Pilgrim,
First of all, thank you for stepping in, and thank you for trying to play the peacemaker. O.K. here I go. Wish me luck!
I think what William is addressing is that which so many Baptists use to argue against paedobaptism, i.e., that since infants cannot believe, then they are not valid recipients of baptism because in the New Covenant, the command is "believe and be baptized".
I see this more as a fundamentalist-Baptist argument and not one that comes forth from Reformed Baptists, though I’m sure they do claim it on occasion. Reformed Baptists typically appreciate that if they press the Great Commission too far they’d end up with baptism being necessary for salvation. In any case, there’s no big deal on this one.
I think that Reformed Baptists appreciate that the “mission field” is in view and, therefore, concede the point that the Great Commission is not a great argument for credo-baptism. Their case is made more from Jeremiah 31 and their belief that the Old Covenant was made with the reprobate and elect as opposed to the New, which is made with only the elect. Again, no major point is being made here either.
They then annex this argument by then stating that the "new" covenant consists of ONLY the elect and, as the argument goes, since only those who are elect can believe, then they are those baptized. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" /> But, they will be quick to deny, as you are of course aware, that not all who are baptized are elect. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />
I agree that they think that the New is made with the elect, and we would heartily agree. As I see it, the main reason that they argue for a change of administration is that they believe that the Old was established with both the elect and the non-elect. Therefore, a change in administration would follow from the
alleged change with respect to those with whom the covenant is established.
It is especially so for those who have retained the "old" term of "
believer's baptism[/i], which is a misnomer and embarrassingly contradictory to their confession that not all who are baptized are true believers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />
“Believers baptism” simply means that
Baptism is for Believers only. Please hear me out. I so wish to be understood here because I think we can be way too unfair to our Baptist brothers, whom the Lord purchased with his own blood.
The table is only for believers. This we agree upon. We wouldn’t say that the table is only for
professing believers. Actually, that would be misleading for such a term might suggest that the table is open to those who profess Christ apart from having saving faith. We say, therefore, that the table is only for believers.
It’s a “believers table”, though unbelievers partake of it all the time. It is not a misnomer, therefore, to call the Lord's Table a "believers table", since it is our desire that only believers come and eat. Well, given the Baptist position that only believers are to be baptized, the same reasoning would follow. I don't think that the term “believer’s baptism” is a misnomer
given baptist theology. Yes, the theology behind the practice is wrong. I can’t stress that enough I suppose; but
given the theology and what Baptists wish to convey, the term is most appropriate I believe. If only believers are to be baptized, then the term “believers baptism” is appropriate even though unbelievers will be baptized. In the like manner, the Lord’s Table is a “believers table” and should not be called a credo-table, even though many unbelievers will come and eat, yet without clean garments.
If I were to throw a party for my middle daughter’s Sunday school class, the party would be a “five year olds' Sunday school class party.” If I am fearful that a seven year old might crash the party incognito, would it be better for me to call the party “a professing / credo five year olds' Sunday school party”, as opposed to “a five year olds' Sunday school party"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Again, I’m not defending the Baptist position; I am suggesting that given their theology, the term "believers baptism" is appropriate. Their term is not in need of correction per se, their theology is. Once they get their theology right, the term will fall by the wasteside. Their term, given their incorrect theology, is spot on I think.
Finally, that the Baptist cannot ensure a pure church is not an argument against their theology that only believers are to be baptized. It just doesn’t follow, as I’ve labored with William.
I almost didn’t write this because as you know, it can be painful when people simply ignore what you write and respond in an unfair manner. If you think I’m wrong, please take the care to respond kindly and carefully to what I am trying to say. In fact, maybe paraphrase my position as you interact with it so that I know we are communicating over what I mean to say.
Blessings in Christ,
Ron
