Donations for the month of February


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Anthony C.
Anthony C.
NJ/PA
Posts: 214
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,605
Posts50,990
Members923
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,376
Tom 3,396
chestnutmare 2,902
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,750
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,059
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 22
Tom 20
Ruben 2
cathmg 1
Tina 1
Recent Posts
A study of the Heidelberg Catechism
by gotribe. Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:07 PM
Particular Baptists and the Nicene Creed
by Tom. Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:17 PM
Major update for the forum
by Ruben. Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:23 AM
Egalitarianism
by Pilgrim. Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:13 AM
Judge Abusing His Office
by Tom. Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:34 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wicked Baptists #18238
Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:20 PM
Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:20 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
P
Peter Offline OP
Old Hand
Peter  Offline OP
Old Hand
P
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
Quote
In another discussion speratus said:
Quote
Is infant baptism the ordinary means for Baptists who wickedly withhold baptism from infants yet permit their children to hear the gospel?


Question why is it wicked for children/infants to hear the gospel and yet not be baptized? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: Peter] #18239
Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:55 PM
Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:55 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


It is not wicked for infants/children to hear the gospel and be baptized (Mark 16:15, 16). It is wicked when Baptist parents and pastors despise God's command to baptize (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38,39). However, elect children of Baptist families who die in infancy are regenerated and brought to faith through the ministry of the Word (Rom. 10:17).

Re: Wicked Baptists #18240
Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:12 PM
Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,376
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,376
NH, USA
speratus,

Does your conscience not bother you even a little when you use the word "wicked" to describe those who do not hold to paedobaptism? I'm wondering in all fairness if you would allow the reverse; i.e., those who believe that infants are regenerated in baptism and/or to teach children that they are loved of God, their sins are remitted and they are united to Christ by virtue of their baptism and/or because they are "covenant children", can be likewise considered "wicked" by those who do not hold to those views? Just curious! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

Oh, just in case you are wondering... I hold to paedobaptism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: Pilgrim] #18241
Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:48 PM
Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:48 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


pilgrim,

1. I did not call Baptists wicked. I said, by withholding baptism, they were acting, according to webster's definition, "in a manner contrary to divine law." And, since you hold to paedobaptism, you must agree with me and probably for exactly the same reason. Right?
2. Anyone who holds to a view contrary to scripture, after being admonished, is acting "in a manner contrary to divine law."

Re: Wicked Baptists #18242
Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:34 PM
Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:34 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,376
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,376
NH, USA
speratus,

Sorry, but I cannot agree that withholding baptism from infants should be judged according to a Webster's Dictionary's definition of "wicked". That is far too strong a term, IMHO. I do believe that infant's should be baptized. But I do not believe that it is so closely connected to salvation that it is necessary for one to do so or wicked if it isn't done.

Within the membership of this Board there are believers on both sides of the baptism issue. A very small minority on both sides are extremely critical of the other. It is my concerted opinion that although the doctrine of baptism is important to understand and practice rightly, there is no place for believers to castigate those who differ in a manner which I would consider judgmental and even Pharisaical. My views on this matter have been made public myriad times here and elsewhere. So, I see no need repeat them once again.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: Pilgrim] #18243
Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:11 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:11 AM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
Western Oregon
G
gnarley Offline
Member
gnarley  Offline
Member
G
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
Western Oregon
In all sincerity, what scripture is used to teach infant baptism?


gil
Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: gnarley] #18244
Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:11 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:11 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


pilgrim,

Not using "wickedness" to describe sin does not make it smell any better.

Every false doctrine is an attack on scripture. And every attack on scripture is an attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone: "Hath God said"? Gen. 3:1. Believers are called to judge doctrine and to flee from those who teach falsely (John 10:5, Rom. 16:17).

Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: gnarley] #18245
Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:22 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:22 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Quote
gnarley said:
In all sincerity, what scripture is used to teach infant baptism?


I can not speak for Calvinist paedobaptists. Lutherans baptize solely upon the command of God (e.g., Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38,39).

But I did not join this forum to teach Lutheranism but to learn Calvinism.

Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: gnarley] #18246
Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:01 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:01 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


You may simply wish to loom over these earlier discussions.

Credible profession

Who departed

Visible invisible Church

Exclusion of children

OIKOS

Enjoy.


God bless,

william

Re: Wicked Baptists #18247
Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:25 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:25 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,376
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,376
NH, USA
Quote
speratus said:
Not using "wickedness" to describe sin does not make it smell any better.

Every false doctrine is an attack on scripture. And every attack on scripture is an attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone: "Hath God said"? Gen. 3:1. Believers are called to judge doctrine and to flee from those who teach falsely (John 10:5, Rom. 16:17).

It may be a sin to neglect the baptism of one's infant children, but again, whether or not one is justified in calling this neglect "wickedness", I am not convinced. If ALL sin is wickedness, then so is walking against the light when someone crosses the street. Not tithing in a church that believes that it is a N.T. practice would be "wickedness". etc... The problem here is that these issues are not universally recognized and/or believed and thus what is "sin" to one is virtue to another. There is no universally recognized Creed or Confession to which all of Christendom has accepted that teaches infant baptism. It is your personal belief that infant baptism is a biblical doctrine, to which I agree. But the Scriptures do not teach that if one isn't baptised they cannot be saved. It is Sola FIDE not Solas FIDE/Baptizo that saves a soul.

Once again I say, that those who put far too much importance upon baptism are also precariously close to being guilty of synergism. This is true for BOTH Baptists and Paedobaptists. It's rank enough to have to listen to the "TR" (Truly Reformed) groups but it makes me physically ill when I see how Baptist and Paedobaptist extremists attack each other and divide in battle over even peripheral things. It has happened here and may God have mercy on those that were involved. THAT sir, IMHO, can be rightly called "wickedness".

The casting of stones over the doctrine of Baptism will NOT be tolerated here again. Discussions on baptism are surely welcome. Disagreements over baptism is expected. But again, I will [color:"red"]NOT[/color] allow flaming, ad hominem slurs, judging of one's soul, etc. to be launched by anyone toward another brother/sister on this matter of baptism. Thus, be forewarned.... if you in good conscience truly believe that the neglecting of baptizing infants is a "wicked act" which if a person does not repent of will lead to their damnation, then you had better decide now if you want to make your personal convictions on this issue publicly known.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Wicked Baptists #18248
Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:04 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:04 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Quote
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.


Westminster Confession of Faith, Baptism

Do modern Calvinists still believe this? If so, how can they have any fellowship with those who deny that baptism is a efficacious means of grace?

BTW, the WCF article is in agreement with the Lutheran Book of Concord.

Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: Pilgrim] #18249
Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:28 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:28 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Quote
The problem here is that these issues are not universally recognized and/or believed and thus what is "sin" to one is virtue to another.


I can list several other issues not "universally recognized". Who decides what is "universal" because certainly one position is in grave error denying the command of scripture.

Quote
There is no universally recognized Creed or Confession to which all of Christendom has accepted that teaches infant baptism.


Could I get a list of all "universally recognized" creeds and confessions?

Quote
It is your personal belief that infant baptism is a biblical doctrine, to which I agree.


Well, and historical truths. Either scripture teaches it, or it does not, neither being a mere "opinion".

Quote
But the Scriptures do not teach that if one isn't baptised they cannot be saved. It is Sola FIDE not Solas FIDE/Baptizo that saves a soul.


Where and when was it decided that only soteriology mattered to truth? Or when it was the sole doctrine necessary to be held as a Christian?

Quote
Once again I say, that those who put far too much importance upon baptism are also precariously close to being guilty of synergism.


Indeed. However, I would posit that those who created the division are guilty of so much more than over-defending. Simply stated, the baptist schism is exactly that.


God bless,

william

Re: Wicked Baptists #18250
Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:30 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:30 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


I do. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

Re: Wicked Baptists #18251
Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:35 AM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:35 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


pilgrim,

Unprofitable opinions are forgiven and corrected as long as the foundation is not overthrown (justification by faith alone in Christ alone). However, I am puzzled why Calvinists do not mark those who cause divisions on an article that relates to the use of an efficacious means of grace (justification).

Re: Wicked Baptists #18252
Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:39 PM
Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:39 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
P
Peter Offline OP
Old Hand
Peter  Offline OP
Old Hand
P
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
Quote
speratus said:
Quote
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.


Westminster Confession of Faith, Baptism

Do modern Calvinists still believe this? If so, how can they have any fellowship with those who deny that baptism is a efficacious means of grace?

BTW, the WCF article is in agreement with the Lutheran Book of Concord.


Speratus: First you haven't proven the Baptists deny baptism as an efficacious means of grace.

Second: Your reasoning regarding the wickedness of baptists is still flawed. Do not Lutherans when they have catechumins that are not infants and not baptized baptize them after they have completed their studies and joined the Church? Why do they not baptize them first and then continue with their instruction? Are they not just as "wicked as the Baptists?


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 22 guests, and 125 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
robertolang, SmallFry, drewk, patrice, Robert1962
923 Registered Users
Shout Box
February
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28
Today's Birthdays
Curt
Popular Topics(Views)
702,240 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.058s Queries: 15 (0.006s) Memory: 2.9711 MB (Peak: 3.2810 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-02-19 18:03:02 UTC