The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question for my credo friends

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Sigh, of course we can know the truth for certain. I'm merely saying credo's say they know the truth for certain, and paedo's as well. Both use the Bible. Neither believe in "relativism". Both (if honest) believe the other is in serious error.</font><hr></blockquote><p> But, can we not put down our shields of presupposition by prayer and ask that God through His Word and Spirit work in our hearts.... Are we to remain unteachable because of our presuppositions? I suggest as long as we look at the Word of God through eisogesis and not exegesis and presupposition instead of proclamation we will never learn the truth.

Joe,<br>Agreed. But what I am saying is that paedos have as many presuppositions as credos. Reformed folks have as many presuppositions as dispensationalists. Evolutionists have presuppositions, so do creationists. We all have them. Some presuppositions are right, some are wrong. <br><br>Steve

Agreed. But, we must learn to put presuppositions aside and by God's grace we can and will. Presuppositions hurt the church and us as well.<br><br>When I decided to take up a study of Baptism for myself personally (as with Calvinism and eschatology, et. al.) I attempted as much as possible to have a clean slate. I re-looked at definitions of terms, not assuming I already knew them and re-examined each Scripture again as if it were the first time I had laid my eyes upon them....... I even studied baptismal regeneration and attempted to find truth there as well (I didn't, of course). I had surrendered, by God grace, to becoming teachable.<br><br> I gave EACH position a "fair as possible" opportunity to convince me of the truth. I thought I would still end up a baptist/credo (after all I had been one since 1978), but upon completion of my studies I ended up Presbyterian/paedo (last year). I must admit this struggle from Credo to Paedo was more difficult for me than my Arminianism to Calvinism steps. The process took over a year........., but if God would have not made me teachable once again, I would have never seen the truths of baptism and .... So it comes down to whether or not we are teachable or not? Thus I see Jason's alternatives as very illuminating:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]I was trying to determine upon what grounds you would make this statement and I could only come up with the following:<br><br><ul>1. The Scriptures are unclear on the issue.<br>2. You are unwilling to change your position even if it is shown to be inconsistent.<br>3. Joe is unwilling to change his position even if it is shown to be inconsistent.</blockquote></font color=blue>[/LIST] Oh, and #3 is out, for if shown that I am inconsistent I will be a credo again!

I'm not denying the great importance of the OT. The OT points to Christ, and Christ's subsitutionary death on the cross cannot be understood without understanding the OT. But the New Covenant is not a "heredity" covenant." You can't be physically born into the Kingdom of God. It is a spiritual rebirth, and that is all by God's grace.<br><br>Am I correct in understanding that those who practice infant baptism believe that these infants enter the Church? And how do you deal with the command to repent and be baptized? Also, and this will probably open up another discussion, but immersion is the best mode if you are going to talk about being buried in Christ and raised to new life in Christ.

The old Romans 6 argument. you must show that this passage is actually teaching a mode instead of a spiritual understanding.<br><br>You have created a problem you also cannot overcome. Are ALL who make professions saved, or does your church have some in it that won't go to heaven?<br><br>For the record, I don't believe in "believers baptism" as the baptists claim it should be. We cannot prove every professor to be a true believer. I believe baptists uphold "professors baptism", baptising all those who make an open profession.<br><br>II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.[4]<br><br>And the London Confession upholds this as well.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

Jimbo,<br><br>The consensus is that 85% of the N.T. consists of either direct quote or allusions to the O.T. To be sure, without the O.T., the N.T. would be incomprehensible. In fact, the fundamentals of the faith are grounded in the O.T. no less than the N.T. and are the surety that what the N.T. says is true. Our Lord Christ made frequent references to the O.T., even for the purpose of showing His identity as the Messiah. Augustine has probably said it best when he said, "The N.T. in the Old is contained. The O.T. in the New is explained" (paraphrased [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] ).<br><br>Once again we are confronted not with a debate about WHO should be baptized, but rather the issue is [color:blue]HERMENEUTICS</font color=blue> and specifically continuity vs. discontinuity. Does "new covenant" mean TOTALLY new, i.e., completely discontinuitous with the "old covenant"? If it does then, IMHO, there is hardly enough information in the N.T. for anyone to establish a doctrine for it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img] Well, I could go on and on with various caveats which Baptists really are unable to give reasonable answers for. But of late, I simply don't have the mind to spend more time arguing over these types of things. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

No credo I have ever met thinks that all who are baptized are actually saved. They believe that a profession of faith must precede baptism, with the understanding that not all professions are true. However, they believe that baptism following confession of faith is the scriptural mandate.<br><br>Steve

Mandate or example?<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]You can't be physically born into the Kingdom of God.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Amen! And who says you can? Certainly not one person from Adam to the last man alive when Christ returns is born into the Kingdom of God. Abraham wasn't born into the Kingdom. Neither were any of his physical children born into the Kingdom. Neither were any that were circumcised born into the Kingdom. So, I'm rather confused why you have decided to bring this into the debate?<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Am I correct in understanding that those who practice infant baptism believe that these infants enter the Church?</font><hr></blockquote><p>There will be some here and/or elsewhere (paedobaptists) who have argued the verity of this statement. But this paedobaptist adamantly denies any such notion <font class="big">IF</font mu=big> by "church" you mean the true church, i.e., the invisible church which consists of the elect. However, infants of believers are certainly to be seen as part of the visible church community, although they should not be presumed to share in all the blessings which accompany those who are of elect believers. Again, some here and others have argued to the contrary, which I unwaveringly hold is an extreme and unbiblical view. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

I may just be a geeky, 19 year old going in to his second year of college, but I seem to see something lacking in this discussion. Where are all the Scripture references? I see some, but not many. I am credo, I'll attest to that, but all I see is debate over who is right or wrong. Why not discuss Scripture and what God has given us in His perfect, infallible Word? <br><br>I throw out a verse now on the issue. And this is from a totally neutral position. <br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]I baptize you with water to show that you have repented, but the One who will come after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. He is much greater than I am; and I am not good enough even to carry His sandals. He has His winnowing shovel with Him to thresh out all the grain. He will gather His wheat into his barn, but He will burn the chaff in a fire that never goes out."</font color=blue> (Matthew 3:11-12 Good News Bible)</blockquote><br>Now, if one of the reasons Christ came was to "baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire", how does an infant go to heaven who has not been baptized with either, since we are all born sinners? This is an issue that has bugged me from the start about believers baptism. It seems age of accountability is just a cover-up so that those groups who don't want to be "Catholic" so to speak can omit a practice that they just don't like. I do not believe that ALL infants go to hell. I think that since only very few infants die that they are of that remnant talked of in Isaiah who will be saved, hence why not a lot die in infancy. But the age of accountability arguement against infant baptism seems like a way to dodge this subject. But back to my question here. What assurance does an infant who is " spiritually dead because of...disobedience and sins" (Ephesians 2:1 Good News Bible) have if you hold to a credo position completely? (apart from age of accountability) Any thoughts from either perspective would be nice [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/dizzy.gif" alt="dizzy" title="dizzy[/img]

Well, neither a credo nor a good paedo would say that baptism saves...thus, both have the same issue with respect to infants dying, and thus going to heaven. As godly parents, we ought not to doubt that children dying in infancy are regenerated, but we have no assurance. Neither a baptised infant nor an unbaptised has any assurance. So I can't see here where being a paedo or a credo is advantageous on this point.<br><br>One other point...I believe the number of infants dying increases about 1.5 million per year when you add in abortions. <br><br>Steve

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]For instance, their following Moses into the sea, which is meant by their being "baptized into him", was an acknowledgment of their regard unto him, as their guide and governor, as baptism is a following of Christ</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The problem is that there were infants that crossed as well. So if John Gill was consistant he would have to say that infants should be baptized today. Did those infants recognize Moses as their guide and leader? Did most of the adults even do so?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As for 1 Peter 3:18-22, I don't see how that plays into the argument at all?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I didn't cite this text as a proof text of paedo baptism. But the fact that eight in all were indeed baptized due to the righteousness of Noah alone does seem to present a problem for credos who say that profession of faith must precede baptism.<br><br>

Well then can i ask who this consensus is that comes up with 85%? I certainly see a lot of it, but despite being a math teacher never came up with a number.

Thanks. That just popped in there.

Well, if they followed him, they outwardly showed that he was their leader. Just like one making a profession of faith outwardly declared Christ Jesus to be his/her Lord and Savior.<br><br>And whether or not the infants consciously "followed", the fact is they followed. Scriptural comparisons are never perfect. Paedo's like to say baptism replaces circumcision; of course, the comparison is not perfect. Only males were circumcised. If baptism was the replacement for circumcision, then only males would be baptised. Also, the Bible nowhere teaches that circumcision becomes baptism. <br><br>If 1 Peter 3:18-22 means that they were baptized to Noah for HIS righteousness, then our unbelieving spouses and relatives too should be baptized because of our righteousness. <br><br>Steve