Jeff,
The thread began with an issue of case law but has focussed on one aspect of its application, viz. the examiners' presumption of the presence or absence of saving faith in the baptismal candidate. While not explicitly stated, my response to Joe began in reference to that aspect; I maintain, as he apparently does, that the presumption of the presence of saving faith is biblically properly held until such time as either:
1) the examiner determines that the candidate's confession is not genuine and removes him from consideration, or
2) the candidate realizes that his confession is not genuine and removes himself from consideration, or
3) the candidate hypocritally defends his non-genuine confession on terms sufficient to persuade the examiner, and is admitted to baptism.
If you read what I stated:
Those who find during this phase that their confession differs from the true faith are then answerable to the Lord if they hypocritcally proceed with baptism, and some remove themselves with that understanding, while some undoubtedly slip in falsely.
there is not a single reference to any action of the examiner; I was referring solely to possibilities #2 and #3 above (#1 seemed so obvious as to need no inclusion). But in your request for clarification
The way it appears to read is that if someone during the course of the "sessions on the gospel essentials" is found to be a variance with those essentials, they are still permitted to be baptized and the onus is upon the individual for submitting to it.
you are referring to the decision of the examiner, my #1 in the above list, and not the candidate's own self-examination which I was referring to, thus conflating the issue.
Is that a correct understanding of how things are done in your church?
Saddened that this question apparently needs to be asked by one holding to the principle of presumption of unbelief apart from established credibility: no.
