Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
FOUR
"4. But, say the Baptists, there is no specific command to baptise infants. Why should there be? If the Baptists say, 'If the Lord wanted infants to be baptized, He would have given a command to do so, or at least, have given a record in Scripture of cases in which children were baptized. But there is no command and no proof that it happened in the days of the apostles.' Following the same line of arguing, women should not be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. When the Lord's Supper was instituted, there were no women present.

The Lord never gave a specific command that women should partake of it, and you cannot find in Scripture instances to prove that women actually did partake of it. But again I ask, Why should there be a specific command? In the Old Testament dispensation the women were not excluded from partaking of the Passover; if, in the New Testament dispensation the Lord wanted women to be excluded from the Lord's Supper, He would have given a special command; but there was no such change in the ministration of the Covenant, so there was no need of a specific command. The same with the children: they were included in the ministration of the Covenant; they are not to be excluded now, else there would be a special command to that effect."





Here the above writer asks why there should be a specific command to baptize infants. To Strict Baptists the silence of Scripture is significant. I am tempted to ask a few further questions emphasizing this silence: Why are the Scriptures absolutely silent over the necessary accompaniments and results of infant baptism?

Where can directions be found about the sponsorship for the infants? Not in the Word of God!

And for their subsequent profession of personal faith? Not in the Word of God!

And the manner of their admission to full church membership on reaching the age of responsibility? Not in the Word of God!

On all these points the Scriptures are silent as they are upon infant baptism itself, or even upon the baptism of an adult son or daughter of a Christian household. The reason why the Word of God makes no allusion to infant baptism is because it was altogether unknown in the apostolic age. History shows it to be an ecclesiastical institution rather than an apostolic institution.


The inference that women should not be allowed to partake of the Supper is an exaggeration in the lie of argument. The commission of our Lord to His disciples was, "Go ye therefore, and teach (that is, make disciples of) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Now, in the light of such a word as that, on what grounds should women be excluded from discipleship? Women were found among Christ's dearest friends; they were found nearest to the cross; they were the first at the sepulchre, and it was to a woman that He first revealed Himself after His resurrection. And yet we are asked to believe that there is as much warrant for a clear command for these godly women to partake of the Lord's Supper as there is for a helpless infant to be baptized!

Those women were true disciples. Partakers of the Supper are designated in Scripture as disciples, and believing women are as much disciples as believing men. Paul's narration of the observance of the Supper as recorded in I Corinthians 11:23 is addressed to 'the church of God which is at Corinth.' In 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35 we are expressly informed that females were in that church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
FIVE
"5. Baptists want you to believe that judging from cases that are mentioned in Scripture, in the days after Pentecost the Holy Spirit worked effectually only in households where there were no young children. Lydia and her household is mentioned; Cornelius and all his house; the household of Stephanas; and the jailor at Philippi who in that remarkable night was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

If you say, it is probable that there were young children in one or more of these families; the Baptists say, No. If you ask, Isn't it possible? Their answer is no. They don't want to concede the possibility because then they would have to admit that in the apostolic days children were baptized, for in each of the cases mentioned it says plainly in Scripture that all of the household were baptized."





Here the writer of the above says that we Baptists contend that, in the days after Pentecost, the Holy Spirit worked effectually only in households where there were no young children. But that is not correct, Taking the day of Pentecost first; I have no doubt that out of the 3000 who were added to the church many belonged to families where there were infants, but we do not read of any household baptisms on that day, nor of any infant baptisms.

But we do read, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). That expression certainly excludes infants. As far as the household baptisms after Pentecost are concerned, according to Scripture the members of the households were not only baptized but were capable of exercising faith, which infants, generally, are not able to do.


The writer also mentions the case of Cornelius. If we look at the narrative as recorded in Scripture we read, "the Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word" (Acts l0:44) - no infants there. In verse 46 we have the same 'them' speaking with tongues - no infants there. And in verse 48 the same 'them' being baptized - why assume infants there?

The Philippian jailor is mentioned, but in Acts 16:34 we read that he "rejoiced believing in God with all his house." Such young folk as were there were evidently capable of rejoicing and believing.

Taking the house of Stephanas. This was the "first fruits of Achaia" (I Corinthians 16:15), that is, the first Achaian converts.
The case of Lydia is also mentioned. Here again, many paedo-baptist divines testify that the inspired narrative affords no evidence of infants being baptized; indeed that Lydia had any children, or even that she was married.

I am reminded of a narrative I have read concerning a ministerial conference some years ago when there was a little innocent banter between the ministers taking part. In the course of a conversation on baptism, some of the younger Presbyterian ministers became very emphatic in their assertion that the apostles practised infant-baptism. "Of course they did," said one, 'for we read that they baptized five households, and some of those households must have contained infants."

As the Baptist ministers who were present made no reply, the genial host asked them if they had nothing to say. "Yes," answered a venerable Baptist, in a subdued voice, "I am prepared to assert that every member of those five households was over 20 years of age." This remark was greeted with good-natured laughter, and from several lips there came the question, "How can you prove it?" "Oh," replied the aged Baptist, "I said nothing about proving; I was simply asserting. Infected by your example, I was just indulging a little in the pleasant occupation of guessing. I admire your style of argument. It saves such a lot of trouble to take for granted the very point in dispute. I admire also the liveliness of your imagination which can descry infants where they were non-existent, and which can invent them where the inspired penman informs us of none. Perhaps you can tell us what was the exact number of infants which these households contained, and what were their names and ages; also how many of them were boys and how many were girls . . ."


Here I will take the opportunity of mentioning a few other cases which, in our view, prove that only believers were baptized. There is the case of Philip and the eunuch, "If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest" (Acts 8:37), drawing forth the reply', "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Note also how they "went down both into the water"; and after the baptizing came "up out of the water." Commenting on this verse, John Calvin, a paedo-baptist says, "Here we see how the rite of baptism was carried out by the men of long ago: they immersed the whole body in the water" ("Calvin's Commentaries, The Acts of the Apostles 1-13," Saint Andrew Press, p.254).

In the same chapter we have the case of Philip baptizing the Samaritans who had "believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," and in that particular case there is a specific mention or "both men and women."
There is also the case of Crispus and other Corinthians "hearing, believed and were baptized" (Acts 18:8). Such a statement does not normally refer to infants. We do not believe, therefore, that any in those families were baptized other than those capable of exercising faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
SIX
"6. Baptists want you to believe that when the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, then the hearts of all the members of her household were opened too (though Scripture is silent on this point) for according to the Baptists none should be baptized that cannot give an account of his personal interest in the Saviour, and . . . all of Lydia's household were baptised.

And you must believe the same simultaneous conversions of all the members of the other households. But read the conversion of Lydia and of the jailor with an unprejudiced mind and then, when the Baptists say, All of Lydia's household and all of the jailor's family were converted, and at the same time brought out of the state of misery into the state of grace, is it then out of place to ask, Why is Scripture silent on such a miracle of grace?"





I find it difficult to follow the line of reasoning of the above here. Scripture is not silent on these cases as may be gathered from the cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Look again at Acts 18:8, "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house"; that is, he and all his house believed.

What language more plain than that? A miracle indeed! And why is it alleged that Scripture is silent respecting the Philippian jailor? We read that he "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Surely that is telling us that all his house believed and were baptized! The household of Stephanas was evidently comprised of converted people for reasons I have already given.

The case of Lydia speaks for itself for it is clear that only believers were baptized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
SEVEN
"7. The silliest remark made by some Baptists is this one: Infants should not be baptized for they do not understand a thing of it. Such a remark in reality casts a reflection on the Most High, for He commanded that the sons of the Jews should be circumcised on the eighth day. What did these infants understand of it?"




This light criticism on the part of the writer of the pamphlet shows that he has not given the Baptists' position serious thought. The statement that infants should not be baptized because they know nothing of it is, at least, consistent with Baptist views We hold that believers' baptism is the only valid water-baptism; that it is a step taken in faith, without which "it is impossible to please God." We do not recognize, therefore, any rite of baptism performed in the case of unbelievers or infants incapable of believing.

For the sake of brevity, I have refrained from quoting from the works of others, but here I cannot forbear quoting from two well - known paedo-baptists. John Calvin writes, "Because Christ requires teaching before baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism does not seem to be rightly administered, except faith precede it." Tertullian says, "Let them come to baptism when they are grown up; when they can understand; when they are taught whither they are to come. Let them become Christians when they can know Christ."


The reference to infants being circumcised and knowing nothing about it, we regard as quite irrelevant, for we do not accept the view that baptism supersedes circumcision. In our opinion, their institution, nature and intent differ so considerably that arguments drawn from the supposed analogy are groundless. I will mention but one of the many reasons which may be adduced in support. If baptism had been instituted in the place of circumcision, then why, in Acts chapter 15, do we read of the dissension over circumcision?

Why a special deputation to the elders at Jerusalem to resolve the difficulty which had arisen? And why did not the elders reply saying, 'Circumcision is now superseded by baptism; in the future you should baptize your children instead of circumcising them?' We might also note that the qualification for baptism in John the Baptist's day was not, "we have Abraham to our father" as some fondly wished, but "bring forth fruits meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8& 9).
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
EIGHT
"8. The Strict Baptists insist that those who were baptized in infancy must be re-baptized before they can be accepted as church members. Infant baptism does not convey grace; but neither does adult baptism. Both are no more than a sign and seal of the Covenant. Without baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire, the sign or seal leaves the person in the state of nature, whether he received baptism as an infant or as an adult.

Why then should the sign that was once received in infancy be repeated? The seal of the Covenant should be received only once; the value of it will be experienced when the baptized person receives saving faith, an indubitable evidence that the Holy Spirit works that which was signified by water baptism."





Much of what I have already written covers the point raised here. We do not recognize as valid any rite of baptism of unbelievers or of believers who have been sprinkled as opposed to immersed, which latter we regard as the Scriptural, and therefore correct, mode of administration. Again I would emphasize, we do not regard baptism as a sign or seal of the Covenant of grace, but as a badge of discipleship. If it is a sign or seal, then it means that one can be in possession of the sign and seal of something they do not possess.

The writer tells us that "the seal of the Covenant should be received only once; the value of it will be experienced when the baptized person receives saving faith, an indubitable evidence that the Holy Spirit works that which was signified by water baptism." But we cannot forbear asking, What if the baptized person never receives saving faith? It means that he has had the sign and seal without the substance - the seal of something he never possessed! That which is said to be of value, now proves to be of no value whatsoever!

The only seal we recognize is the sealing of the believer's interest in the covenant of grace; the oath of the Father and the blood of the Son, applied to our hearts by the Holy Ghost; given, not in the hope that we might later receive the substance, but in the certainty that we already possess it.


In the concluding paragraph of the pamphlet, the writer deplores the fact that infant baptism has been brought into disrepute by those who are said to abuse or misinterpret it, and he adds, "these things are sad indeed." Here is a remarkable admission that confusion exists in his camp. I believe it and have known it for some time.

I am still looking for just three - no more - who will come and argue on unanimity on the Scripturalness of infant baptism.

I have looked into the "Form for the Administration of Baptism" which is used in the church to which the writer of the pamphlet belongs, but I really cannot believe that he we find there.

When I read the three "principal parts of the doctrine," I form the opinion that, even were I a believer in the baptism of infants, I certainly could not subscribe to such language. My views are confirmed when reading further I come across the expression, "therefore infants are to be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of His covenant"

And then to my amazement, in the "Thanksgiving" I read, "We thank and praise Thee, that Thou hast forgiven us, and our children, all our sins through the blood of Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ, and received us through Thy Holy Spirit as members of Thine only begotten Son, and adopted us to Thy children, and sealed and confirmed the same unto us by holy baptism". If this language does not convey the idea of presumptive regeneration, then words have no meaning! Upon enquiry, we are told that these expressions are not intended to mean what they obviously do, but the Form, having been comprised by godly men of a bygone age, cannot be altered!


In conclusion, I am going to express my complete disagreement with the views of the writer of "Why I am not a Baptist." But I will not be disagreeable. He should not forget that Philpot, Warburton, Kershaw, Covell and others whose sermons are eagerly sought and publicly read in the churches to which he belongs, were Strict Baptists. A few are still living today who are not ashamed to follow in their footsteps, worship in their churches, preach in their pulpits and uphold the same Faith and Order as they. But we will try to respect the views of those who oppose us and hope that they will try to respect ours.

There will come a time when Zion shall see eye to eye. No sighs or tears can enter heaven, but if they could perhaps it would be upon reflection that those enjoying the bliss of heaven should have lived in such disunity whilst here upon earth. Let us practise the well-known maxim, "In things essential unity; in things indifferent, tolerance; but in all things, charity," and take heed to the word of the apostle James, "Grudge not against one another, brethren, lest ye be condemned; behold the judge standeth before the door" (James 5:9).
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Right, in bizaro world maybe, where eating means napping.

It means immerse, plunge, dip.
It's just gotta mean that for Baptists, even though Nebuchadnezzar was immersed in dew.

I'll accept at least as much water as Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with.
How about ancient baptistries ... like the earliest one to date, Dura Europos? I'll give you a hint, it couldn't submerge an adult. pre 250 AD.

Dura Europos | s i l o u a n

So which was it -- pouring on adults or immersing babies?
I acknowledge from the earliest times people decided to invent their own ways of baptism. So ? Baptize means immerse, not pour.
Yeah, apparently from Apostolic times, from the First Century forward, the teachings from the churches didn't emphasize quantity of water.

But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize:Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), 7

Really early.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
T'me the position presented by believer-baptistic arguments reflects something the culture is still heavily involved with: individualism. When Scripture says something generally about a group, it's taken to mean something specifically about each member of the group.

There are some terms that at least focus us on the pervasive or primary or necessary elements to a theology. I'm not talking about specifically excluding that. But when a general description is in use that doesn't focus us on this pervasiveness or necessity, we should not demand it be there. Otherwise we may be reasoning from what God said using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It's just gotta mean that for Baptists, even though Nebuchadnezzar was immersed in dew.

I'll accept at least as much water as Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with.

The OT is Hebrew. Different word different meaning. I'll accept at least as much water as my Lord was immersed in.

Yeah, apparently from Apostolic times, from the First Century forward, the teachings from the churches didn't emphasize quantity of water.

Pff. Says you. There is evidence enough in the century following the Apostolic churches and the Byzantine era that people were following the Biblical model and mode of immersion, although if the whole world was against it i'll still believe the Bible, and to the wind with the world.

But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize:Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), 7

Really early.

The Didache is riddled with heresy. Thanks but no thanks. I dont base Biblical doctrines on what heretics believe and say today, and i certainly dont base them on yesterday's. The Word is sufficient and the only rule for faith and practice.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Except I wasn't. I am chilled. Just throwing your "argument" or whatever you wanna call it right back at you.

What argument ? I asked, "Are you serious" ? And you called that rhetoric. ?!?
Now you called the same thing an "argument" ?

What ?
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The OT is Hebrew. Different word different meaning. I'll accept at least as much water as my Lord was immersed in.
Septuagint, TPB. Greek didn't begin with the New Testament. You were speaking about the apparent meaning of the word, and its usage precedes the New Testament.
Pff. Says you. There is evidence enough in the century following the Apostolic churches and the Byzantine era that people were following the Biblical model and mode of immersion, although if the whole world was against it i'll still believe the Bible, and to the wind with the world.
Greek usage objects to the view you're espousing. See Nebuchadnezzar.
The Didache is riddled with heresy. Thanks but no thanks. I dont base Biblical doctrines on what heretics believe and say today, and i certainly dont base them on yesterday's. The Word is sufficient and the only rule for faith and practice.
The historical data as to what the church was practicing is clear.
 
Upvote 0

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Septuagint, TPB. Greek didn't begin with the New Testament. You were speaking about the apparent meaning of the word, and its usage precedes the New Testament.

Greek usage objects to the view you're espousing. See Nebuchadnezzar.

To Greeks and in the Greek language, it means immerse. Interesting how i cite the NT and you Nebuchadnezzar. Was the OT written in Greek ? The Word of God is innerant and infallible in the original languages.

The historical data as to what the church was practicing is clear.

Then what you consider the church is not the same as mine. There have existed many apostate churches in the last 2000 years. The church of the NT has the same faith once delivered unto the saints.
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟18,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
What argument ? I asked, "Are you serious" ? And you called that rhetoric. ?!?
Now you called the same thing an "argument" ?

What ?
I said "argument" or whatever you wanna call it. In other words just using the same type or argumentation/notion/reasoning which is basically nothing but questioning my credibility with rhetoric and throwing it back at you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To Greeks and in the Greek language, it means immerse.
Well clearly not if they themselves used the word in a place where it clearly doesn't mean immerse.
Interesting how i cite the NT and you Nebuchadnezzar. Was the OT written in Greek ? The Word of God is innerant and infallible in the original languages.
You haven't cited one example where the word unmistakably means immerse. You've asserted that's what the word means to Greeks -- fallible Greeks.

I've simply cited an example where the word unmistakably doesn't mean immerse.

And it's not alone. Y'want another?
Then what you consider the church is not the same as mine. There have existed many apostate churches in the last 2000 years. The church of the NT has the same faith once delivered unto the saints.
As the Didache points out the mode of baptism, Dura Europos points out the mode of baptism can't possibly require immersion, and Tertullian thinks it's regrettable that all the Apostolic churches practiced infant baptism in his day (the earliest reference, ca 200), it's pretty clear that the church of the NT didn't practice immersion exclusively, and consistently practiced infant baptism.

So the church of the NT isn't baptistic.
 
Upvote 0

the particular baptist

pactum serva
Nov 14, 2008
1,883
235
Currently reside in Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟10,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
And it's not alone. Y'want another?

In wonderland it may mean something other than dip, plunge, or immerse, but the direct transliteration is immerse.

As the Didache points out the mode of baptism, Dura Europos points out the mode of baptism can't possibly require immersion, and Tertullian thinks it's regrettable that all the Apostolic churches practiced infant baptism in his day (the earliest reference, ca 200), it's pretty clear that the church of the NT didn't practice immersion exclusively, and consistently practiced infant baptism.

Mickey, the same "church" youre referring to taught baptismal regeneration, taught praying for the dead, and all other kinds of abominable heresies and work religion. Go ahead and call it the church, i wont. God's people have been worshiping Him in Spirit and in Truth, not lies and abominations, for the last 2000 years. The great harlot of babylon has been whoring her heresies and abominations for the last 2000 years. Nothings changed really.

"the church of the NT...consistently practiced infant baptism"

Wow.

Unsubscribing.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In wonderland it may mean something other than dip, plunge, or immerse, but the direct transliteration is immerse.
I never considered Egypt to be wonderland, and I doubt the translators of the Septuagint would agree with you.
Mickey, the same "church" youre referring to taught baptismal regeneration, taught praying for the dead, and all other kinds of abominable heresies and work religion. Go ahead and call it the church, i wont. God's people have been worshiping Him in Spirit and in Truth, not lies and abominations, for the last 2000 years. The great harlot of babylon has been whoring her heresies and abominations for the last 2000 years. Nothings changed really.
"the church you're referring to" taught baptism, too. But I'll continue to baptize.

And "baptize" in Greek doesn't mean submerge.

Instead, you're swallowing another Pope, the baptistic papacy who declares baptism always means immerse. it repeats the error.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Tertullian thinks it's regrettable that all the Apostolic churches practiced infant baptism in his day (the earliest reference, ca 200), it's pretty clear that the church of the NT didn't practice immersion exclusively, and consistently practiced infant baptism.

So the church of the NT isn't baptistic.
'Guess there wasn't any way to answer this assertion.

What's the evidence Christ's church ever prohibited baptism of infants in its first four hundred years?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums