If so then you are correct there is nothing in baptist theology that states we are to baptize unbelievers (adult)
Since, this happens in both Presby and Baptist churches how do Baptists "scripturally" excuse their mis-baptism of certain individuals? Presby by are covered under the covenant established in the O.T./N/T., how are Baptists covered? Under what N.T/O.T. structure or scripture do you baptize those who are not saved?
The discipline issue is the same--or at least somewhat the same in each church--I have no contentions there. This is not the issue at hand....
Since, this happens in both Presby and Baptist churches how do Baptists "scripturally" excuse their mis-baptism of certain individuals? Presby by are covered under the covenant established in the O.T./N/T
Are you saying that an [color:"FF0000"]adult[/color] (an unregenerate person) who falsely professes Christ and asks to be baptized by the elders of the Presbyterian church is covered by the covenant established by the OT/NT? I can understand if an unregenerate [color:"FF0000"]adult[/color] who was baptized as an [color:"00FF00"]infant[/color] can be part of the visible church because of the OIKOS baptisms but doesn't the Presbyterian church as the Baptist Church strive to ensure that [color:"FF0000"]adults[/color] who ask to be baptized pass scrutiny? And if they do not are refused? I can concede your point regarding [color:"00FF00"]infants[/color] who are baptized but are unregenerate and remain so until [color:"FF0000"]adult[/color]. But how can you say that unregenerate [color:"FF0000"]adults[/color] who petition for baptism are likewise covered? Are we not both in the same condition? Both Baptist and Presbyterian Churches requiring that [color:"FF0000"]adults[/color] be true to what they profess when they are baptized?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Yes, we are in the same condition, but one is more scriptural and has more continuity with the O.T. We are both left with unbelievers in the visible church to be sure (unless rooted out), but not in the same way.
The credo has NO Scripture backing them to baptize an unbeliever-mistake or otherwise. Without a covenantal structure they have nothing. They normally do not concede a visible/invisible church distinction because it conflicts with their interpretation with Jer 31. Thus, they are left with the same "problem" as a paedo, but have no Scripture or structure warranting what they have done to get there.
The paedo has Scripture (that of the covenant) which takes care of such "problems," as they view a visible/invisible church distinction, a better and more feasible accounting of Jer 31 (here), etc.
A profession helps to avoid this problem, yet, you have no scripture for your premise.......that only those who are truly regenerate should be baptized. This is something we have discussed repeatedly, yet here we return to this error. Since we cannot know who is truly elect, regenerate, etc., we baptize by profession.
Thanks for the additional information. I don't have access to the Jewish texts you mentioned, but I'll try to look more into the synoptic parallels as you suggested.
Sorry I haven't been around for this folks. I've done some reading to catch up!
I notice Averagefellar repeatedly asks for a scriptural basis for baptising believers only. It might be slightly unfair since it isn't my own work (mind you, nothing is,...I hope!)but let me attach a paper by Greg Welty that sets out the Reformed Baptist stall from Jeremiah 31 (hence it is at least relevant) Jeremiah 31:31-34, Jeremiah 32:37-41, John 1:11-13, and Romans 9:2-4/8:15-17. Welty puts forward the case that the New Covenant, unlike the Old, is unbreakable and that it is only made with those who have experienced spiritual rebirth ie believers.
Apologies for the "cut and paste" tactics, but if any haven't seen this paper before it is a very useful account for reference on where "the better sort" of Baptists are coming from.
My reason for that last comment being that "baptist is a poor denominator since many claim to be baptists who are anything but Reformed or Biblical in their theology and ecclesiology.
