Open Baptists & Paedobaptism

[Yeshua1]

You are starting from a false premis. The infants which the paedobaptists believe have been baptised, have not been baptised. Therefore there is no "re-baptising" of anyone.

Therefore the question really is "Should someone who hasn't been baptised be allowed to join membership of a Baptist church?"

The answer would be can be saved, but not able to be a member of that local assembly!
Have you read any 1689 Federalism theology works?

 

[Mikey]

The answer would be can be saved, but not able to be a member of that local assembly!
Have you read any 1689 Federalism theology works?

Yes. Did i write anything contrary to 1689 fed?

Take a look at Reformed Baptist Seminary, you can audit courses for free.

 

[Mikey]

If water baptism is symbolic anyway, isn't baptism of the Holy Spirit what ultimately matters? I am not saying that Baptist churches should practice infant baptism. This is a question related to the acceptance of adult members who've already been baptized as infants.

Symbols matter. God gave the symbol for a reason, to be used in a particular way and by certain people. So, yes it is important.

 

[AustinC]

No as the prior one was not a valid Baptism!

Does God ever say this? Did the early church ever say this?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Does God ever say this? Did the early church ever say this?

I refer you to my post on proper immersion above.

 

[Iconoclast]

Is anyone else concerned about this trend?

Padeo baptist support their position because of such folly.

 

[AustinC]

I refer you to my post on proper immersion above.

Again, does the Bible give a rule on "proper" immersion? In my reading, I don't see a hard and fast rule. I see that there is an argument for a regulative view and a normative view. I simply err on the side of extending grace.

 

[robycop3]

it is nonsense. Scripture isn't saying that once you repent and believe go and have a bath. No baptism is much more than that, as i'm sure you agree. There is a specific purpose to be Baptised.

And that purpose is a public proclamation of one's salvation & committment to Jesus.

 

[robycop3]

what about the thief on the cross, who was never water baptized? Jesus promised him eternal life!

It was impossible for him to be baptized, but not for me, eventually. It would be folly & DARING GOD if one were to be baptized outdoors in below-freezing temps, for both baptizer & baptizee.

 

[robycop3]

So by "regenerational Baptist" you are saying that you have run across someone on the CARM site who claims to be a Baptist and also believes a person is saved by baptism? I've heard tell that there are some of those, but have never run across one.

I don't know if he's a Baptist or not, but he certainly believes in regenerational baptism. I simply use that name for such believers.

 

[robycop3]

Sounds like someone from the "Church of Christ" (restoration movement)

dude seems to be a baptist, but whatever he is, he certainly believes a false doctrine.

 

[Mikey]

Thank you.
As a Baptist, I will never die on the hill of paedobaptism. I am simply pointing out that the person seeking membership has been baptized into the covenant as a child and now has confirmed his faith. Does God require a second baptism in order to be obedient to the ordinance of baptism? I don't see any scripture that would make such an argument for a second baptism. I also don't find an explicit argument for infant baptism. So, it seems that both sides are arguing from a normative procedure rather than a regulative position.

The issue is that you believe that paedobaptism is legitimate baptism, that the infants are actually in the covenant of grace. This is opposed to Baptist beliefs. Are the unrepentant, unregenerate, those without faith part of the Covernant of Grace? Should the unrepentant, unregenerate and those without faith be given the covenant sign? Baptists say No! The Presbyterians say yes.

The Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant, the Covenant which was inaugerated by the shedding of the precious blood of Chrsit. Only those who are in Christ are in the Covenant. There is no second baptism as you keep stating, so of course you won't find scripture arguing for that.

Baptism is a hill worth dying over.

No one is arguing the narrative of people who were baptized in the Bible.
Is there a prescriptive requirement that only someone who confesses salvation can be baptized? Do any of the verses you quoted make that prescription? You imply this, but is it specifically prescriptive?
I say that we must extend grace in this matter. If a person exhibits genuine salvation and was genuinely baptized, even as an infant, that person has fulfilled the ordinance of our King. I would admit that person into membership in the local church without hesitation.

Why do you believe that faith and repentance is irrelevant to the legitimacy of Baptism? Presbyterians seperate salvation with the Church (which is the body of Christ), thus unregenerate, unsaved peope are in and are the body of Christ. I would say that scripture is clear about who is in the covenant and thus only those in covenant should recieve the covenant sign.

Are there any examples where baptism was given without a profession of faith? Where do you find even a hint that unbelieving infants should or are baptised in scripture? Where in scripture does it teach that circumcision equals baptism? Presbyterians needed to make a baptism the same substance as circumcision because they did not have any teaching from the new which justified their theology.

If a infant was "baptised" but then rejected the Church/the faith but then a few years later was converted. Would this person need to be "re-baptised"?

Have you studied Reformed Baptist theology? because by the sound of it you've read alot of presbyterian theology.

 

[37818]

The Presbyterians . . .

For the most part, Presbyterians do not immerse aka to actually baptize.

 

[Mikey]

For the most part, Presbyterians do not immerse aka to actually baptize.

this is also true

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Did i write anything contrary to 1689 fed?

Take a look at Reformed Baptist Seminary, you can audit courses for free.

No, was just curious how you view Baptist theology regarding Dispy vrs Covenant theology?

 

[Yeshua1]

Symbols matter. God gave the symbol for a reason, to be used in a particular way and by certain people. So, yes it is important.

You both are right on this, as while spirit Baptism all important, symbolism does matter!

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, does the Bible give a rule on "proper" immersion? In my reading, I don't see a hard and fast rule. I see that there is an argument for a regulative view and a normative view. I simply err on the side of extending grace.

The NT view also links water baptism to one already having been saved in Christ, hard to believe babies can do that!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know if he's a Baptist or not, but he certainly believes in regenerational baptism. I simply use that name for such believers.

No Baptist should believe in that though!

 

[Yeshua1]

The issue is that you believe that paedobaptism is legitimate baptism, that the infants are actually in the covenant of grace. This is opposed to Baptist beliefs. Are the unrepentant, unregenerate, those without faith part of the Covernant of Grace? Should the unrepentant, unregenerate and those without faith be given the covenant sign? Baptists say No! The Presbyterians say yes.

The Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant, the Covenant which was inaugerated by the shedding of the precious blood of Chrsit. Only those who are in Christ are in the Covenant. There is no second baptism as you keep stating, so of course you won't find scripture arguing for that.

Baptism is a hill worth dying over.



Why do you believe that faith and repentance is irrelevant to the legitimacy of Baptism? Presbyterians seperate salvation with the Church (which is the body of Christ), thus unregenerate, unsaved peope are in and are the body of Christ. I would say that scripture is clear about who is in the covenant and thus only those in covenant should recieve the covenant sign.

Are there any examples where baptism was given without a profession of faith? Where do you find even a hint that unbelieving infants should or are baptised in scripture? Where in scripture does it teach that circumcision equals baptism? Presbyterians needed to make a baptism the same substance as circumcision because they did not have any teaching from the new which justified their theology.

If a infant was "baptised" but then rejected the Church/the faith but then a few years later was converted. Would this person need to be "re-baptised"?

Have you studied Reformed Baptist theology? because by the sound of it you've read alot of presbyterian theology.

Any who have been saved have been part of the NC, as we must accept that the Old Covenant saved none, as those who were really saved were even back then under New Covenant of grace!

 

[Yeshua1]

The issue is that you believe that paedobaptism is legitimate baptism, that the infants are actually in the covenant of grace. This is opposed to Baptist beliefs. Are the unrepentant, unregenerate, those without faith part of the Covernant of Grace? Should the unrepentant, unregenerate and those without faith be given the covenant sign? Baptists say No! The Presbyterians say yes.

The Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant, the Covenant which was inaugerated by the shedding of the precious blood of Chrsit. Only those who are in Christ are in the Covenant. There is no second baptism as you keep stating, so of course you won't find scripture arguing for that.

Baptism is a hill worth dying over.



Why do you believe that faith and repentance is irrelevant to the legitimacy of Baptism? Presbyterians seperate salvation with the Church (which is the body of Christ), thus unregenerate, unsaved peope are in and are the body of Christ. I would say that scripture is clear about who is in the covenant and thus only those in covenant should recieve the covenant sign.

Are there any examples where baptism was given without a profession of faith? Where do you find even a hint that unbelieving infants should or are baptised in scripture? Where in scripture does it teach that circumcision equals baptism? Presbyterians needed to make a baptism the same substance as circumcision because they did not have any teaching from the new which justified their theology.

If a infant was "baptised" but then rejected the Church/the faith but then a few years later was converted. Would this person need to be "re-baptised"?

Have you studied Reformed Baptist theology? because by the sound of it you've read alot of presbyterian theology.

The big disagreement is just how new was the new Covenant? Brand new as baptists hold, or else updated and modified OC?