Did the Baptist get it right?

[Tim Goodwin]

Here are the fundamental beliefs of the Baptist according to the Baptist convention. Are there any out there that refute these statements of belief and why? This is a theological question and not an attempt at proselytizing anyone. PS: These are in line with my own personal beliefs as well.

Scripture
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ. Ex. 24:4; Deut. 4:1-2; 17:19; Josh. 8:34; Psalm 19:7-10; 119:11, 89, 105, 140; Isa. 34:16; 40:8; Jer. 15:16; 36; Matt. 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16 ff.; 17:11; Rom. 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21

God
There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.

God The Father

God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. He is all powerful, all loving, and all wise. God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men. Gen. 1:1; 2:7; Ex. 3:14; 6:2-3; 15:11 ff.; 20:1 ff.; Lev. 22:2; Deut. 6:4; 32:6; 1 Chron. 29:10; Psalm 19:1-3; Isa. 43:3, 15; 64:8; Jer. 10:10; 17:13; Matt. 6:9 ff.; 7:11; 23:9; 28:19; Mark 1:9-11; John 4:24; 5:26; 14:6-13; 17:1-8; Acts 1:7; Rom. 8:14-15; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 4:6; Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:6; 12:9; 1 Peter 1:17; 1 John 5:7

God The Son
Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself the demands and necessities of human nature and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, partaking of the nature of God and of man, and in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord. Gen. 18:1 ff.; Psalm 2:7 ff.; 110:1 ff.; Isa. 7:14; 53; Matt. 1:18-23; 3:17; 8:29; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16, 27; 17:5; 27; 28:1-6, 19; Mark 1:1; 3:11; Luke 1:35; 4:41; 22:70; 24:46; John 1:1-18, 29; 10:30,38; 11:25-27; 12:44-50;14:7- 11; 16:15-16, 28; 17:1-5, 21-22; 20:1-20, 28; Acts 1:9; 2:22- 24; 7:55-56; 9:4-5, 20; Rom. 1:3-4; 3:23-26; 5:6-21; 8:1-3, 34; 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2:2; 8:6; 15:1-8, 24-28; 2 Cor. 5:19- 21; Gal. 4:4-5; Eph. 1:20; 3:11; 4:7-10; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:13-22; 2:9; 1 Thess. 4:14-18; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; 3:16; Titus 2:13-14; Heb. 1:1-3; 4:14-15; 7:14-28; 9:12-15, 24-28; 12:2; l3:8; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 3:22; 1 John 1:7-9; 3:2; 4:14-15; 5:9; 2 John 7-9; Rev. 1:13-16; 5:9-14; 12:10-11; 13:8; 19:16

God The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the assurance of God to bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service. Gen. 1:2; Judg. 14:6; Job 26:13; Psalm 51:11; 139:7 ff.; Isa. 61:1-3; Joel 2:28-32; Matt. 1:18; 3:16; 4:1; 12:28-32; 28:19; Mark 1:10, 12; Luke 1:35; 4:1, 18-19; 11:13; 12:12; 24:49; John 4:24; 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-14; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4, 38; 4:3l; 5:3; 6:3; 7:55; 8:17, 39; 10:44; 13:2; 15:28; 16:6; 19:1-6; Rom. 8:9-11, 14-16, 26-27; 1 Cor. 2:10- 14; 3:16; 12:3-11; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30; 5:18; 1 Thess. 5:19; 1 Tim. 3:16; 4:1; 2 Tim. 1:14; 3:16; Heb. 9:8, 14; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 4:13; 5:6-7; Rev. 1:10; 22:17

Mankind
Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by His Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence; whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin, and as soon as they are capable of moral action become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore every man possesses dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love. Gen. 1:26-30; 2:5, 7, 18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalm 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 17:5; Matt. 16:26; Acts 17:26- 31; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:10-18, 23; 5:6, 12, 19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18, 29; 1 Cor. 1:21-31; 15:19, 21-22; Eph. 2:1-22; Col. 1:21-22; 3:9-11

Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption or the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer into a relationship of peace and favor with God.

B. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual perfection through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

C. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed. Gen. 3:15; Ex. 3:14-17; 6:2-8; Matt. 1:21; 4:17; 16:21- 26; 27:22 to 28:6; Luke 1:68-69; 2:28-32; John 1:11-14, 29; 3:3-21, 36; 5:24; 10:9, 28-29; 15:1-16; 17:17; Acts 2:21; 4:12; 15:11; 16:30-31; 17:30-31; 20:32; Rom. 1:16-18; 2:4; 3:23-25; 4:3 ff.; 5:8-10; 6:1-23; 8:1-18, 29-39; 10:9-10, 13; 13:11-14; 1 Cor. 1:18, 30; 6:19-20; 15:10; 2 Cor. 5:17- 20; Gal. 2:20; 3:13; 5:22-25; 6:15; Eph. 1:7; 2:8-22; 4:11- 16; Phil. 2:12-13; Col. 1:9-22; 3:1 ff.; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; 2 Tim. 1:12; Titus 2:11-14; Heb. 2:1-3; 5:8-9; 9:24-28; 11:1 to 12:8, 14; James 2:14-26; 1 Peter 1:2-23; 1 John 1:6 to 2:11; Rev. 3:20; 21:1 to 22:5.

Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is a glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the State of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the cause of Christ, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. Gen. 12:1-3; Ex. 19:5-8; 1 Sam. 8:4-7, 19-22; Isa. 5:1-7; Jer. 31:31 ff.; Matt. 16:18-19; 21:28-45; 24:22, 31; 25:34; Luke 1:68-79; 2:29-32; 19:41-44; 24:44-48; John 1:12-14; 3:16; 5:24; 6:44-45, 65; 10:27-29; 15:16; 17:6, 12, 17-18; Acts 20:32; Rom. 5:9-10; 8:28-39; 10:12-15; 11:5-7. 26-36; 1 Cor. 1:1-2; 15:24-28; Eph. 1:4-23; 2:1-10; 3:1-11; Col. 1:12-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:12; 2:10, 19; Heb. 11:39 to 12:2; 1 Peter 1:2-5, 13; 2:4-10; 1 John 1:7-9; 2:19; 3:2

Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, observing the two ordinances of Christ, committed to His teachings, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.

This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In such a congregation members are equally responsible. Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages. Matt. 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42, 47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23, 27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Eph. 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11, 21; 5:22-32; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:18; 1 Tim. 3:1-15; 4:14; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Rev. 2-3; 21:2-3

Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming. Matt. 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; Acts 20:7; Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 10:16, 21; 11:23-29; Col. 2:12

The Lord's Day
The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, and by refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employment's, work of necessity and mercy only being excepted. Ex. 20:8-11; Matt. 12:1-12; 28:1 ff.; Mark 2:27-28; 16:1- 7; Luke 24:1-3, 33-36; John 4:21-24; 20:1, 19-28; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Col. 2:16; 3:16; Rev. 1:10

The Kingdom
The Kingdom of God includes both His general sovereignty over the universe and His particular kingship over men who willfully acknowledge Him as King. Particularly the Kingdom is the realm of salvation into which men enter by trustful, childlike commitment to Jesus Christ. Christians ought to pray and to labor that the Kingdom may come and God's will be done on earth. The full consummation of the Kingdom awaits the return of Jesus Christ and the end of this age. Gen. 1:1; Isa. 9:6-7; Jer. 23:5-6; Matt. 3:2; 4:8-10, 23; 12:25-28; 13:1-52; 25:31-46; 26:29; Mark 1:14-15; 9:1; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2; 12:31-32; 17:20-21; 23:42; John 3:3; 18:36; Acts 1:6-7; 17:22-31; Rom. 5:17; 8:19; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:10, 16; 12:28; 1 Peter 2:4-10; 4:13; Rev. 1:6, 9; 5:10; 11:15; 21-22

Last Days
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will he raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord. Isa. 2:4; 11:9; Matt. 16:27; 18:8-9; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 36, 44; 25:31-46; 26:64; Mark 8:38; 9:43-48; Luke 12:40, 48; 16:19-26; 17:22-37; 21:27-28; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:11; 17:31; Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 4:5; 15:24-28, 35-58; 2 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 3:20-21; Col. 1:5; 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:14-18; 5:1 ff.; 2 Thess. 1:7 ff.; 2; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:27-28; James 5:8; 2 Peter 3:7 ff.; 1 John 2:28; 3:2; Jude 14; Rev. 1:18; 3:11; 20:1 to 2

 

[OrthodoxForever]

The only one of these "statements" I actually disagree with is Baptism and The Lord's Supper, believer-only baptism is problematic The bible states that whole households were baptized together which says to me that there were more than likely children among them young enough to do so under the guidance of their parents

As for Holy Communion, it is far more than a symbol. The Bread and Wine, when sanctified by Christ through a holder of the Lord's Holy Priesthood becomes the body and blood, food for the soul as well as the body. Biblical evidence for this can be found in the Gospel According to St. John chapter 6

The other thing is that from my experience with Baptists (my grandmother is one and my father was raised as one) too much emphasis is placed on the initial justification to the extent where sanctification or as we call it Theosis, does not matter at all but it is fundamentally important and all true believers understand that in their hearts.

 

[MrMoe]

The only one of these "statements" I actually disagree with is Baptism and The Lord's Supper, believer-only baptism is problematic The bible states that whole households were baptized together which says to me that there were more than likely children among them young enough to do so under the guidance of their parents

Hi

It's not problematic at all, actually it problematic on your part. Like I said to a Catholic member this is an argument from silence. There are only four households mentioned in Acts and two clearly state that the entire household believed, not just the head of the household. Which leaves you only two, where we don't know what the household was like or if there were even any children. So the burden of proof is on you.
Jesus Himself said in Matthew 10:34-36 that households being divided because of Him would be the standard.

As for Holy Communion, it is far more than a symbol. The Bread and Wine, when sanctified by Christ through a holder of the Lord's Holy Priesthood becomes the body and blood, food for the soul as well as the body. Biblical evidence for this can be found in the Gospel According to St. John chapter 6

John 6 actually speaks against it being literal. In John 6:63 Jesus says "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." If the flesh profits nothing as Jesus said then what Jesus had just said previously about eating his flesh would have been completely pointless if he had meant it literally.
Not to mention the problem of eating blood being prohibited by God and the paradox of Christ being present at the last supper bodily and in the bread he gave at the same time. Also if it is meant to be literal, then according to John 6:53-56 anyone who is non Catholic or Eastern Orthodox does not have eternal life.

 

[OrthodoxForever]

Hi

It's not problematic at all, actually it problematic on your part. Like I said to a Catholic member this is an argument from silence. There are only four households mentioned in Acts and two clearly state that the entire household believed, not just the head of the household. Which leaves you only two, where we don't know what the household was like or if there were even any children. So the burden of proof is on you.
Jesus Himself said in Matthew 10:34-36 that households being divided because of Him would be the standard.




John 6 actually speaks against it being literal. In John 6:63 Jesus says "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." If the flesh profits nothing as Jesus said then what Jesus had just said previously about eating his flesh would have been completely pointless if he had meant it literally.
Not to mention the problem of eating blood being prohibited by God and the paradox of Christ being present at the last supper bodily and in the bread he gave at the same time. Also if it is meant to be literal, then according to John 6:53-56 anyone who is non Catholic or Eastern Orthodox does not have eternal life.

Actually that would be anyone who rejected the presence of the Lord Himself in his supper. Denominational lines didn't exist back then, it was us who created them through disagreements like this one. There are protestants, Anglicans and Lutherans in particular who had at least somewhat of the right idea originally

 

[Albion]

Hi

It's not problematic at all, actually it problematic on your part. Like I said to a Catholic member this is an argument from silence. There are only four households mentioned in Acts and two clearly state that the entire household believed, not just the head of the household.

Therefore it isn't an argument from silence; we have a specific Bible reference. And the idea of tiny children or infants being able to make a voluntary and intelligent to Christ flies in the face of the whole notion of "Believers' Baptism," don't you think? And yet we are told that whole families were baptized.

John 6 actually speaks against it being literal. In John 6:63 Jesus says "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." If the flesh profits nothing as Jesus said then what Jesus had just said previously about eating his flesh would have been completely pointless if he had meant it literally.

Jesus isn't speaking of the Lord's Supper in John 6. It hadn't even been instituted at that time, so it would necessarily have meant nothing to those hearing him at that point.

 

[OrthodoxForever]

He speaks of the bread of life, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, as necessary. He identifies Himself as the bread of life.

In the other 3 gospels when Communion is instituted, He identifies the wine as "This is my blood of the New Covenant"

In John that scene doesn't even appear, why? Because to John the story of it wasn't the point. The meaning was and that's what we have here:

Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” - John 6:43-58

I for one believe Jesus meant what He said.

 

[Albion]

He speaks of the bread of life, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, as necessary. He identifies Himself as the bread of life.

Right. Those are all powerful analogies that mirror other such speech Jesus used in other places in Scripture. To take them as literally being a lecture to those Jews concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, however, is an unwarranted stretch. It helps make the case for the Real Presence, and I believe in the Real Presence, but that passage is not what people want to make it out to be.

I for one believe Jesus meant what He said.

Don't we all? But understanding what's meant literally and what's meant figuratively is important. No one believes that Jesus taught that he'd literally become a door or a vine, but he said that he was both of those, you know.

 

[OrthodoxForever]

Right. Those are all powerful analogies that mirror other such speech Jesus used in other places in Scripture. To take them as literally being a lecture to those Jews concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, however, is an unwarranted stretch. It helps make the case for the Real Presence, and I believe in the Real Presence, but that passage is not what people want to make it out to be.

Then what is it trying to say? And what of the absence of the last supper from John's gospel?

John didn't record things in order, He jumps from the wedding where Jesus turning water into wine to chasing the money changers out of the Temple. Combined with the fact that this is the closest we hear from John to so-much as a mention of communion and it seems very clear that, that is what this passage means to explain

 

[Albion]

It's an analogy. He's comparing, for these Jews, himself with the manna that their forefathers were given and which was the means of life at that time. Now it's he who is the means of eternal life as the Messiah, properly understood. He's not talking about literal biting into his flesh there, and if he'd actually meant that, I think he would not have gone on at such lengths to explain this deeper, inner meaning he was voicing when it was apparent, early on, that they thought -- as you do -- that it was meant literally and so couldn't be comprehended by them in the way he intended.

 

[OrthodoxForever]

It's an analogy. He's comparing, for these Jews, himself with the manna that their forefathers were given and which was the means of life at that time. Now it's he who is the means of eternal life as the Messiah, properly understood. He's not talking about literal biting into his flesh there, and if he'd actually meant that, I think he would not have gone on at such lengths to explain this deeper, inner meaning he was voicing when it was apparent, early on, that they thought -- as you do -- that it was meant literally and so couldn't be comprehended by them in the way he intended.

1. You're completely ignoring the reasons I present for interpreting it this way, one of which nixes your argument about the timeline, or at the very least throws a wrench in it.

2. This is explaining a deeper, spiritual meaning. Because Holy Communion is spiritually significant. If it were a mere symbol I doubt it would have actually been explicitly prescribed. Jesus didn't command a unnecessary ritual for us to do just for the sake of doing them. He commanded us to do what in one way or another would contribute to Salvation (justification + Sanctification). This is what I don't understand about some churches. They scream about how horrible we are for all our rituals while at the same time believing that the only two sacraments they recognize are nothing more than just that.

 

[Albion]

First, let me apologize if it seems that I intentionally ignored something important. Sometimes, coming to the point seems the most helpful way to proceed.

1. You're completely ignoring the reasons I present for interpreting it this way, one of which nixes your argument about the timeline, or at the very least throws a wrench in it.

I don't see how the timeline helps your case. The Lord's Supper hadn't been instituted at the time of the events recorded in John 6, so to argue that he was telling them about the Last Supper or the Eucharist seems a weak argument, particularly because there was nothing in it that told of coming events as, for instance, he did when speaking of his coming crucifixion.

2. This is explaining a deeper, spiritual meaning.

IMHO, what I explained is plenty deep and spiritual.

This is what I don't understand about some churches. They scream about how horrible we are for all our rituals while at the same time believing that the only two sacraments they recognize are nothing more than just that.

I suppose it's that they have hardly any EXCEPT FOR those two and they keep them rather "unceremonial" at that.

 

[MrMoe]

Therefore it isn't an argument from silence; we have a specific Bible reference.

Which specific bible reference is that?

And the idea of tiny children or infants being able to make a voluntary and intelligent to Christ flies in the face of the whole notion of "Believers' Baptism," don't you think?

I think you left out a few words after the word intelligent. The sentence doesn't make sense without them.

And yet we are told that whole families were baptized.

And those whole families believed, which proves my point.

Jesus isn't speaking of the Lord's Supper in John 6. It hadn't even been instituted at that time, so it would necessarily have meant nothing to those hearing him at that point.

Yes I know, that wasn't my point. My point was that what Jesus was saying in John 6 about eating his flesh wasn't meant to be taken literally.

 

[Albion]

Which specific bible reference is that?

The 'whole household' verses already referred to many times by both the 'pro' and the 'con' sides of the argument.

I think you left out a few words after the word intelligent. The sentence doesn't make sense without them.

Sorry. My editing must have gotten a bit heavy handed. I think I had meant for the word "commitment" to be there.

And those whole families believed, which proves my point.

How...from a Baptist's POV ("Believers Baptism") can a toddler actually "believe" and make a decision for Christ? And if you say that they can, why don't these churches actually baptize infants and very young children?

Yes I know, that wasn't my point. My point was that what Jesus was saying in John 6 about eating his flesh wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I appreciate the clarification or correction. No, for several reasons, John 6 can't really be used as proof of a literal interpretation of Holy Communion, even though that's often done by the members of certain denominations.

 

[OrthodoxForever]

Which specific bible reference is that?



I think you left out a few words after the word intelligent. The sentence doesn't make sense without them.



And those whole families believed, which proves my point.




Yes I know, that wasn't my point. My point was that what Jesus was saying in John 6 about eating his flesh wasn't meant to be taken literally.

The 'whole household' verses already referred to many times by both the 'pro' and the 'con' sides of the argument.




Sorry. My editing must have gotten a bit heavy handed. I think I had meant for the word "commitment" to be there.


How...from a Baptist's POV ("Believers Baptism") can a toddler actually "believe" and make a decision for Christ? And if you say that they can, why don't these churches actually baptize infants and very young children?



I appreciate the clarification or correction. No, for several reasons, John 6 can't really be used as proof of a literal interpretation of Holy Communion, even though that's often done by the members of certain denominations.

There are several reasons that we of the denominations that interpret it that way do so, not the least of which is the striking similarity it diction of John 6 to the Last Supper in the other three gospels and the complete lack of mention of communion at all without it. The latter is very odd coming from the gospel that seems the most focused of all of the more mystical elements of Jesus's identity and mission on Earth.

 

[MrMoe]

The 'whole household' verses already referred to many times by both the 'pro' and the 'con' sides of the argument.

I'm no sure you understand what argument from silence actually means.

Theologians, even those who believe in infant baptism admit there is no evidence of it ever talking place in those verses. Those who try can only use the argument from silence logical fallacy, which is just using the power of suggestion to create implied evidence rather than show actual evidence.

How...from a Baptist's POV ("Believers Baptism") can a toddler actually "believe" and make a decision for Christ?

No, that is why Baptists don't baptise infants.

And if you say that they can,

They shouldn't.
They can if they want, but there is no biblical support for it so that is why they don't.

why don't these churches actually baptize infants and very young children?

Because they believe baptism must follow an acceptance and profession of the Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and saviour, something infants can't do. They do baptise children just as long as they are old enough to have understanding and make a profession of faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believer's_baptism

 

[Albion]

I'm no sure you understand what argument from silence actually means.

Theologians, even those who believe in infant baptism admit there is no evidence of it ever talking place in those verses.

I must disagree with that statement. I don't doubt that we have Baptist theologians and probably some others taking that POV, but it's far from what "theologians" say. And IMHO it's close to nonsense to take a verse that flatly states that X happened and try to argue that there's no evidence that it did.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

All of God's interactions with man are based in a covenant. He acts within the parameters of His covenant. Understanding that, it's easy to see that baptism is how we are united to Christ in the NC.

 

[MrMoe]

I must disagree with that statement. I don't doubt that we have Baptist theologians and probably some others taking that POV, but it's far from what "theologians" say.

Not from what I've read.

Catholic professor of theology, Hegerbocker, wrote, "This controversy has shown that it is not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one's argument on the Bible."

Can you give an example of what these other theologians say and what is their actual arguments are? I'm sure they use scriptures that they say alludes to infant baptism but the point is there is no definitive, direct proof of infant baptism ever being performed in the bible.

And IMHO it's close to nonsense to take a verse that flatly states that X happened and try to argue that there's no evidence that it did.

I'm guessing X is infant baptism. So show me the verse. You keep alluding to the verse but never post it.

 

[mikedsjr]

Despite being a Baptist all my life, and still am, I don't accept the Baptist position on Baptism. I do understand the position. I should if I've been a Baptist over 40 years.

Just like baptist say there is no proof a baby was Baptized in Scripture, there is also no proof in Scripture Baptism is symbolic, nor that there is anything referring to "age of accountability". A baby is born dead is sin. They are guilty at birth before God. In Baptist churches you see 6-7 years giving their lives to Christ and baptized. And it's clear overtime some of them are not quite clear why they did this completely. I've heard sermons where pastor preach on James and there is no way a 7 year old has the capacity to take in what is taught and understand. The pastor will say things like "people have said the prayer and baptized and it wasn't real conversion because your actions don't show a difference". How is a 7 year old supposed to think of this? Their not Christians now because they haven't cared for the widows or had deep concern for the poor or reflected on whether the fruits of the spirit are shown through them?

I think there is a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment within the Baptist church as well as traditions with no clearer proof than they believe Baptizing babies is not found. Acts 2 definitely says repent and be baptized, but the literal of this are completely suppressed by saying "to be baptized means you had to believe with faith first". I do agree. But I also believe faith isn't fully birthed until baptism occurs. Baptism isn't a symbol, imo, but God working in our salvation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I think there is a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment within the Baptist church as well as traditions

I've been to many, many Baptist churches, and in my experience, there is a paranoia about anything that might get within 100' of even the appearance of something Catholic.