Pilgrim

For the most part I agree with what you said in your post. I do not believe that a Paedo-Baptist should be a pastor of a Credo-Baptist Church. But I don’t think a Paedo-Baptist should necessarily be refused membership unless they are baptized by immersion.

But I do have something that I disagree with you on.

Quote
Thus, to deny someone membership in Christ's church who has given a credible profession of faith, whose life gives testimony to the verity of that profession and who is willing or has submitted to water baptism over MODE is to deny that profession of having been united to the Head of the Church by grace through faith. In short, most Baptists have inextricably joined "immersion" to "salvation" and thus without immersion, you are not recognized as a child of the Lord Christ, for you are not allowed membership in His body and thus the other means of grace, e.g., the Lord's Supper, to which the Lord Christ Himself invites you, no commands you, to come.

I know of no knowledgeable Baptist that believes that someone who has not been baptized by immersion as not being a child of God.
Although I take issue with many of my own brothers and sisters in the Baptist Church over the issue of not allowing paedobaptists to become members of the local body.
That is not the reason why they don't allow membership.

The issue of baptism and membership is more "local" than "universal" when it comes to most Baptists. They do NOT believe that someone who has not been baptized by immersion is not a child of God. One thing I hear constantly is baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. In other words, when someone is saved, they should show by an outward profession “baptism” that they are saved.
If it was true that Baptists didn't recognize paedobaptists as children of God, then they why would they allow paedobaptist theologians such a RC Sproul to preach in their Churches?

I am not willing to get involved in a big discussion on this issue, but I thought it needed to be said.

Tom