Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

[the particular baptist]

The truth matters, not who wins the debate.

Can you refer me to the membership criteria for your church? How about TPB's?

ARTICLE 15, BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER

We believe that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper1 are ordinances of Christ, to be continued till His Second Coming; and that the former is requisite to the latter; that is to say, that those only can scripturally sit down to the Lord’s Supper who, upon their profession of faith, have been baptised, by immersion, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and that, therefore, what is called “Mixed Communion”2 is unscriptural, improper, and not to be allowed in the churches of Christ3.

Scripture references:
1 1 Cor. 11. 2, 26; 1 Cor. 14. 40; Col. 2. 5-8.
2 Rom. 16. 17.
3 Matt. 3. 13-16; Matt. 28. 19, 20; John 3. 22, 23; Acts 2.
37-42; Acts 8. 12; Acts 9. 18; Acts 10. 47, 48; Acts 16.
14, 15, 30, 31, 33; Acts 18. 8; Acts 19. 1-6; Rom. 6. 3;
Col. 2. 12.


ARTICLE 17, INFANT BAPTISM DENIED

We deny and reject, as unscriptural and erroneous, the, baptism of infants, whether by immersion, sprinkling, pouring, or any other mode.

Scripture references:
Heb. 11. 6; Acts. 8. 12, 37.


ADMITTANCE INTO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

Any person desiring to become a member of this church, must first be interviewed by the pastor (if there be one) and deacons, who, if in their judgment the candidate is suitable for membership, shall duly bring the matter before the church. A copy of the church’s Articles of Faith and Rules to be given to each candidate for their instruction.

At a regularly constituted church meeting (see rules 13- 15) the candidate (whether already a member of another church or not) shall make a verbal confession of faith, and declare what he or she believes God has done for his or her soul. If accepted by a vote of the majority of members present and voting, signature in the church book to the Articles of Faith and Rules will be required. Thereafter, at the earliest convenient opportunity, the person shall, unless previously baptised by immersion, be so baptised in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and be formally received into church fellowship at the next observance of the Lord’s Supper.

Any person who, having been baptised while only in a carnal profession of religion, has since been called by the Spirit of God to a knowledge of his or her lost condition by nature and practice, and to living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, being desirous of uniting with this church, shall attend to the ordinance of believers’ baptism, according to rule 2 (last clause), for “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14. 23).

 

[heymikey80]

Apparently that's not how some of your fellow padeobaptists feel - which is why I asked them the question...

Hm, well, I haven't seen it. When you ask a "why" question you're bound to get any number of responses, as it's essentially an indefinite question.

I could also have posted, "11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." Col 2:11-12 Or "28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." Rom 2:28-29 Or "9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." Rom 4:9-12

They're explanations. They're not necessarily highly different. Each of these explanations is written by the same person.

 

[heymikey80]

ARTICLE 17, INFANT BAPTISM DENIED

We deny and reject, as unscriptural and erroneous, the, baptism of infants, whether by immersion, sprinkling, pouring, or any other mode.

Scripture references:
Heb. 11. 6; Acts. 8. 12, 37.

Thank you. Q.E.D.

Which of these references rejects the baptism of infants?

6And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

12But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

[And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]​

I'd also note, that the OP on this thread is argued against on this basis. After all, if a credobaptist is handed the arguments for infant baptism as "the accepted interpretation" of the forum or discussion group, then on exactly this basis, exclusion of credobaptists is a legitimate action to take in policing the forum.

That's not specifically how Presbyterianism views it, today. But I find it interesting that credobaptists would claim it's good for the goose, but not good for the gander.

 

[the particular baptist]

Thank you. Q.E.D.

Which of these references rejects the baptism of infants?

Because Mickey, infant baptism at best, is arrived at by deduction, while every person baptized in the NT was a believer first. Unless you can prove infants posses saving faith ?

"without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is..."

Mr John Gill comments... "without faith it is impossible to please him,.... Or do things well pleasing in his sight; or any of the duties of religion, in an acceptable way; as prayer, praise, attendance on the word and ordinances, or any good works whatever; because such are without Christ, and without his Spirit; and have neither right principles, nor right ends..."

​

I'd also note, that the OP on this thread is argued against on this basis. After all, if a credobaptist is handed the arguments for infant baptism as "the accepted interpretation" of the forum or discussion group, then on exactly this basis, exclusion of credobaptists is a legitimate action to take in policing the forum.

I agree.

I find it interesting that credobaptists would claim it's good for the goose, but not good for the gander.

No beef with you on this point Mickey. But not all credo's share my view, and certainly not all credo's are strict baptists.

 

[the particular baptist]

Thank you. Q.E.D.

Which of these references rejects the baptism of infants?

12But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

​

Does not say, both men and women, and their infants. Nowhere does it say that, it must be deduced to arrive there.

 

[JM]

“Logic is a good mistress, but a very bad master.”​

 

[ReformedChapin]

Where is this stated in scripture?

Arguments can get more complex but the logic is simple, what is the sign and seal of God's covenant? Baptism. Have children been excluded from the the new covenant...NO. Then we must infer that the sign and seal is applied to children.

For example: Acts Chapter 2

2:37 Now when they heard this, 80 they were acutely distressed 81 and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized 82 in the name of Jesus Christ 83 for 84 the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 85 2:39 For the promise 86is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 2:40 With many other words he testified 87 and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse 88 generation!”

 

[ReformedChapin]

Apparently that's not how some of your fellow padeobaptists feel - which is why I asked them the question...

Actually that's only partially true, we are not under the OT Abrahamic dispensation but the NT dispensation. So while we are the true fulfilled form of judaism we are not longer under that dispenastion and the signs and seals changed. Although I am not sure what what Mikey ment by his comment.

 

[heymikey80]

Because Mickey, infant baptism at best, is arrived at by deduction, while every person baptized in the NT was a believer first. Unless you can prove infants posses saving faith ?

Because, TPB, adult baptism at best, is arrived at by deduction, while every household baptized in the NT is neglected. Unless you can prove infants weren't in those households?

Both viewpoints are based on an absence of data, and have to be deduced.

You're pointing out the claim that infant baptism is non-Scriptural. I'm simply pointing out that the exclusion of infant baptism is also non-Scriptural. Scripture's silent.

But your confession's not.

“Logic is a good mistress, but a very bad master.”

3Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?

 

[heymikey80]

Regarding the OP, it should not be divisive, if someone is denied membership in a forum for being a CredoBaptist it is most unfortunate.

If paedobaptists held to the converse theological position -- and some do -- credobaptist exclusion should not be complained-about by credobaptists. Certainly credobaptists who largely exclude paedobaptists from their communion, will understand that their divisiveness is copied by equal & opposite positions on paedobaptism.

As this thread has now demonstrated, credobaptist churches treat paedobaptists as non-Christians, and exclude them from communion on the basis -- not of their acceptable baptism -- but of their unacceptable ideas about baptism.

How is this different from a paedobaptist church considering a credobaptist believer?

There is often a difference in treatment from truly Reformed churches, though. It's in the Scriptural doctrine of Christ's church. But it's apparent credobaptist churches don't hold to that.

 

[heymikey80]

Actually that's only partially true, we are not under the OT Abrahamic dispensation but the NT dispensation. So while we are the true fulfilled form of judaism we are not longer under that dispenastion and the signs and seals changed. Although I am not sure what what Mikey ment by his comment.

I find that a derived argument, (actually one I agree with, don't get me wrong), and I had a hunch that the credobaptists would play the "systematics" card. I've found Paul makes the argument much more strongly by exposing the fact that old covenant circumcision makes someone a citizen of Judea.

The covenant with Abraham itself predicted that Gentiles -- nations -- would be blessed (Gal 3:8). Not just the Jewish nation.

So, neither circumcision nor baptism were ever (or are ever) necessary to salvation (cf. Rom 4:11ff). They're covenant signs, and they're important: but not necessary.

 

[AndOne]

Hm, well, I haven't seen it.

When you ask a "why" question you're bound to get any number of responses, as it's essentially an indefinite question.

I know - but the question was posed directly to Anoetos - read his post and you might see where I am coming from.

I could also have posted, "11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." Col 2:11-12 Or "28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." Rom 2:28-29 Or "9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." Rom 4:9-12

They're explanations. They're not necessarily highly different. Each of these explanations is written by the same person.

Please don't patronize me Mikey - you should know me well enough to know that I know these scriptures and who wrote them.

In fact I'm not going to waste my time over this issue any longer - its not worth dividing over - unsubscribing...

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not patronizing you. I'm pointing out something that it's awfully clear a number of people on this thread don't recognize: that there're numerous explanations that come out of baptism, that picking one narrow view against all others is going to be very hazardous to the doctrine that's picked and overemphasized, and that historically it's virtually impossible to establish one as the whole truth.

That's why I budged from a baptistic viewpoint.

And -- you posted on a public thread.

 

[the particular baptist]

Because, TPB, adult baptism at best, is arrived at by deduction, while every household baptized in the NT is neglected. Unless you can prove infants weren't in those households?

It's not arrived at by deduction, Mickey, it is as plain as the nose on your face. Unless you can prove that infants were baptized in those households you are deducing.

Mr John Gill comments on Mark 16:16

"He that believeth,.... Not notionally only, or that gives a bare assent to the truth of the Gospel; but spiritually, who sees Christ, his need of him, and the worth and excellency, suitableness and fulness of him; who comes to him as a poor perishing sinner, and ventures on him, and commits himself to him, and lives upon him; believing alone in him, and expecting life and salvation alone by him:

and is baptized; faith must precede baptism, as these words of Christ, and Scripture examples show; and such as have it, ought to make a profession of it, and be baptized; and in which way it is that faith discovers itself, and works by love to Christ; namely, in observing his commands, and this among the rest"

Both viewpoints are based on an absence of data, and have to be deduced.

Wrong ! Only one is deduced. Mr Sproul admits that, why cant you ?

I'm simply pointing out that the exclusion of infant baptism is also non-Scriptural. Scripture's silent.

There are a multitude of things we dont practice, like rain dances, because, among other reasons, scripture is silent. Thats where the RPW comes into play the most. Where scripture is silent, so are we, and we especially dont make elaborate doctrines based on silence.

"For it is a well-known fact that it was in ages past a uniform and distinguishing trait in the character of the Baptists, that they required a "Thus saith the Lord," that is, direct authority from the word of God for the order and practice, as well as the doctrine, they received in religion."

 

[heymikey80]

It's not arrived at by deduction, Mickey, it is as plain as the nose on your face. Unless you can prove that infants were baptized in those households you are deducing.

It's arrived at by deduction, TPB, it is as plain as the nose on your face. Unless you can prove infants were not baptized in those households you are deducing.

Mr John Gill comments on Mark 16:16

"He that believeth,.... Not notionally only, or that gives a bare assent to the truth of the Gospel; but spiritually, who sees Christ, his need of him, and the worth and excellency, suitableness and fulness of him; who comes to him as a poor perishing sinner, and ventures on him, and commits himself to him, and lives upon him; believing alone in him, and expecting life and salvation alone by him:

and is baptized; faith must precede baptism, as these words of Christ, and Scripture examples show; and such as have it, ought to make a profession of it, and be baptized; and in which way it is that faith discovers itself, and works by love to Christ; namely, in observing his commands, and this among the rest"

And you don't think that's deduced. Riiight.

MT 28:28-20 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. So here Jesus is putting baptism prior to doctrine? So how does the person recognize what's required for baptism and come forward for it?

Let's come up with arguments that at least pass the sniff text. Collections of actions are just that.

Wrong ! Only one is deduced. Mr Sproul admits that, why cant you?

No, the exclusion of the opposing position once again, has to be deduced. Francis Schaeffer admits that, why can't you? (to leverage the ad hominem in the other direction)

Here's R.A. McLaughlin:

Third Millennium Ministries

There are a multitude of things we dont practice, like rain dances, because, among other reasons, scripture is silent. Thats where the RPW comes into play the most. Where scripture is silent, so are we, and we especially dont make elaborate doctrines based on silence.

Really. Cite for Sunday School. In fact, cite for only one speaker in your sermons. There's a multitude of things you do practice.

Cite for baptism after a profession of faith to your pastor or an elder. Cite for the depth of Gill's requirement.

And indeed Scripture is not silent about signs of faith and their methods of application. Take Romans 4 for instance. And Genesis 17.

"For it is a well-known fact that it was in ages past a uniform and distinguishing trait in the character of the Baptists, that they required a "Thus saith the Lord," that is, direct authority from the word of God for the order and practice, as well as the doctrine, they received in religion."

They require it for things they are opposed to; but things they are agreeable to, there are increasingly lax requirements. For they are no more consistent than any other viewpoint.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I find that a derived argument, (actually one I agree with, don't get me wrong), and I had a hunch that the credobaptists would play the "systematics" card. I've found Paul makes the argument much more strongly by exposing the fact that old covenant circumcision makes someone a citizen of Judea.

The covenant with Abraham itself predicted that Gentiles -- nations -- would be blessed (Gal 3:8). Not just the Jewish nation.

So, neither circumcision nor baptism were ever (or are ever) necessary to salvation (cf. Rom 4:11ff). They're covenant signs, and they're important: but not necessary.

What do you mean citizen of Judea? Define it. Sorry to put more of a burden on you brother but I want to make sure I understand your point.

 

[heymikey80]

What do you mean citizen of Judea? Define it. Sorry to put more of a burden on you brother but I want to make sure I understand your point.

Inclusion into the nation that emerged due to the Maccabean rebellion. A person had to be native-born or a proselyte to Judaism, and had to be circumcised.

By the First Century this state had been occupied by the Roman Empire, but citizenship in this state was still important to native peoples in the state. In fact it appeared to take on even more importance as the state itself dissolved into the Empire.

 

[JM]

Infant sprinkling cannot be found in scripture. It's really that simple. The doctrine is an eisegesis based on sacramentalism and not from scripture.

jm

 

[the particular baptist]

Yo! what he said. ^

 

[ReformedChapin]

So since there is no scriptural example of women receiving communion u don't do either...dohy at baptist logic. BTW wheres the explicit command to only submurge individuals?