The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Step up and be counted

Our dear board owner has said that:


So its time to step and declare your allegiance to your view.

What primary type of baptism do you hold to? single choice

I am a paedobaptist. (62%, 21 Votes)

I am a credobaptist. (38%, 13 Votes)

Total Votes: 34 Voting on this poll ends: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:57 AM

I wonder if Pilgrim had in mind everyone who is registered here, or just those who were active on the board.

Boanerges,

I've been brought up in a Reformed church where the Covenant of Grace was taught and understood to be inclusive of children under both the Old and New Testament administrations. I respect those who practice credobaptism but can't help but feel that their children are viewed as outsiders and that they fail to see the continuity between the Old and New Covenants.


Wes

This quote states that it is the opinion of the person making this quote that "everyone" who has registered here on The-Highway.

By taking this poll, you are not going to get "everyone" who has registered.

But I feel that you will get a pretty good idea at least of the majority view as far as the active members of the forum.

If asked, I would have said that I would have believed that the majority of the active posters on this forum are Paedobaptist.

Now with saying all of that, I believe in paedobaptism. But I will quickly add that I don't view the difference in whether a church chooses to baptize their infants or not as a big deal. If I lived in a community where there was only one biblically reformed church and it was baptist, I would attend that church and be happy to be a baptist. But being as I have a choice in the matter where I live now, I prefer to attend a Presbyterian church and having the children of the congregation baptized.

This isn't an issue that I stand firm on one way or the other. Because I see valid reasons for both sides and I just can't come to my own conclusion concerning my own hermeneutic to say for sure what Scripture dictates. For me, the most essential point is that we all need to be baptized by the Holy Spirit and that water baptism is just a external sign of an internal confession.

But as I stated above, I like being a Presbyterian and I like taking the covenantial approach to biblical interpretation and in doing so, I believe that infant baptism makes sense in God's redemptive plan revealed to us in both the OT and the NT.

Y.B.I.C,

Dave.

The only thing I would mention is that they most likely would want you to be immersed as a believer before joining the church. You probably already knew that, but I know that many paedobaptists would not do this, for consistency sake.

Do Reformed Baptist churches require someone to be rebaptized before joining? I know the SBC does.

Except for that, I agree with Dave about being willing to join a reformed Baptist church.

In the churches I've been a part of, this has been the case. But they have the whole "age of accountability" thing to cover their infants. With that teaching, which they claim is biblical although won't give any verse references, they don't need to baptize their babies.

I personally fall into the Credo camp, but I don't have an issue with the Paedo people. I don't see it as being an issue worth severing felloship and communion over. I do think it is a very good topic for discussion and something that every believer should study the Scriptures on, even if they aren't ever put in a situation where they should defend themselves against someone in their opposing camp.

***Random side question: Are there people who believe that you should be baptized as a baby and then baptized again when you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?***

Yes, they do.

In fact, many Reformed Baptist churches I know of would not allow a non-immersed individual to partake of the Lord's Supper.

For me, that shows a greater difference than is thought. And, that the credos are much more stricter in their practice although the paedos have that reputation.

Yes, there are some. Generally when someone does this they are demonstrating that they believe in credobaptism and want to express their faith by doing this again even if their parents had them baptized as a child. I had a friend who did this when he decided to leave the Reformed church and join a non-Reformed Baptist church. A person who does this is saying that they don’t accept the infant baptism position and when they grow up they want to be baptized as a believer.

However in Reformed covenantal churches when this child grows up he/she will make a public profession of their faith confirming that they accept God’s covenant promises which have be signified and sealed in their baptism. That’s when they declare that they love the Lord and it’s their heartfelt desire to serve Him according to His Word. Prior to that they are members of the visible community of believers under their parents confession and are not full communicant members.


Wes

This has been my personal experience as well, which I have more than once related on this Board in several past discussions. I have found myself in a situation as stated by one in this thread, where the only reasonably decent church around was a Baptist church and I wanted to be able to not only be able to partake of the Lord's Table, which Christ Himself desires and commands me to do, but to exercise the gifts of ministry given to me by His Spirit. In every case, despite the fact that I was baptized as an infant AND as an adult (no real necessity to give the details here), I was told that membership would ONLY be open to me, regardless of my valid profession of faith and impeccable credentials, if I agreed to submit to baptism by immersion. This is very telling and shows that it isn't the notion of Believer's baptism which is the foundational element in many Credobaptist churches, but the Mode of baptism. This has always perplexed me since there is far more "evidence" to try and prove the baptism of professing adults than there is to try and show that baptism in the N.T. was done by immersion. In fact, Rev. William MacIntyre shows conclusively that this was not the case in the chapter of his excellent booklet: "The Token of the Covenant" (Mode of Baptism) - main page of the entire booklet can be found here: The Token of the Covenant.

Like most Paedobaptists I have had the pleasure of being acquainted with, we share the position that our differences over who should be baptized in regard to our Baptist brethren is not something which we should split over. In fact, there have been several occasions where churches I have been a member and served, have allowed membership to those who held to Credobaptism and even appointed some to teaching positions. Since they provided a valid profession of faith and held to the doctrines of grace, we felt it was only right that they be embraced as true brethren and therefore not denied the sacrament of the Lord's Table. To deny them membership and thus the sacramental means of grace of the Lord's Table would be to deny their professed relationship to the Lord Christ and pronounce upon them the verdict of "outside the camp", i.e., they would be considered non-believers. Credobaptists must consider the severity of what they are doing when they deliberately deny membership to someone who makes a valid profession of faith and who has been previously baptized by a mode other than immersion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

And lastly, Dave (aka: Puritan) spoke wisely when he stated that the person making the statement; that would be me <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />, re: Baptists being at least equal to Paedobaptists in number on this Board, was speaking of the total number of registrants and not restricted those who are "active". But what this comes down to is a matter of taking my word for it.

In His grace,

Ahh Wes you know brother as a person who didn't grow up in a Reformed church and was wandering through the perils of dispensationalism (Scofield version with a touch of Ryrie just to spice it up <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) until I came to the Reformed faith and embraced it and the baptists who practiced it I appreciate your opinion and hope to one day convince you that you error when you think that we view our children as outsiders. But until then I still see more paedos than credos doing the poll. But as Pilgrim has pointed out I'm only going to get those "active" people anyway. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

I am a deacon at an SBC church. At our church, a person is considered to be a Christian if they make "a statement of faith", which is basically affirming that they received a baptism as a believer (credo style). In these cases we do not ask for re-baptism.

Also, side note, the SBC has no authority to dictate anything to a associating church.

Oh my. The SBC does not consider me a Christian. Am I in some kind of purgatory waiting to be baptized as a believer.

I attended a SBC church when I lived in KY. I had been baptised by immersion as an adult believer. They would not accept us as members until we were "scripturally baptised as a Baptist." I kid you not. Along with the Baptist baptism, we were told that we would forever and always be Southern Baptists, we could never leave that particular church unless we moved outside a specific geographical distance (I forget what that was) and that, in the event of a move outside the prescribed geographical distance, we were required to "join ourselves with a SBC church by transfer within 6 weeks time."

Needless to say, we didn't join that church. It was many years before I learned that this was not the settled practice of SBC churches. We had been told that it was.

WHOA!!!

Never have come across a church like that. Where in KY was it?

It sounds like one of those Landmark Baptist churches. I would not want to join that church either. Six weeks isn't even long enough to find a church! It actually sounds quite cultic.

Again, the SBC as an organization has next to no influence in the day-to-day operations of the associating churches. And no my church does not, generally speaking, go around proclaiming who is and who is not a Christian. If you have been saved but not subsequently baptized then we would ask you to be baptized as a condition of membership at our church.

I think I'll politely ignore the purgatory comment.

I'd be open to having my opinion changed if someone made it clear how children are identified with the children of God in the "credo only" churches.

Thankfully we can still fellowship here together without having this be a stumbling block for us. Maybe if the credos out numbered the paedos that would be different and there'd be some changes in the requirement for membership here on the-highway. As I've been reading in this thread some SB churches would insist we all make a profession of faith and be immersed or lose our rights to church membership. Then how would we paedos be looked upon if we were indeed the minority?


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Well Wes as a majority Baptist here <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> and probably because I wasn't raised a Baptist I can't see the point in wetting someone more than once. I stand against all those who argue that mode means anything. I have argued to a stand still many elders who love people such as R.C. Sproul but say that he would have to be dunked for it to be real. And I've challenged them to prove to me where a person who has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ever has to be baptized again. So I make you a deal brother, if I get crazier in my old age and finally do go and become a minister you can join any church I pastor at and you won't have to be dunked. And we'll work out that God's children thing too. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

You're not alone! I guess I too am an unregenerate heathen. Having not been washed and immersed by "TAP WATER" my souls bound for the fire. Hell and Damnation, I knew there was something in da wader! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />

Dave.

I do not believe this to be the stance of the SBC at all. There is a difference between being a Christian and being a "church member" in the SBC. I'm a member of an SBC church who allows all those professing faith in Christ, regardless of whether they have ever been baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper.

Now, I can't defend them on Pilgrim's charge regarding denying membership where the mode of baptism was not immersion. They do indeed hold to this, much to my disliking.

Yes, I knew what Vince meant; I was just having a little fun with the way he phrased it. Sorry

But, this issue does bring to mind the mistake in the claim the paedo's are too unyielding.

I appreciate your willingness to take a paedo sinner like me into your fold and not require me to be twice baptized. If you were led to be a preacher I'm sure the Lord would use you in a mighty way. However we may never fully agree on a view of our children that leaves them outside of God's visible convenant community.


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />