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

I am going to answer all three of your questions in order. Most of this will be repetitious, but until it is understood, may be worth repeating.


It isn't! I covered this earlier when I said that it is an argument against two things that some, but not all, baptists uphold. 1) Believers baptism. The London confession agrees with me in that . 2) Baptism only for the elect, or those in the covenant of grace. Impossible to properly know who these are so we baptize all within the visible covenant.

Now, for the sake of making sure it is said again for clarity, we agree that adults should make a profession. We disagree as to the administration of baptism for children and their place within the covenant people(visible covenant).



No. Different circumstance. However, could you show this link from scripture? As with the sentence below you keep equivocating baptism with the Lords supper. I have repeatedly asked you, and others, to show from scripture that they are the same and that the requirements for administration are the same. Baptism has rightly been administered to professors and their OIKOS, whereas we have specific instructions concerning the table that are a bit different.


Answered above. I am opposed to paedo-communion.


God bless,

william

Brother William,

.

The London Confession does not exclude the notion that hypocrites are often baptized. In other words, it does not affirm what you continue to suggest that some Baptists teach. The Confession merely defines the proper subjects of baptism from a baptistic perspective. No more, no less.

Ron

I never claimed it did. I quoted it in support of my assertion.


Precisely. Some baptists do teach such.

Precisely. The LBC agrees with me.


God bless,

william

In what way does the London Confession agree with you?

Ron

That professors are baptized.


God bless,

william

Is this REALLY that hard to grasp? William has consistently addressed and contended that some (most?) Baptists argue that only BELIEVERS are legitimate subjects for baptism. The LBCF states that only PROFESSORS are legitimate subjects. The matter revolves around the popularly held view among some (many?) Baptists that in the New Covenant, only true Believers, aka: the elect, are members; baptism being the initiatory rite for them and them alone. The fact that the realization of a "pure church" is an impossibility on earth and that these same Baptists will admit that it cannot be achieved but that they nonetheless must strive toward that goal doesn't nullify their view's inherent contradiction.

Unless "I" have totally missed William's point, all he's saying is that it would behoove those who insist that only BELIEVER'S are to be baptized should adopt the LBCF's wording, i.e., PROFESSORS should be baptized, as this at least allows for the possibility and reality that non-believers are in fact baptized and accepted as members of the Church.

Personally, I think that this ongoing bickering over this matter should come to a rest.

In His Grace,

Thank you. Agreed.


God bless,

william

William

Just so you know, I understood you and agreed that professors are the one's that the LBCF tells us to baptize.
I have found however, that when Baptists use the term "believers baptism". If you ask them to explain they will tell you that anyone who professes should be baptized. In other words they believe that as far as they can tell the professor actually is a true believer, and therefore should be baptized.
Of course there are Baptists that don’t understand this, but you can say the same thing about many paedobaptists on some aspects of paedobaptism.

However I will say this, I don't think anything I said above is anything you already didn't know. So what is your point in continually bringing the matter up?

Tom

Pilgrim,

Let me try to distill this as best I can.

1) When Baptists say that only genuine believers are legitimate subjects for baptism, they simply mean that if one is baptized who is not a genuine believer, he, the one being baptized, submits to baptism illegitimately, i.e. unlawfully and hypocritically.

2) When Baptists, (consistent with their Confession), say that only professing believers are legitimate subjects for baptism, they simply mean that the church in good conscience are to Baptize those who profess salvation in Christ alone.

Now let's put these two distinct points together.

Baptists believe that it is legitimate for the church to baptize professing believers but it is illegitimate for unbelievers to submit themselves to baptism. In this context, many or most Baptists might say that baptism is for genuine believers only, which is their way of saying that unbelievers should not submit to baptism; for baptism they say is for believers – which is why they call it “believer’s baptism" (in the same way we might call the table a "believer's table"). To say that some or most Baptists have an inconsistency on their hands is to lift their statements and terminology out of context. I have never heard or read any Baptist argue that it is only legitimate for the church to baptize genuine believers. They merely say that it is only legitimate for true believers to submit themselves to baptism. If anyone wishes to charge "most" or "many" Baptists with inconsistency, then I think he should document such claims against our Baptist brethren.

In his grace,

Ron

My point, which is made to Pilgrim, is that the London Confession is focusing on what is legitimate with respect to the church's responsibility to baptize subjects. This emphasis does not negate the fact that in Baptist theology only true believers are the legitimate subjects for baptism before God. That's my only point my brother.

Blessings,

Ron

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,

Pilgrim,

Most importantly, I appreciate your spirit in this exchange. Thank you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hugs.gif" alt="" />

All I can say at this point is that the Baptists that I know are more clever than the ones you have known. Fair enough? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,

Ron

To refute it each time it is put forth that only the New Covenant (covenant of grace) members are to be baptised. While this might be an ideal, although, and again, unscriptural, it is not a possibility.


God bless,

william

Yes, Tom it is a generalized statement-the word "almost" was even used. As an evangelist in Baptist Churches (some holding to the LBCF) for 20 years I preached in a few churches and this was my general experience. Yet inconsistently these churches hold to a wrong interpretation of Jer 31--which was the point and context of the post.

In the context of Jer 31:34 , “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD," Ddaann said, "–but we will no longer teach believers as if they are unbelievers," and thus his statement is in error. The fact is Baptist Churches, as well as others, teach believers about Knowing the LORD (salvation)--this is inconsistent if we hold to Ddann's assertion(s). In reality Jer 31 has not yet been fulfilled and though Baptist's claim it has, they teach their congregations as if it hasn't by many of their ongoing actions.

My wife made it fine thru surgery--a few complications, but generally ok. Many thanks for your prayers.

In my post above you will see that I said, "Baptists and Presbyterians BOTH baptize individuals which are not saved." Presbys do it based upon a covenant relationship. On what basis do Baptist's do it? What Scriptural support do you have for baptizing an unbeliever?

The remainder of your post was answered here.