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!
why Don't Reformed/Covenant baptists Do Infant Water Baptism?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Oct 20, 2011.
Page 2 of 3
-
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!
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? -
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. -
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. -
Originally Posted by Martin Marprelate
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 -
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? -
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? -
Since when is TRADITION final authority for doctrine and practice?
Since when should TRADITION be used to overrule the Scriptural precepts and examples?
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? -
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! -
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? -
HAHAHA!
I am SBC, btw. -
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? -
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. -
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!
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!
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.
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?
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?
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!
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???? -
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts. -
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.
-
-
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 2 of 3