Confessions of Faith

[thatbrian]

Any assertion that I think "my congregation" is either normative or regulative is laughable (feel free to look up my many posts on Baptist identity and variations of belief) but you seem to have set yourself up as the ultimate authority on Baptists, so I defer to your infinite wisdom.

Since the topic of this thread is confessions, please feel to point out a Baptist confession that does not hold to credobaptism.

My experience is finite but likely greater than most's. I've moved a lot and visited many congregations. When I say many, I mean approx 75 (conservative evangelical). Of that group, only one, which held to the 1689, even mentioned a confession.

I've also been to PCA churches where the Westminster is used unashamedly, but if I ever dared mentioned a confession to a Baptist I have come across (with few exceptions), The old, "man-made, no creed but Christ" song and dance was what I was greeted with.

The only folks who seemed open to the idea were Reformed and in my part of the country, Christians are and Reformed ones are nearly extinct, which is why I attend a PCA church. There are no Reformed Baptist communities near me.

Funny that they have no problem taking in a Baptist, but I get grief on this board. . .

 

[thatbrian]

Question for you. Do you agree with this statement (including scripture proofs) from the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith?

Chapter 29: Of Baptism

2._____ 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.
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )

It's not the doctrine I take issue with. My point was regarding that particular term. People use it as if it were a biblical quote. That's my objection.

 

[rsr]

That's almost funny. You've visited PCA churches that affirm the Westminster Confession, yet hardly one in a hundred actually believes in it.

 

[thatbrian]

That's almost funny. You've visited PCA churches that affirm the Westminster Confession, yet hardly one in a hundred actually believes in it.

I miss your point and the joke.

 

[Reformed]

It's not the doctrine I take issue with. My point was regarding that particular term. People use it as if it were a biblical quote. That's my objection.

The term is derived from the preponderance of the biblical evidence, much like the terms "Trinity" or "Hypostatic Union". Nowhere in the bible is God called transcendent, but we know that He is. So, whether we call it "believers baptism" or "professor-only baptism" the terms rightly describe the biblical view. I am not sure what you are objecting to.

 

[Reformed]

That's almost funny. You've visited PCA churches that affirm the Westminster Confession, yet hardly one in a hundred actually believes in it.

I am a staff member on a Reformed message board that is owned and governed by Presbyterians. I have learned a lot about our Presbyterian brethren and their different denominations. The PCA does have some faithful churches, but they are on the slippery slope of abandoning their founding principles. No denomination or individual church is immune from the attacks of theological liberalism. Semper Vigilans.

 

[Reformed]

It's not the doctrine I take issue with.

You may not take issue with it, but do you agree with it?

 

[thatbrian]

The term is derived from the preponderance of the biblical evidence, much like the terms "Trinity" or "Hypostatic Union". Nowhere in the bible is God called transcendent, but we know that He is. So, whether we call it "believers baptism" or "professor-only baptism" the terms rightly describe the biblical view. I am not sure what you are objecting to.

I like to refer to it like the Bible does: Baptism.

I might seem to be making a big deal about that, but modifying terms isn't a good idea, even if/when it agrees with my doctrinal position.

 

[Reformed]

I like to refer to it like the Bible does: Baptism.

That is, of course, your preference. Unfortunately, the Church has split over so many doctrines that drilling down on terms is almost a necessity. And it's not modifying terms. To modify is to change. Calling biblical baptism "believers baptism" is not modifying baptism. The only proper recipients of baptism are professed believers. That is my view.

 

[rsr]

Funny that they have no problem taking in a Baptist, but I get grief on this board. . .

Not funny at all. You don't hold to credobaptism, so why shouldn't they accept you?

I also would suggest that you get "grief" on this board because you want to cause it.

 

[Rebel1]

Baptists span a broader range than your congregation. Also, people don't label themselves Pelagian. Just listen to them and they will reveal that's their position. You don't need to spend more than 5 minutes on BB to that.

I understand that Baptists have and use confessions. What I said was that only a small minority use them today. You obviously don't have a broad range of experience in different Baptist churches as I do.

If I've missed the text that says, "believer's baptism", please help point me in the right direction.

You use the same unflattering tactics that your spiritual ancestors used -- hurling charges of Pelagianism to discredit those who disagree with you. Very unbecoming, and dishonest. Even Pelagius himself was not "Pelagian" in the sense that you and those like you use it.

 

[Reformed]

Not funny at all. You don't hold to credobaptism, so why shouldn't they accept you?

@thatbrian is this true? I am not accusing you of anything, but if the charge is true it is good to know to add context to any future discussions on Baptist issues. Do you believe that professed believers are the only proper recipients of baptism, i.e. credobaptism?

 

[thatbrian]

@thatbrian is this true? I am not accusing you of anything, but if the charge is true it is good to know to add context to any future discussions on Baptist issues. Do you believe that professed believers are the only proper recipients of baptism, i.e. credobaptism?

Untrue.

I hold a higher view of baptism than many, but at least one more here on BB refers to baptism as a means of grace, and I don't see any biblical evidence that its purpose is for the believer to make a "public profession".

Understand this, I live in a part of the country in which there are very, very few Reformed churches, so I've out of necessity, been in a few PCA churches, and have friends in the PCA. I'm truly glad that I have been forced into such a position because I have been enriched by my experience with these people. They are not the devils some here make them out to be.

Church polity and who gets baptized are not doctrines that I argue about or would die over. I have opinions on them, but they are not as strongly held as other views I have. The gospel is primary, and I would die on that hill. Many other things that divide Reformed brothers, I don't get worked up into a lather over.

 

[Reformed]

Untrue.

I hold a higher view of baptism than many Baptists, but at least one more here on BB refers to baptism as a "means of grace" like I do. I also don't see any biblical evidence that its purpose is for the believer to make a "public profession of faith".

Understand this, please, I live in a part of the country in which there are very, few Christians and far less Reformed churches, so I've, out of necessity, been in a few PCA churches, and have friends in the PCA. I'm truly glad that I have been forced into such a position because I have been enriched by my experience with these people. They are not the devils some here make them out to be.

As a Reformed believer, I have far, far more in common with conservative Presbyterians than I do with the majority of the rest of evangelical Christians, as I'm sure most Reformed Baptists would see.

So then, you believe the only proper recipients of baptism are those who profess faith in Jesus Christ, correct? I am just looking for a straight answer.

 

[thatbrian]

So then, you believe the only proper recipients of baptism are those who profess faith in Jesus Christ, correct? I am just looking for a straight answer.

I thought I gave a straight answer.

I do; however, I do not condemn those who think otherwise. I see this issue as unnecessarily dividing the body of Christ, frankly.

 

[Jerome]

I am just looking for a straight answer.

been in a few PCA churches, and have friends in the PCA.

I'll say. From a month ago:

I am a member of a PCA church

"Thatbrian" explains more regarding the PCA and his view regarding infant baptism here:

You don't have to be on board with infant baptism to attend or even become a member. I wasn't, but I came around after some time.

 

[Jerome]

And here:

To many, myself included, you are not Reformed unless you are a Presbyterian, paedo-baptism

I'm Reformed

 

[Reformed]

I thought I gave a straight answer.

I do; however, I do not condemn those who think otherwise. I see this issue as unessentiality dividing the body of Christ, frankly.

You never actually said "I do" until your last post. Forgive me, but my antenna is always up. I parse words to make sure I understand what someone is saying when it comes to important doctrinal issues.

I do not condemn paedobaptists, although I think they are wrong - seriously wrong.

 

[Rhetorician]

Actually, we Baptists have dozens, if not hundreds, of creeds, confessions, and catechisms.

Dear Brother,

I am not aware if you know it or not, but there are definitive differences between "creeds, confessions, and catechisms." Don't you know?

rd

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Dear Brother,

I am not aware if you know it or not, but there are definitive differences between "creeds, confessions, and catechisms." Don't you know?

Of course I know. Nobody said they're the same.