded"? Look at Matthew 28:19-20? If you have problems interpreting it, then just look at Acts 2:41-42 and see how the Apostles understood Jesus! Where did "doctrine" fit in connection with baptism in Acts 2:41-42??????

    Do you know of ANY group that claims to be an evangelical church that does not require some kind of baptism PRIOR to church membership? Where did they get that idea? From TRADITIONS or scripture? So much for you line of reasoning!



    Find me ANY evangelical church that does not DEMAND some kind of baptism BEFORE membership into their congregation or otherwise your "two things" are worthless! If you can find such a church, then, apply your own HISTORICAL criteria about "if it is new it is not true."

    False! What do you think the IMPERATIVE MODE is all about in Matthew 28:19??????


    False! The COMMAND to baptize in the Great Commission is the criteria that defines "them" in Matthew 28:20. The apostles understood that criteria in Acts 2:41 as baptism precedes church membership.

    The Grammatical structure in Acts 2:42 underlying "continued stedfastly" is the union of two verbs (imperfect and present tense) that forms the paraphrastic construction demanding Acts 2:41-42 is the CUSTOMARY PATTERN of apostolic Christianity. Luke lays down the pattern in Acts 2:41-42 at the beginning and from that point forward summarizes this pattern by the word "added" repeatedly used from this point forward to demand the same PATTERN was followed with every individual received into church membership.

    Find an example of ANY BELIEVER in the book of Acts that was not baptized upon confession of faith as in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:41????
     
    #34 Dr. Walter, Oct 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2011
  15. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Doctrine is explicitly taught in the book of Acts and you know it. Are you implying that Apostolic PRACTICE is contrary to Apostolic DOCTRINE? Are we not talking about the very didatic instruction given by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20 where he does in fact use the IMPERATIVE MODE that is observed by the Apostles in Acts as He commanded??? Is there anything more essential to SAVED people than obedience to the Great Commission COMMAND????

    Another argument based upon a complete false premise! Even in the case of the Ethipian Eunuch, it is self-evident that baptism follows immediately upon confession of faith in Christ and therefore MUST PRECEDE membership into any kind of congregation!!! It is not dependent upon "Covenant Theology" but upon obedience to the command of Christ. You cannot place church membership prior to baptism without disobeying Christ, His command, and the unanimous practice exemplified in the pages of the New Testament regardless of what kind of theology you espouse!




    Another argument based upon a false premise! You have only proven that baptism PRECEDES church membership - period! Jesus or the church at Jerusalem did not select anyone to be an apostle that was not previously baptized:

    21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
    22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.


    Those that Jesus first called out to publicly assemble with him - "companied with us all the time" were baptized by John FIRST.

    Another argument built upon a false premise! I said not such thing! What I said is that you cannot change THE ORDER between the gospel, baptism and assembling to be taught to observe all things in the Great Commission.

    To suggest, as you do, that I do not "divide" the gospel from baptism is completely false as I said no such thing. Hence, your whole rant about 1 Corinthians 1:17 is absurdly distorted.


    You have introduced the demise of your own position. Only sacramentalist elevate the ordinances to the gospel. Paul did not question the correctness of their baptism because it was administered properly and prior to any membership into the church at Corinth. So this is no help to your theory. What he corrected was the improper elevation of baptism over the gospel AND division among members in the same local visible congregation in regard to baptism due to indivdiual administrators.

    His solution to resolve this internal division was to first properly place baptism in its relationship with the gospel and then to properly place individual administrators in relationship to the local congregation and God the Holy Spirit.

    In regard to the gospel, it takes preeminence because the gospel is the power of salvation not baptism (1 Cor. 1:17-18). This power of salvation is foolishness to the lost but was made manifest in their individual calling (vv. 19-28) for the glory of God (vv. 29-31).

    In regard to individual ministers who brought the gospel, this power is not due to any individual ability but soley attributed to the power of God the Holy Spirit (ch. 2).

    In regard to individual administrator's of baptism and the local congregation, it is immature on their part (3:1-4) to divide the local congregation over the administrators or water baptism because all these individuals worked together under the leadership of the Holy Spirit as "one" in building the congregation at Corinth (ch. 3:5-9).

    They should take heed to what Paul says because he was the "master builder" God used to first lay the foundation for the church at Corinth (3:10) and anyone coming along afterwards that would attempt to build upon his foundation something contrary to his teachings would be held accountable on judgement day (3:11-15) because the local congregation was built at Corinth to be "a temple" of the holy Spirit and false doctrine that causes division "defiles" the temple of God (3:16).

    Hence, chapters 3 teaches that all human administrators of baptism in the process of building the local congregation at Corinth (or anywhere else) work together as "ONE" under the leadership of the Holy Spirit and therefore "by" or under the leadership of "one Spirit were they all" water baptized into "one body" whether they be Jew or Gentile, bond or free and metaphorically made to "drink" into the indwelling presence in that "temple" of God at Corinth (I Cor. 12:13). Hence, baptism precedes local church membership in God's building program of local congregations under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The administrators work together under the Leadership of "ONE SPIRIT" to gospelize, baptize and constitute New Testament congregations.



    Do you know of any evangelical congregation that does not demand some kind of baptism for membership? If you do, it must be "new" and if it is new it is not "true."

    It is no "sign" of membership into the local body, it is the "sign" of the gospel but it is the COMMAND for membership into the local body, as the church of Christ is not for UNBELIEVERS, but for those who identify with the gospel by confession and by baptism. Only The Bible proves this right. You cannot find a single case in the New Testament to support your theory nor can you find in history any sustained practice of receiving non-baptized people into membership of local assembles.
     
    #35 Dr. Walter, Oct 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2011
  16. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    EVERY single solitary sacramental Presbyterian church PERVERTS the gospel of Jesus Christ when they sprinkle/pour water on infants in a FAR MORE SERIOUS perversion of the gospel than ANY Baptist church! No baptist churches preach a infant gospel salvation! Do you deny that baptism is a gospel preachment in type or do you believe it conveys actual saving grace?

    The value of a type is found exclusively in properly presenting the truth it is designed to symbolize! If it is designed to symbolize the gospel then to pervert the type is to pervert the truth it is designed to symbolize!

    All Presbyterian congregations preach "another gospel" in their ordinace of baptism.

    Says who? Where in the New Testament do you find that every sermon recorded or epistles that reference Old Testament quotations were presented in exposition style? Look at both Christ's and the Apostles' use of Old Testament quotations and see if they EVER wrote or preached expositorily? I dare you to find ONE example! They took a verse here and there but NEVER did an exposition of the context verse by verse - NEVER!

    You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts.
     
  17. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had a response I wrote but after further thought, you so misrepresent my own words, I do not want to be further misrepresented in such a manner. Your word is the last. I would check your history,as well. Smyth called the anaBaptists heretics, and I agree.
     
  18. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    I never misrepresented your words. My history is fine. Smyth is no authority on either English Anabaptists or Continental Anabaptists. I never quoted Smyth, I quoted Bullinger. Of course you would call them "heretics" because they considered Presbyterians to be heretics.
     
  19. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    Right.....
     
  20. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,373
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is VBS an essential now? :laugh:
     
Loading...