Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $70 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Monday, September 8, 2003
Posts: 2505
Forum Stats
795 Members
30 Forums
5912 Topics
47320 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13368
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3923
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2505
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2288
John_C 1911
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
chestnutmare 20
Pilgrim 13
Tom 12
rstrats 8
John_C 2
BMC 2
Johan 1
Robin 1
Recent Posts
Thoughts on Thanksgiving
by chestnutmare
Yesterday at 09:01 AM
Belief a Choice?
by Pilgrim
Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:52 PM
Chatterbox Cafe Forum
by rstrats
Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:41 PM
Reflexology
by Tom
Monday, November 24, 2014 9:38 PM
New Study Bible
by Tom
Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:38 PM
Matthew 12:40
by rstrats
Friday, November 21, 2014 12:47 PM
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#18238 - Saturday, October 9, 2004 1:20 PM Wicked Baptists
Peter Offline
Old Hand

Registered: Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Posts: 1021
Loc: 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

Top
#18239 - Saturday, October 9, 2004 9:55 PM Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: Peter]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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).

Top
#18240 - Saturday, October 9, 2004 10:12 PM Re: Wicked Baptists
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13368
Loc: 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,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#18241 - Saturday, October 9, 2004 10:48 PM Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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."

Top
#18242 - Saturday, October 9, 2004 11:34 PM Re: Wicked Baptists
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13368
Loc: 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,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#18243 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 12:11 AM Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: Pilgrim]
gnarley Offline
Member

Registered: Sunday, August 4, 2002
Posts: 184
Loc: Western Oregon
In all sincerity, what scripture is used to teach infant baptism?
_________________________
gil

Top
#18244 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 5:11 AM Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: gnarley]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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).

Top
#18245 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 5:22 AM Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: gnarley]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top
#18246 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 6:01 AM Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: gnarley]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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

Top
#18247 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 10:25 AM Re: Wicked Baptists
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13368
Loc: 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,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#18248 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:04 AM Re: Wicked Baptists
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top
#18249 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:28 AM Re: Wicked Baptists [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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

Top
#18250 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:30 AM Re: Wicked Baptists
Anonymous
Unregistered


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


God bless,

william

Top
#18251 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:35 AM Re: Wicked Baptists
Anonymous
Unregistered


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).

Top
#18252 - Sunday, October 10, 2004 12:39 PM Re: Wicked Baptists
Peter Offline
Old Hand

Registered: Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Posts: 1021
Loc: 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

Top
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Who's Online
0 registered (), 21 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Hil, BMC, Jerry DeHart, James Taylor, jonboy
795 Registered Users
Shout Box

November
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
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 29
30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 487495
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 379708
Westminster Larger Catechism 356833
Roman Catholicism and salvation 272667
The importance of going to church 268946
Double predestination 258674
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 233782
Gospel truth 207550
Creation 187463
Continuity in Old and NT 155149