The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING

Ron,

Perhaps here is part of the problem.... i.e., you "never heard or read any Baptist argue . . .". This is not my experience. In fact, as I have stated elsewhere, those who insist on using the phrase, "Believer's baptism" would reject your claim that they actually mean, "Professor's baptism". To show this to be true, for example, they then go on to argue against baptizing infants from this very premise, i.e., since infants cannot believe (according to their view), they are not legitimate candidates for baptism. Further, and the most relevant point to this matter is their definition of baptism, e.g., baptism IS, "an outward sign of an inward reality. Thus, as they argue, baptism displays outwardly what is resident in the heart of the one baptized. IF this is true, then what is also true of necessity, is that ALL who are baptized possess saving faith, are saved and thus are to be numbered with the elect. The fallacy of this argument should be perspicuous enough on its face. But whether you want to accept the fact that this IS how many Baptists argue for their position, it does exist and it is voiced. That it does exist is why I wrote a major paper on this matter when I was at WTS. Further, this line of argument was the same which was used by John Riesinger when I engaged him in a public debate on the subject of baptism.

Personally, I have no interest in dragging out this matter further. You may feel it is worth further discussion and you, of course, may do so, but I won't be responding again. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,