Joe, OK Joe, no need to get so emotional! We are not "the enemy" because we are Baptists! Lets get back to the original subject of this thread. Baptists and paedos have agreed on the subject of adult believers' baptisms, that they should be done only after a believable profession of faith. You, as a paedo must also make some sort of judgement regarding a person's salvation to baptize an adult or else to admit someone to the table as a communicant member. I am sure that you and Steve would use the same standards to determine, as much as possible, if this person has saving faith. But back to the question, would your church baptize a woman who is an unbeliever along with her husband who is a believer? Would you find this objectionable?
Richard, Since the term paedobaptist refers to a person who baptizes infants, don't you think it would be more fitting to refer to yourself as an oikosbaptist?
Susan said: Joe, OK Joe, no need to get so emotional! We are not "the enemy" because we are Baptists! Lets get back to the original subject of this thread. Baptists and paedos have agreed on the subject of adult believers' baptisms, that they should be done only after a believable profession of faith. You, as a paedo must also make some sort of judgement regarding a person's salvation to baptize an adult or else to admit someone to the table as a communicant member. I am sure that you and Steve would use the same standards to determine as much as possible if this person has saving faith. But back to the question, would your church baptize a woman who is an unbeliever along with her husband who is believer? Would you find this objectionable?
Yes, Susan I agree for ADULTS that is correct, but that was NOT the original reason for this "part" of the thread which is Tom's post on baptism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> This is what my remarks are being addressed toward "infants"--we baptize in obedience to the covenant....
But, if anyone baptizes an adult because of, "Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly (Acts 10:47)," his hermeneutic is faulty--as there is NO WAY the baptizer can confirm that something has happened inwardly to another...This common hermeneutic of baptism will never stand the test of Scripture.
As far as this question (though not the subject matter in this part of the thread) "Would your church baptize a woman who is an unbeliever along with her husband who is a believer? NO, I would not (that is not even an issue for me...)!
Don't give up. None of us will never get it all. The switching of terms is very confusing. Wait till you begin studying Historical Criticism--then it really gets fun....
Joe said: Well I was explaining DT in the short version as well. DT has so many versions that it is impossible to gather them and be explicit about each without a book....I actually had in mind Scofield...
Additionally, it is not the case of "either or", but "both and". IMHO the signers of the LBCF had both CT and DT in mind when they signed.........this is where the confusion comes in....
See now this is where you lose me when you say things such as that. Dispensational Theology earliest history is in 1827 from formation of the Plymouth Brethren until now. How can the creators of the London Baptist Confession be dispensationalists when the system of theology didn't exist until 127 years later?
Every covenant theologian agrees that during the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace there was continuity and discontinuity between the administrations. So from Adam to Abraham the administration was different than from Abraham to Moses, or Moses to Christ. What I see and I think others who follow baptist covenant theology is that the administration during the New Covenant has a different discontinuity then what paedobaptist covenant theologians perceive. I don't think this is dispensationalism I believe this is covenant theology from a baptist perspective. And yes it is a different hermeneutic but its hermeneutic has nothing to do with dispensationalism. If anything I would say that dispensationalism took from us (and other covenant theologians) not the other way around.
Yes there is continuity and discontinuity. And yes I agree that is what Baptists see it differently then CT. In general we see greater discontinuity is in the Mosaic covenant and greater continuity in the Abrahamic. A dispensational hermeneutic sees the opposite as explained already in the other posts...
Well Joe, That's your opininion, but it certainly isn't mine <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' [whether he's baptized or not] Seems simple enough to me.
You are equating circumcision with water baptism, something which neither I nor the Scriptures ever do. In doing so you are putting the new wine into old bottles. However, it is worth noticing that the apostate Israelites are called uncircumcised of heart (eg. Jer 9:26; Acts 7:51). Something had happened externally to these Jews which was not reflected internally, and it made their circumcision of none effect in the eyes of God.
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
You quoted the following, I presume to support the postion taken in your other posts:
Quote
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
But to me the text is clear that:
1. It is a circumcision "made without hands", thus, not one of mans' doing, it is "the circumcision of Christ", thus, it is not water baptism, by either mode.
2. This "circumcision without hands" seems to be equated in the text with "buried with Him in Baptism", an "operation of God", thus, it seems to me what is in view is the baptism of the Spirit, which is the sign and seal of the true and everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure, made in eternity past, between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and from which all subservient covenants proceed.
I have been doing a little research on this subject and what I have found leads me to believe that you are misunderstanding Reformed Baptist CT. To be sure what you said is correct about Dispensationalism. But it is not true of Baptist CT, in Baptist Covenant Theology Abraham’s promise that the Messiah would come from his blood line is perfectly continuous with the arrival of the Messiah and the fulfillment of the New Covenant. John Owen speaks of the point that the Abrahamic =Promise of the New Covenant. So says John Owen commenting on Hebrews 8.6, See the following link under John Owen on the Covenants. http://members.lycos.co.uk/reformedbaptist/homepage.htm John Owen of course is a paedobaptist, but he appears to agree with Baptist CT.
You fail to understand my argument in full. I am not saying Baptists do not have idea ofCT w/Abraham or anyone else (I apologize for not making this clearer), but that when it comes to certain doctrines they drift the way of a dispensational hermeneutic. As I said in another post it is not an either or situation, but a both and.
As far as the aging of a dispensational hermeneutic I know it is as old as MARCION (85 CE, yes the heretic), et. al.
I guess I fail to see how Baptist CT drifts over to Dispensationalism when it comes to baptism and eschatology. The only real big difference I see, is the conclusions i.e. credo & paedo, that Baptist and non-Baptists CT come to.
You said: "As far as the aging of a dispensational hermeneutic I know it is as old as MARCION (85 CE, yes the heretic), et. al"
That is interesting, because every commentary and theologian that I have read against Dispensationalism, reads between 1827-1833. I suppose it could be that Dispensationalists reject Marcion, because of his heretical views.
Tom remarks: That is interesting, because every commentary and theologian that I have read against Dispensationalism, reads between 1827-1833.
Tom, my boy... AGAIN, this statement has to do with ESCHATOLOGY and not with a "dispensational" hermeneutic, i.e., a more rigid bifurcation of the covenantal structure, a more literalist-type of reading of the biblical language, which results in more DIScontinuity than CT. You gotta keep this stuff separated. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />
Hi Tom, This slur of dispensationalism against Reformed Baptists is just a cheap shot and has no basis in reality.
If anyone calls you a dispensationalist, do one of two things:- 1. Forgive him <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> He doesn't know any better. 2. Call him a hyper-covenantalist and see how he likes it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)