# Deathbed Profession the Only Credible One



## non dignus (May 28, 2007)

The credo' basis for baptism is *credible* profession of faith. Afterall, "the CoG is inviolable", they say. No one can discern who the elect are, but "we Baptists do the best we can" is the reply.

However, my baptist brethren don't do the best they can in assessing the credibility of a profession of faith. 

In order to fully assess the credibility of a believer, one must examine the entire life of the believer and baptize him at the end of his life. 

How are death-bed baptisms not the logical outcome of strict adherence to the necessity of credible profession?


----------



## Chris (May 28, 2007)

To carry your (absurd) logic even further, why even baptise then? How do we know the dying man isn't a goat?*Why baptise at all? *


----------



## Herald (May 28, 2007)

David - can't you do better than that? Please don't insult Baptists with that type of argument. Come to think of it, don't insult yourself.


----------



## non dignus (May 28, 2007)

Chris,
Precisely!

Maybe it is God's veracity, not our credibility.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2007)

Sounds like the Constantine approach.


----------



## non dignus (May 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - can't you do better than that? Please don't insult Baptists with that type of argument. Come to think of it, don't insult yourself.



I don't do many things well. But how is my reasoning flawed?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2007)

I don't like to place all the eggs in the "credible profession" standard basket, but I think your objection could be addressed in the idea that "credible" does not mean "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The reason I'm uncomfortable with the term "credible" is because it is subject to attack on the basis that it is unbiblical. But I think support for the term is implicit, once you accept the idea of baptism on profession. In other words, the argument does not turn on what standard "credible" really means.


----------



## Chris (May 28, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Chris,
> Precisely!
> 
> Maybe it is God's veracity, not our credibility.



No credobaptist doubt's God's veracity. 

We do, of course, doubt the paedo interpetation of what God has said. 

God's veracity is not in question. The paedo ability to understand what God has spoken is in question. 

(as is the credo ability, in this forum, of course....)


----------



## Herald (May 28, 2007)

If someone comes to faith in Christ moments before their death, only God knows their heart. They aren't going to be joining a church or asking to be baptized. There is no time to observe their life. We hope their profession was real. When a person makes a profession of faith as an adult we have the privilege of getting to know them better and observing their life. They are baptized upon their profession. How is this different than an adult who comes to faith in a Presbyterian church? Answer: it isn't. 

I just think the premise of this thread is flawed. It seems to be an attempt to say to a credo, "gotcha!" It is threads like this that make people sick of the baptism discussions on this board.


----------



## non dignus (May 28, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I don't like to place all the eggs in the "credible profession" standard basket, but I think your objection could be addressed in the idea that "credible" does not mean "beyond a reasonable doubt."
> 
> The reason I'm uncomfortable with the term "credible" is because it is subject to attack on the basis that it is unbiblical. But I think support for the term is implicit, once you accept the idea of baptism on profession. In other words, the argument does not turn on what standard "credible" really means.



Yes, because 'credible' is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? 

And it is implicit because "credible profession" sounds like a tautology.


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

The early church in point of fact held to some sets of extreme circumstances in which a person might never have had the chance for Baptism, those who died after making a profesion of faith, that sort of thing. In fact many modern missionaries have seen sound profesions of faith in areas very hostile to Christianity, only to be Martyred after the fact. I would be inclined to say that the profesion of the Risen Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ under such circumstanses was and still is valid in that it is an extreme situation.


----------



## non dignus (May 28, 2007)

Chris said:


> No credobaptist doubt's God's veracity.
> 
> We do, of course, doubt the paedo interpetation of what God has said.
> 
> God's veracity is not in question.



I mean God's _veracity_ as in His calling of individuals into His church to save them by faith alone; not always _prior faith alone _but his promise to all those who come to faith at some point in their lives. (I can think of men who came to faith after ordination.) Can God call individuals into His church through conception in the wombs of believers? If not, why not?


----------



## non dignus (May 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> ....when a person makes a profession of faith as an adult we have the privilege of getting to know them better and observing their life.


Yes, exactly. The initial uncertainty evolves either into certainty or into exclusion. Why is it different with children? It is a certainty that the parents will raise the child to trust in God which is why, I think, circumcision was given to babies, and baptism ought to be given to babies since the nature of the family has not changed being ordained from creation.


> I just think the premise of this thread is flawed. It seems to be an attempt to say to a credo, "gotcha!"


 'guilty as charged.

The premise is the inordinate aspiring to purity of the CoG. 
The flaw is that the quest for purity has thrown the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 30, 2007)

I think the missed, rather, theologically punted point is that no amount of life time examination can yield a “certainty”. In fact to carry it to logical absurdity neither can an infinite amount of lives lived yield this certainty for the Word of God strictly forbids it. Seeking the majesty of God a man will be thrown down every time. A distinction between ‘the revealed God’, that is Christ, must be made between ‘knowledge OF the fact of the secret will of God’. The later meaning for example we have ‘knowledge of the FACT of the secret will of God that He in fact elects from eternity. BUT we DO NOT have primary and majestic naked knowledge of those elect, not even ourselves. Else it was pointless for Christ to come to earth and reveal the Father, pointless to baptize, pointless to have the Lord’s Supper. Election is known only through the objective facts trusted in for one’s self. The only elect there are – are those nakedly trusting in Christ alone. Those who find their election elsewhere are in fact proving themselves reprobate. To seek election nakedly, the majesty of God, is the mark of the fall, not the faithful, and a great sin, it is to be like God for ourselves and to know what we’ve been forbidden to know.

1.	Men can and do fake anything.
2.	No man sustains good works perfectly throughout life externally let alone inwardly. Anyone who says he does is a liar, that’s not accusation but FACT.
3.	To constrain good works to a “finite list”, anyone’s list is false good works and proof positive a man is working his way to heaven EVEN if he falsely attributes it to grace. Humility is at the heart of grace and humility must be caused from the outside, laid upon a man. Self appointed humility is absolute pride in its purist form and hence complete sin.
4.	Doing good works to assure one’s self or sanctify one’s self is false and is utterly selfish and against the Holy Law, hence utter sin against the Holy Law.
5.	Observers of men, sinners themselves, cannot examine the heart behind the good works done purely themselves, let alone another man. No man can plumb the depths of the human heart, not his own nor another’s.
6.	Only God sees the heart to claim otherwise is calling God a liar. Likewise to pretend to see the heart by secondary causes is to also call God a liar, it matters little whether one claims to see the heart nakedly or pretend to read it through a veil, the claim is false either way.
7.	All works are perfectly tainted with sin as to magnitude, frequency, amount and all permutation thereof, even post conversion. This means every ounce and way of measure of a good work by the eyes of men.
8.	Simul Justus et Peccator is not a 50/50 mixture as modern evangelicalism like Rome pretends, but 100% by 100%, 100% sinner STILL, and yet 100% justified for Christ’s sake. Hence again #4.

Thus, the whole idea of measuring immediately or by secondary causes is false from start to finish and misses the ENTIRE point of baptism.


Blessings In Christ Alone,

Larry


----------



## B.J. (May 31, 2007)

> To carry your (absurd) logic even further, why even baptise then? How do we know the dying man isn't a goat?Why baptise at all?



Chris,
I find it rather interesting that you make referance to someone being a goat. As I recall, a "goat" will be a person who professed the name of Christ just as the sheep did. Only the "goat" is proud of his/her accomplishments for the Kingdom whereas the sheep are "humble" and do not even realize the good they had done. My interest in your referance to "goats" is that it implies the external/internal distinction that Paedo's hold of the New Covenant that Baptist reject. So I guess I am wondering if you hold to an external/internal view of the NC?


----------



## panta dokimazete (May 31, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> The early church in point of fact held to some sets of extreme circumstances in which a person might never have had the chance for Baptism, those who died after making a profesion of faith, that sort of thing. In fact many modern missionaries have seen sound profesions of faith in areas very hostile to Christianity, only to be Martyred after the fact. I would be inclined to say that the profesion of the Risen Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ under such circumstanses was and still is valid in that it is an extreme situation.



Maybe that circumstance is what Paul was referencing when he spoke of baptizing for the dead...


----------



## non dignus (May 31, 2007)

Right, Larry.

I was appealing to the absurdity of it.


----------



## KMK (May 31, 2007)

Does not at least one of the parents of an infant have to give a credible profession of faith before the infant is baptized in a paedo church? Or is it based on church attendance, baptism, good works or something else?


----------



## non dignus (May 31, 2007)

KMK said:


> Does not at least one of the parents of an infant have to give a credible profession of faith before the infant is baptized in a paedo church? Or is it based on church attendance, baptism, good works or something else?




Yes, one parent must be a baptized member. We don't baptize children of believers who are not under our care.


----------



## KMK (May 31, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Yes, one parent must be a baptized member. We don't baptize children of believers who are not under our care.



What do you mean by 'under your care'?


----------



## Davidius (May 31, 2007)

KMK said:


> What do you mean by 'under your care'?



I would assume he means that they will not baptize a child other than one who is born to members of his congregation.


----------



## caddy (May 31, 2007)

*The Church will NOT be pure untill Christ makes it so in the end. I think you are concerning yourself with something you don't need to be concerned with. Just my 6cents.*

*Matthew 13:27-30 *27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'" 



non dignus said:


> The premise is the inordinate aspiring to purity of the CoG.
> The flaw is that the quest for purity has thrown the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## KMK (May 31, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I would assume he means that they will not baptize a child other than one who is born to members of his congregation.



How does one become a member?


----------



## Davidius (May 31, 2007)

KMK said:


> How does one become a member?



By making a profession of faith or being born to adults who are members.

I see where you're going with this, but I think the point others have been making is that in the bible there's no place for some kind of "thorough examination" that some Baptists seem to want from would-be members. The only rule for profession is that it is the _correct_ profession, that is, of repentance and faith in Christ. No background checks. No questionnaire. Etc etc etc. 3000 men were baptized on Pentecost; it's hard to believe there could have been time for anything other than a simple profession from each.



caddy said:


> *The Church will NOT be pure untill Christ makes it so in the end. I think you are concerning yourself with something you don't need to be concerned with. Just my 6cents.*



This is exactly what he was trying to say. He's arguing that Baptists try harder than the bible requires to keep the Church pure. So are you arguing against him or against yourself here?


----------



## Herald (May 31, 2007)

> I see where you're going with this, but I think the point others have been making is that in the bible there's no place for some kind of "thorough examination" that some Baptists seem to want from would-be members.



David - the word "some" is the operative word in your post. I am not saying this is your intention, but the word "some" can be used to cast an accusation against a whole group without specifically saying so. It twists the the language of absolutes slightly so that that it seems as though we are being gracious when it actuality we are impugning the whole.

The majority of Baptist churches that I know encourage baptism as soon as possbible after a profession of faith. This is common to both Reformed, Calvinistic and Arminian Baptist churches. I am sure there are Baptist churches that require a review period before baptizing, but I don't know many of them. 

Now, if someone comes to our church and has never been baptized, yet claims to be a believer, we will interview them before we administer baptism. This seldom happens but it is our responsiblity as shepherds to test those who wish to join with us and who have never been baptized.

Children? Well if a child professes faith in Christ, it is not a matter of waiting, it is a matter of making sure they understand law and gospel. If they understand their sinfulness and the free gift contained in the gospel, then there is no hesitation. We baptize just as soon as the water can be brought up to room temperature.


----------



## KMK (May 31, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> By making a profession of faith or being born to adults who are members.
> 
> I see where you're going with this, but I think the point others have been making is that in the bible there's no place for some kind of "thorough examination" that some Baptists seem to want from would-be members. The only rule for profession is that it is the _correct_ profession, that is, of repentance and faith in Christ. No background checks. No questionnaire. Etc etc etc. 3000 men were baptized on Pentecost; it's hard to believe there could have been time for anything other than a simple profession from each.



I have never heard of background checks, but I have not been a Baptist for long. I think the Mormons do that.

But both paedos and credos rely on a profession of faith at some point. I agree that that profession should be correct, not necessarily 'thorough'.


----------



## non dignus (May 31, 2007)

KMK said:


> What do you mean by 'under your care'?



David is correct. Members promise to submit to the elders who watch over their souls. I had said, "Baptized members" which is redundant. The only unbaptized member would be a new-born baby I guess.


----------



## non dignus (May 31, 2007)

caddy said:


> *The Church will NOT be pure untill Christ makes it so in the end. *


*

I agree. Which is why we are obedient to the Lord's will in giving the covenant sign to infants of believing households. The fact that one is born into such a household qualifies him as one whom the Lord calls. Acts 2:39*


----------



## non dignus (May 31, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> By making a profession of faith or being born to adults who are members.
> 
> I see where you're going with this, but I think the point others have been making is that in the bible there's no place for some kind of "thorough examination" that some Baptists seem to want from would-be members. The only rule for profession is that it is the _correct_ profession, that is, of repentance and faith in Christ. No background checks. No questionnaire. Etc etc etc. 3000 men were baptized on Pentecost; it's hard to believe there could have been time for anything other than a simple profession from each.




Quite right. We assume they're on the up and up.


----------



## non dignus (May 31, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Children? Well if a child professes faith in Christ, it is not a matter of waiting, it is a matter of making sure they understand law and gospel. If they understand their sinfulness and the free gift contained in the gospel, then there is no hesitation. We baptize just as soon as the water can be brought up to room temperature.



Would they then take communion? Would you make sure they are able to discern the Lord's body?


----------



## Herald (May 31, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Would they then take communion? Would you make sure they are able to discern the Lord's body?



We do not have a formal position on children and the Lord's Supper. We work in conjunction with the parents in determining whether the child is able to understand the spiritual meaning of the Supper. This includes the same warning that is given to adults in not partaking in an unworthy manner.


----------



## non dignus (May 31, 2007)

Thanks.


----------

