# The Call to Repentance Over Baptism



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

Let's say a paedo calls a credo to repent over his erroneous view of baptism or vice-versa, and they refuse to repent. Now what? Let's say the two brethren went to church together and the one refused to repent and the matter was brought before the church. The church found brother #1 in error and declared that he should repent over his view of baptism. Brother #1 refuses to do so and he is excommunicated over a lack of repentance.

Don't tell me that this is not the way that it is because I have plainly read in earlier threads that brother #1 is sinning because he doesn't take the same stand on baptism that brother #2 and that local church does.

So, in the eyes of brother #2 and the church, brother #1 is living in unrepentant sin.

I want to know how Presbyterians can fellowship with Baptists or Baptists can fellowship with Presbyterians when both claim the other is living in unrepentant sin? If they would be excommunicated in the church for refusing to repent over sin then how can brother #1 and brother #2 fellowship together just because they don't go to the same church?

I trust this thread isn't taken in the wrong spirit because it is not intended in that way at all. May God give us all some prayerful answers concerning this matter.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

I assume that they can fellowship for exactly that reason, yes. (that they don't go to the same church). But your example is why I feel that the PB needs to be 100% paedobaptist or needs to eliminate the baptism forum.


----------



## Herald (May 28, 2007)

Ryan - you're missing one very important fact in your hypothetical. What does the church believe? If it's a Baptist church it is going to be credo (or else it isn't Baptist). If it's a Presbyterian church it is probably paedo. If a paedo brother is in a credo church and calls on his credo brother to repent, well the call isn't going very far. It would be dead in its Matthew 18 tracks. The same if it were the other way around. 

Now lets say it was a credo in a paedo church and the paedo brother called on the credo to repent over his sin. Would this be a brother who just became convinced of credo baptism, or has this brother been a credo all along? If he applied for membership to a Presbyterian church and was accepted, with the church knowing of his credo beliefs, then there is no church discipline to be had. If the individual adopts a credo position out of the blue, well my Presbyterian brethren will have to answer that hypothetical.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ryan - you're missing one very important fact in your hypothetical. What does the church believe? If it's a Baptist church it is going to be credo (or else it isn't Baptist). If it's a Presbyterian church it is probably paedo. If a paedo brother is in a credo church and calls on his credo brother to repent, well the call isn't going very far. It would be dead in its Matthew 18 tracks. The same if it were the other way around.
> 
> Now lets say it was a credo in a paedo church and the paedo brother called on the credo to repent over his sin. Would this be a brother who just became convinced of credo baptism, or has this brother been a credo all along? If he applied for membership to a Presbyterian church and was accepted, with the church knowing of his credo beliefs, then there is no church discipline to be had. If the individual adopts a credo position out of the blue, well my Presbyterian brethren will have to answer that hypothetical.



Bill, thanks for your response.

I'm not missing the fact that you brought up. I understand that, but I simply used the hypothetical to build the foundation for my question. Is brother #1 really living in unrepentant sin if he doesn't hold the same baptism position as brother #2?

My point was if a baptist would be excommunicated from a presbyterian church for not repenting over their erroneous view of baptism or vice-versa, then how can a presbyterian and baptist truly fellowship with one another?

We are commanded to not fellowship with those that are living in unrepentant sin, and if that's the case then how is it possible?

Again, I only used the hypothetical church situation to lay the foundation of the fact that churches really do believe that those that hold to the opposing view of baptism are living in unrepentant sin. Just because brother #1 and brother #2 do not go to the same church doesn't change that fact.


----------



## Herald (May 28, 2007)

> But your example is why I feel that the PB needs to be 100% paedobaptist or needs to eliminate the baptism forum.



Brother Adam, I don't believe either one of those suggestions is appropriate. I believe you've taken some shrapnel for the other baptism threads. I can appreciate how you must feel. But I don't believe an "either/or" solution is in the best interest of the board or its members.

No one needs to participate in baptism threads. I pick and choose which threads I will participate in. My main concern with baptism threads is not how they start (usually), it's what they become. The tendency of baptism threads to stray off topic, or to become vitriolic is the responsibility of all and should be held in check by the mods. 'nuff said on that.

Ryan, back to the OP. Let's consider that most of our churches have individuals who hold to differing theological views. I'm not EP but another brother is. Is one of us in sin? You may be Amil and I'm Premil, is one of us in sin? Wine or grape juice? Dichotomist or Trichotomist? If we believe a contrary baptismal view is worthy of church discipline, why not the rest?


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ryan, back to the OP. Let's consider that most of our churches have individuals who hold to differing theological views. I'm not EP but another brother is. Is one of us in sin? You may be Amil and I'm Premil, is one of us in sin? Wine or grape juice? Dichotomist or Trichotomist? If we believe a contrary baptismal view is worthy of church discipline, why not the rest?



Great question, Bill!

That's my point. In an earlier thread a brother was told to repent of his erroneous baptism view. If he really is in sin over his baptism view then how can a paedo and credo fellowship? They couldn't fellowship in the same church, so how can they fellowship outside of the church?

How far can this be taken?


----------



## Herald (May 28, 2007)

Ryan - I believe there is a difference between theological error and a sinful thought, action or behavior. Orthodoxy covers a very broad spectrum. Some may argue, but I believe credo and paedo views of baptism are within the sphere of orthodoxy. Baptismal regeneration is not within the sphere of orthodoxy. 

Who gets to set up the rules as to what is orthodox and what is not? To some degree orthodoxy is in the mind of the beholder. But for those of us who are PB members, we attend churches that would share a common view of orthodoxy. I have no problem saying that I disagree with the paedo position but would not say it falls out of the sphere of orthodoxy. Maybe the orthodoxy discussion deserves its own thread, but for our purposes I am trying to make the point that there is a difference between holding to a differing theological position and committing an act of sin.


----------



## larryjf (May 28, 2007)

I guess it wouldn't be an issue if they both were in the Free Presbyterian Church.

From their articles of faith...


> 6a. Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.



As for my church, really only the officers have to ascribe to the Westminster Standards. If a member of our church believes in credo-baptism that would not be a disciplinary issue unless they were causing division by it.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ryan - I believe there is a difference between theological error and a sinful thought, action or behavior. Orthodoxy covers a very broad spectrum. Some may argue, but I believe credo and paedo views of baptism are within the sphere of orthodoxy. Baptismal regeneration is not within the sphere of orthodoxy.



Bill, I agree with this, but there are others on the Puritan Board who do not. As I stated earlier a brother was commanded to repent of his erroneous baptism view and this was backed up by others.

A call to repentance is only made when one thinks that another is SINNING. This is my whole point to this thread. If that is taken to its logical conclusion then a paedo and credo cannot truly fellowship with one another because in the mind of each the other is in unrepentant sin. I'm not saying I believe that, but I want to know how those that do believe that can defend their decision to fellowship with the one they are calling to repent.

A call to repentance is not just theological error, it's one brother thinking the other is in sin. Bill, I think what you and I consider theological error is considered unrepentant sin by others.


----------



## Herald (May 28, 2007)

> If he really is in sin over his baptism view then how can a paedo and credo fellowship?



Ryan - forget just limiting the fellowship issue to paedo's and credo's. How about all the other theological differences brothers have? I enumerated some of them in my previous post. If a church is pre-mil are we going to begin the Matthew 18 principle if a brother is post-mil? Where is the line drawn? One answer (again, in my previous post) is extend liberty in certain areas that are within the sphere of orthodoxy. Also, if a church has published specific doctrinal positions, believing outside of those positions would be problematic. For example, I have read the doctrinal statements of more than a few churches that state (in no uncertain terms) that they are KJV only, pre-tribulation and pre-millennial. Knowing that in advance I would never attend a church that believes those things. If I were a member and became convinced those beliefs were in error, I would leave.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

larryjf said:


> As for my church, really only the officers have to ascribe to the Westminster Standards. If a member of our church believes in credo-baptism that would not be a disciplinary issue unless they were causing division by it.



Larry, thanks for the response. Is not unrepentant sin ground for church discipline? If a paedo or a credo believes the other is really sinning in their view of baptism then they are in unrepentant sin in that brothers eyes. How can they fellowship?

I'm asking this because some brothers believe that another brothers view of baptism is sin that needs to be repented of. If that brother doesn't repent then in the other brother's eyes he is living in unrepentant sin. How can there be fellowship if this is the case?


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ryan - forget just limiting the fellowship issue to paedo's and credo's. How about all the other theological differences brothers have? I enumerated some of them in my previous post. If a church is pre-mil are we going to begin the Matthew 18 principle of a brother is post-mil? Where is the line drawn? One answer (again, in my previous post) is extend liberty in certain areas that are within the sphere of orthodoxy. Also, if a church has published specific doctrinal positions, believing outside of those positions would be problematic. For example, I have read the doctrinal statements of more than a few churches that state (in no uncertain terms) that they are KJV only, pre-tribulation and pre-millennial. Knowing that in advance I would never attend a church that believes those things. If I were a member and became convinced those beliefs were in error, I would leave.



Bill - Do you believe that a paedo view is sin?


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

Wow......I thought Ash Wed. was a touchy subject here.


----------



## Herald (May 28, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> Bill - Do you believe that a paedo view is sin?



Ryan - honestly? I'm not sure. I remember answering this question in a baptism thread last year. If it is sin I would still place it within the spehre of orthodoxy. But that is just me.


----------



## reformedman (May 28, 2007)

I see you use the word, "repent" a lot. But there is nothing to repent for in the first place. Sin has not been committed, so there is no need for repentance. 

Sin is not the doing of something that is abiblical.
sin is when you do something that is antibiblical.

This means, doing something that God commands not to do, or not doing something that God commands to do.

Both paedo and credo, are doing things that are abiblical and biblical.
They are not doing anything antibiblical.

the paedo abiblically, baptizes unbelieving infants. 
Even if they baptized unbelieving adults, I don't see a command against it.
There is only a command to baptize people who repent and believe.

the credo doesn't baptize infants, nothing abiblical or antibiblical there either.

So neither one is doing anything antibiblical, and are both doing what *is *biblical.
therefore no sin is committed.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

reformedman said:


> I see you use the word, "repent" a lot. But there is nothing to repent for in the first place. Sin has not been committed, so there is no need for repentance.



I agree. I ONLY started this thread because in another thread a brother was called to repent over his erroneous view of baptism. 

I want to hear from those that believe the opposite view of baptism is sinful. How do you fellowship with the brother that holds that view?




BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ryan - honestly? I'm not sure. I remember answering this question in a baptism thread last year. If it is sin I would still place it within the spehre of orthodoxy. But that is just me.



Interesting. But regardless of whether we feel it falls within the sphere of orthodoxy, sin is still sin. If a brother is calling another brother to repent it is because of sin. If sin is left unrepentant then it doesn't matter whether it falls within the sphere of orthodoxy or not. Does it?


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

reformedman said:


> So neither one is doing anything antibiblical, and are both doing what *is *biblical.
> therefore no sin is committed.



I don't claim that sin is committed, but some do. I want to hear from those who do.


----------



## Herald (May 28, 2007)

Ryan - I'll sit in the wings a bit and let those who do believe it is a sin worthy of repentance to answer.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

You have to believe it's a sin because if you don't then you don't believe your confession and if you don't believe your confession it's possible that you don't believe in anything including the doctrines of grace.

...at least that's how I suspect most would see this issue here based on all that I've read regarding this recently.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

Ryan,

I think you need to be clearer in your categories because you're making all sin equivalent.

CH never said: "Repent of this sin..."

He actually told them they needed to repent of an un-Biblical belief.

Is an un-Biblical belief as sin? Yes, but not in the sense that a sin between two brothers is. There is no sense in which a man can leave his sacrifice at the altar and go and be reconciled to his brother for the particular offense that has been committed.

The issue of whether or not a theological error _judicially_ requires censure is for a Church and its Officers to judge.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Ryan,
> 
> I think you need to be clearer in your categories because you're making all sin equivalent.
> 
> ...




So, unrepentance in this case is no grounds for disfellowship? Can one be in continuous fellowship with a brother that is in unrepentant sin whether that sin is slander or a view of baptism?

On what grounds can the fellowship occur when these verses are clear and plain?

*II Thessalonians 3:14-15*, "_And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother_."

If credobaptism is truly against the teaching of the Apostle Paul then the credobaptist is not obeying his word. If that's the case then the command is to have no company with him.

Is it only Paul's words in II Thessalonians that he is commanding men to obey, or is it his teachings as a whole?

*I Timothy 6:3-5*, "_If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself_."

If one is not consenting to the baptism that are taught in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ then is the command not to withdraw ourselves from that individual?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

Ryan,

I answered your question. It is a judicial matter. Fellowship and Excommunication are matters of Church discipline. Men in the pews don't make the personal decision of who they will and will not fellowship with. There could be no Church unity if each man made that decision.

What do you do in your Church? Why don't you answer the question since you're in a position to bind and loose within your own body?

If God ever calls me to Office, I will be among a plurality who would have to judicially decide that issue and each case would be different regarding the nature of the doctrine being denied.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

I wasn't asking the question to myself. I want to know what other individuals do.

Not necessarily from an ecclesiastical point of view, but more from a personal perspective.

Obviously, being a Presbyterian attending a Baptist Church, you can fellowship with those you think are in error on the view of baptism.

In light of the previous verses from the Apostle Paul are you being obedient to them?

What if God does call you to office and your plurality of elders decides that credobaptists are in sin and must repent. Have you been inconsistent and wrong for attending a Baptist Church at the present time if that becomes the case?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 29, 2007)

Yes, Ryan, I'm being obedient by being in fellowship with people that I'm a member of a Church with. Implicit in verses that talk about dis-fellowship is Church discipline. Those verses cannot be pressed to imply that every brother is to decide for himself, within a Church, who is to be fellowshipped with or who is not. 

Regarding the latter hypothetical, the answer is No. It ought to be clear from the fact that I don't hold Office and that I have no right to determine who I will/will not fellowship with.

Why won't you answer the question for yourself? Do you deny this is primarily a matter of Church discipline regarding fellowship? If not, then what is you stance as an office holder? You are comfortable asking me to answer a hypothetical about the future so how about the present: 
Is the baptism of the infant children of believers Biblical?
If a man wants to join your Church, is he permitted to do so if he was not immersed as an adult? (forgive me if you already answered this)
If a man says he believes in Christ but has never been baptized and _refuses_ to be baptized, will you admit him to membership?

The last question is an interesting one that I'd like to see answered. The issue, after all, is _just_ about baptism and a man's beliefs concerning it.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Yes, Ryan, I'm being obedient by being in fellowship with people that I'm a member of a Church with. Implicit in verses that talk about dis-fellowship is Church discipline. Those verses cannot be pressed to imply that every brother is to decide for himself, within a Church, who is to be fellowshipped with or who is not.
> 
> Regarding the latter hypothetical, the answer is No. It ought to be clear from the fact that I don't hold Office and that I have no right to determine who I will/will not fellowship with.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your honesty, Rich.

Yes, I believe the baptism of the infant children of believers is Biblical. 

Yes, if a person wants to join my church I would allow him/her to if they were not immersed as an adult.

No, I will not admit anyone to membership that refuses baptism.

I know that the first two answers are not the norm for a baptist, but that's just it. I don't believe that either side is in sin.

I know my baptist brethren are probably wondering why I don't jump ship and become a Presbyterian. Perhaps in time I will. But right now God has me where He has planted me.

I'm simply trying to understand the credo position in the mind of a full-blown paedo. This is why I'm asking these questions. I'm not full-blown yet. I have a leg in both camps.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 29, 2007)

> I have a leg in both camps.



Pretty much where I am and have been for a long while.


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Ryan,
> 
> I answered your question. It is a judicial matter. Fellowship and Excommunication are matters of Church discipline. Men in the pews don't make the personal decision of who they will and will not fellowship with. There could be no Church unity if each man made that decision.
> 
> ...



Rich, BINGO! The πρεσβυτέρον (presbuteron = elders) are charged with shepherding the flock of God. This includes maintaining doctrinal purity within the church. Part of establishing and maintaining doctrinal purity is understanding the issues at hand. If a brother or sister is having a struggle with the some aspect of the doctrines of grace, understanding and love may be the prescription as opposed to church discipline. On the other hand, if that person is seeking to teach against what the church believes it may be counted as an offense that needs to be dealt with formally.


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

> I'm simply trying to understand the credo position in the mind of a full-blown paedo. This is why I'm asking these questions. I'm not full-blown yet. I have a leg in both camps.



So this is what your OP was all about? You're a baptist struggling with your stance on baptism? Perish the thought! Seriously, you're not the first nor will you be the last.

While I _personally_ would not prohibit someone who was baptized as an infant from joining the church, I don't believe that puts me with a leg in both camps. My belief in credobaptism is solid. I just don't believe it should prohibit a brother or sister in Christ from becoming part of our local body. Yes, I would restrict them from teaching paedo doctrine or otherwise become contentious on the issue of baptism, but I would welcome them into our church family.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> So this is what your OP was all about? You're a baptist struggling with your stance on baptism? Perish the thought! Seriously, you're not the first nor will you be the last.
> 
> While I _personally_ would not prohibit someone who was baptized as an infant from joining the church, I don't believe that puts me with a leg in both camps. My belief in credobaptism is solid. I just don't believe it should prohibit a brother or sister in Christ from becoming part of our local body. Yes, I would restrict them from teaching paedo doctrine or otherwise become contentious on the issue of baptism, but I would welcome them into our church family.



Oops, did I give myself away?


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 29, 2007)

Seriously though, it's not that what I say here matters anyway. I never post enough here to get a foot in the door, so no one cares if I'm a closet baptipresby. I just enjoy reading and learning the Presbyterian side of things from my Presbyterian brothers. From time to time I like to "pick" their brains a little.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 29, 2007)

Ryan,

I would say the simple answer is that while all paedo confessions view a credo practice of baptism as being sinful, they do _not_ in fact view it as being outside the bounds of orthodoxy. From the paedo view, the Westminster Confession is clear on that:



> Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (28.5)



Furthermore, since there are different degrees of sin, Presbyterian ecclesiology does not view excommunication as the ultimate outcome for _every_ one of them, even in some cases of unrepentance. In the recent thread that inspired the creation of this one, I just quoted a post of Fred Greco's from a few months back, but I'll quote it again here since it is dealing _exactly_ with the issue you mention of a paedo or credo layman being able to fellowship in a church confessing his view on baptism to be sinful:



> Now back to the matter of "discipline". Discipline takes all sorts of forms, the problem is what many think of discipline, they only think of trials and excommunications. *But actually pastoral counsel, admonition and rebuke are just as much discipline as charges and trials.* The difference is one of degree not of kind. So I would in fact discipline a member of my church who failed to baptize his children, but for me, that would take the form of admonition and rebuke not charges and trials. Why? You might ask. Is because I view it to be a more serious sin not to join and be a member of the church and to fail to baptize one's children. To be very honest with you I would be more except with my session if they permitted a person to be a "visitor" for two years and then if they allowed a Baptist to join the church. I would encourage the Baptist to join the church, with the knowledge that he was going to be subject to preaching, teaching, and encouragement that would continually and directly contradict his beliefs on baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 29, 2007)

Chris,

Isn't it funny how that thread echoes so closely some of the recent controversy. I had almost forgottent that I brought some of the same stuff up.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 29, 2007)

Nothing new under the sun!


----------



## larryjf (May 29, 2007)

Personally, i don't see how this situation would come up in my life since the church that i attend would have 3 things...

Rightly preaching of the word of God
Rightly exercising discipline
*Right administration of the sacraments*
So since i don't believe credo-baptism is a proper administration of that sacrament i would not become a member of a credo church.

However, i don't know that i would consider credobaptism a sin.


----------



## etexas (May 29, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Personally, i don't see how this situation would come up in my life since the church that i attend would have 3 things...
> 
> Rightly preaching of the word of God
> Rightly exercising discipline
> ...


I also would simply view Credo-Baptism an improper Sacramental Administration, not a sin.....more of a flawed view of application of the Sacrament.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 29, 2007)

I'm still a Baptist at heart though I'm a member of the OPC. I can give an argument (not too deep) for both modes of baptism. It is not an sin to hold either conviction. If I am able to adopt my kids (before they become adults) I will have all of them baptized as a visible sign and seal of the covenant. I can go back and forth between arguments pretty QUICKLY. Because of the rapidity with which I can change support I am from this day forward to be known as a Speedo-Baptist.


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

Teaching erroneous doctrine is certainly a sin. Simple dialogue on PB could very easily be considered teaching because we are often speaking to persuade.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 29, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> Ryan,
> 
> I would say the simple answer is that while all paedo confessions view a credo practice of baptism as being sinful, they do _not_ in fact view it as being outside the bounds of orthodoxy. From the paedo view, the Westminster Confession is clear on that:
> 
> ...



Chris, 

That's a very good post. Along with Rich's posts last night it cuts to the heart of what I was asking. This is the reason why Baptists and Presbyterians can fellowship with one another and still hold that the other's view of baptism is wrong.

Great quote by Fred. I understand and agree with him completely on that issue. Especially since when I took the church that I am at six years ago I was very much steeped in easy-believism and dispensationalism and free will etc. After my 180 degree turn I've come to understand that I have to be very patient with the people as I have tried to help them come to terms with the Doctrines of Grace and many reformed doctrines.

Thanks for that post.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 29, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I'm still a Baptist at heart though I'm a member of the OPC. I can give an argument (not too deep) for both modes of baptism. It is not an sin to hold either conviction. If I am able to adopt my kids (before they become adults) I will have all of them baptized as a visible sign and seal of the covenant. I can go back and forth between arguments pretty QUICKLY. Because of the rapidity with which I can change support I am from this day forward to be known as a Speedo-Baptist.



Interesting post, Bob. That's where I am at right now, but I think it's only because I have been such a strong credo for most of my life. If I make the switch completely to the paedo camp it will probably be because I am convinced enough that the credo camp is wrong.


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

> Furthermore, since there are different degrees of sin, Presbyterian ecclesiology does not view excommunication as the ultimate outcome for every one of them, even in some cases of unrepentance. In the recent thread that inspired the creation of this one, I just quoted a post of Fred Greco's from a few months back, but I'll quote it again here since it is dealing exactly with the issue you mention of a paedo or credo layman being able to fellowship in a church confessing his view on baptism to be sinful:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Now back to the matter of "discipline". Discipline takes all sorts of forms, the problem is what many think of discipline, they only think of trials and excommunications. But actually pastoral counsel, admonition and rebuke are just as much discipline as charges and trials. The difference is one of degree not of kind. So I would in fact discipline a member of my church who failed to baptize his children, but for me, that would take the form of admonition and rebuke not charges and trials. Why? You might ask. Is because I view it to be a more serious sin not to join and be a member of the church and to fail to baptize one's children. To be very honest with you I would be more except with my session if they permitted a person to be a "visitor" for two years and then if they allowed a Baptist to join the church. I would encourage the Baptist to join the church, with the knowledge that he was going to be subject to preaching, teaching, and encouragement that would continually and directly contradict his beliefs on baptism.



Chris - thank you for quoting what Fred had to say. I don't believe Fred is weakening his paedo position one iota in his comments. It is similar to my response to Ryan a few posts back. I'm glad that it came from the "fingers" of a paedo. I also failed to view church discipline in the same manner as Fred. He's right. Discipline takes many forms. Pastoral counseling, admonition and rebuke are all part of it. I appreciate that reminder for my ministry.


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

> Because of the rapidity with which I can change support I am from this day forward to be known as a Speedo-Baptist.



Seeing as you are also a male model, the thought of you in a Speedo is enough to vacate my breakfast!


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Chris - thank you for quoting what Fred had to say. I don't believe Fred is weakening his paedo position one iota in his comments. It is similar to my response to Ryan a few posts back. I'm glad that it came from the "fingers" of a paedo. I also failed to few church discipline in the same manner as Fred. He's right. Discipline takes many forms. Pastoral counseling, admonition and rebuke are all part of it. I appreciate that reminder for my ministry.




Bill,

You're right, this is right along with your posts as well. It's not that I didn't appreciate your posts, but I just wanted to see it from a paedo perspective as opposed to a credo perspective. I'm very glad to see it put that way by Fred and others. It's the same type of stand I take at my church, but it was also a good reminder for my ministry as well.


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> This is the reason why Baptists and Presbyterians can fellowship with one another and still hold that the other's view of baptism is wrong.



Forgive me. Could we define _fellowship_?


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

David - to what degree do you view credo baptism as a sin? If a member of your church suddenly adopted a credo conviction, would you be in favor of a Matthew 18 approach, up to and including excommunication?


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Seeing as you are also a male model, the thought of you in a Speedo is enough to vacate my breakfast!



Exactly what I was thinking. Bob being a Speedo-baptist goes right along with his handle as a male model.


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - to what degree do you view credo baptism as a sin? If a member of your church suddenly adopted a credo conviction, would you be in favor of a Matthew 18 approach, up to and including excommunication?



If he confessed to the consistory his conviction he would be admonished not to spread his view. If he refused to baptize his children that would be cause for extreme discipline.


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

How can the 1689' not be construed as sedition?


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

non dignus said:


> How can the 1689' not be construed as sedition?



Huh?


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

non dignus said:


> If he confessed to the consistory his conviction he would be admonished not to spread his view. If he refused to baptize his children that would be cause for extreme discipline.



Okay, I'm not far from you on that, but from a credo perspective. If a parent has a child who professes faith in Christ and refuses to allow his child to be baptized, it would become a discipline issue. In our case we would proceed circumspectly. The age of the child, whether the parents and elders trust that they child was able to grasp law and gospel, the reason for the parents withholding their child from baptism...all of these would play a part in how the elders would address the situation.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 29, 2007)

Because of Paul's exhortation in Romans 14:5b "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." I can't call one's conviction on the mode of baptism 'a sin'.

We are to be FULLY convinced. Matters of conviction are important. In all matters of truth we are to discern the matter according to wisdom, we are to assess the matter according to scripture and to engage one another in brotherly love. We are not to be 'loosey-goosey' or to deny the importance of the matter.

Mode of baptism is one of those issues that cannot be solved to a dogmatic degree because it has pleased the Lord to leave us without extrinsic teaching from the scripture. Good and godly men will come down on both sides as a result.

Good and godly men will also have their goodness and godliness tested by these types of issues. Constrained by Christs power and his Law of Love that frees us to have right relationships - kingdom building relationships - we have the obligation to disagree greatly and yet seek fellowship in a manner worthy of the gospel with those IN Christ. The failure to do this will cause us to use our convictions to cause schisms which is indeed a sin.


----------



## etexas (May 29, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Because of Paul's exhortation in Romans 14:5b "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." I can't call one's conviction on the mode of baptism 'a sin'.
> 
> We are to be FULLY convinced. Matters of conviction are important. In all matters of truth we are to discern the matter according to wisdom, we are to assess the matter according to scripture and to engage one another in brotherly love. We are not to be 'loosey-goosey' or to deny the importance of the matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## CDM (May 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ryan - you're missing one very important fact in your hypothetical. What does the church believe? If it's a Baptist church it is going to be credo (or else it isn't Baptist). If it's a Presbyterian church it is probably paedo. *If a paedo brother is in a credo church and calls on his credo brother to repent, well the call isn't going very far. It would be dead in its Matthew 18 tracks. The same if it were the other way around.*





BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - to what degree do you view credo baptism as a sin? *If a member of your church suddenly adopted a credo conviction, would you be in favor of a Matthew 18 approach, up to and including excommunication?*



Bill,
You've mentioned Matthew 18 a couple of times in this thread. I assume you are referring to vv.15-17:

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 

20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. 

21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 

22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.​ 
How does this apply to the hypothetical being discussed? If one Credo in a Presbyterian church was not baptizing his children it isn't a sin against _me_[or any one person] per se. I wouldn't go to him and say he has sinned against _me_ and then upon his refusal to acknowledge this go and get witnesses, then take him before the church [leadership]. Look at Peter's question in v.21.

Matt. 18 is addressing when someone is personally sinned against by another isn't it? These *non-baptizing* sins are public sins that would be dealt with by the leadership. Matt. 18 isn't a catch-all.



non dignus said:


> Forgive me. Could we define _fellowship_?


 This would be helpful.


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

Chris, the process of church discipline operates in a similar fashion regardless of whether the offense is personal or doctrinal. If the offense is in a point of doctrine it may be a fellow brother or the eldership that points it out.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 29, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Because of Paul's exhortation in Romans 14:5b "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." I can't call one's conviction on the mode of baptism 'a sin'.
> 
> We are to be FULLY convinced. Matters of conviction are important. In all matters of truth we are to discern the matter according to wisdom, we are to assess the matter according to scripture and to engage one another in brotherly love. We are not to be 'loosey-goosey' or to deny the importance of the matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Huh?



Since the marks of the church are pure preaching, right use of the sacraments, and discipline; any departure from those would be a _seceding _from the church, or sedition. 

While baptismal regeneration was jettisoned in the reformation, infant baptism was not. Only the radical sects practiced believers' only baptism then, and 90% of Baptistic churches today are Arminian. What does that tell you? 

If it looks like sedition, smells like sedition, sounds like sedition.......?


----------



## satz (May 29, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Forgive me. Could we define _fellowship_?



Actually I think this is a really good and important question. David, would you be willing to share your opinion? Obviously defining 'fellowship' as per the context of this thread.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 29, 2007)

non dignus said:


> How can the 1689' not be construed as sedition?





Were authors of the 1689 LBC under the authority of the Presbyterians? Not that I'm aware of. 

Sedition: 

Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state. 
Insurrection; rebellion. 

The 1689ers were not in rebellion against the state because of the 1689 Toleration Act. And they weren't in a state of rebellion against any other church because they weren't members. No rebellion, no sedition. Maybe other things, but not this.


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

satz said:


> Actually I think this is a really good and important question. David, would you be willing to share your opinion? Obviously defining 'fellowship' as per the context of this thread.



Fellowship is in degrees. It is like friendship but more intense being centered around common interests and abilities. 

Christian fellowship is God's special gift to those who believe in the true God through the Holy Spirit by the blood of Christ. It is commanded.

But the highest form of Christian fellowship would be worshipping, communing, praying etc. on the Lord's day with those holding to the same creeds and confessions.


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Were authors of the 1689 LBC under the authority of the Presbyterians? Not that I'm aware of.
> 
> Sedition:
> 
> ...



Vic - well said. The poor Presbyterians. We Baptists usurped their gig and now we're guilty of sedition. David - feel free to convict us in the court of your private opinion. I hope you don't mind if we ignore the jury verdict and refuse to submit to the sentence.


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

Vic,
Thanks for replying.



victorbravo said:


> Were authors of the 1689 LBC under the authority of the Presbyterians? Not that I'm aware of.


They should have been under the authority of the general Protestant church and in accord with her standards. 


> Sedition:
> 
> Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
> Insurrection; rebellion.
> ...




I'm thinking of Gal 5:20 where the word used might be _dissension, division, disunion._

"_Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, *divisions*....._"​


----------



## VictorBravo (May 29, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Vic,
> Thanks for replying.
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, David. I knew what you were getting at..I couldn't resist being picky. 

Still, calling it sedition begs the question that the underlying disagreement is resolved.


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Still, calling it sedition begs the question that the underlying disagreement is resolved.



That's what I get for using the King James translation! 

I don't understand. Rather shouldn't we say this division begs to be resolved?


----------



## turmeric (May 29, 2007)

Bob? Male model and Speedo-baptist?


----------



## satz (May 29, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Fellowship is in degrees. It is like friendship but more intense being centered around common interests and abilities.
> 
> Christian fellowship is God's special gift to those who believe in the true God through the Holy Spirit by the blood of Christ. It is commanded.
> 
> But the highest form of Christian fellowship would be worshipping, communing, praying etc. on the Lord's day with those holding to the same creeds and confessions.



How would you apply this distinction to the discussion?

Are you implying that credo and paedo baptists can 'fellowship' ie be friends, but cannot really FELLOWSHIP ie full church communion?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 29, 2007)

non dignus said:


> That's what I get for using the King James translation!
> 
> I don't understand. Rather shouldn't we say this division begs to be resolved?



Well, that is probably true as well. But I was talking about begging the question meaning it assumed the proposition to be proved: 

It is sedition (or divisive) because it is contrary to scripture. It is contrary to scripture because it is divisive. The accusation assumes the conclusion.

I haven't had much time to enter the debate, but I think the real issues revolves around the idea that Baptism replaces circumcision. The other items, such as gloss on how to interpret NT practice, is actually interpreted according to our presuppositions.


----------



## non dignus (May 29, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> It is sedition (or divisive) because it is contrary to scripture. It is contrary to scripture because it is divisive. The accusation assumes the conclusion.



Gosh, I need to learn logic.

I don't think it's a perfect circle though. It is divisive because it is contrary to doctrine. It is contrary to doctrine because man is fallen.


----------



## Chris (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Since the marks of the church are pure preaching, right use of the sacraments, and discipline; any departure from those would be a _seceding _from the church, or sedition.
> 
> While baptismal regeneration was jettisoned in the reformation, infant baptism was not. Only the radical sects practiced believers' only baptism then, and 90% of Baptistic churches today are Arminian. What does that tell you?
> If it looks like sedition, smells like sedition, sounds like sedition.......?



It tells me that you, sir, are really good at confusing correlation with causation. 

The (proper, credo) view of Baptism is NOT the reason for modern baptists' bad theology in other areas, any more than paedobaptism is responsible for roman error.


----------



## non dignus (May 30, 2007)

Chris said:


> It tells me that you, sir, are really good at confusing correlation with causation.
> 
> The (proper, credo) view of Baptism is NOT the reason for modern baptists' bad theology in other areas, any more than paedobaptism is responsible for roman error.



You are right, correlation isn't causation. But given the nature of the ecclesiological error (emphasis on the member's volition determining baptismal sign), it is easy to see that it led to the adoption of a soteriological error of similar emphasis, namely Arminianism. Error begats error. 

You could possibly argue that the Reformation didn't come full tilt until 1689 but I doubt you would get much agreement from unbiased historians. Case in point: the baptists were a small minority and remain so.


----------



## Dagmire (May 30, 2007)

Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that baptizing _anyone_ is sin?


----------



## KMK (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> You are right, correlation isn't causation. But given the nature of the ecclesiological error (emphasis on the member's volition determining baptismal sign), it is easy to see that it led to further emphasis on free will which in turn has led to the soteriological error of Arminianism. *Error begats error*.



Error does 'beget' error. 

How do you explain the soteriological error of Arminianism among paedobaptists?


----------



## Chris (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Case in point: the baptists were a small minority and remain so.



I could use the 'small group' argument to support our being wrong or right; it's all a matter of how you skew it. 

Might does not make right. Please, stop making such spurious arguments.


----------



## non dignus (May 30, 2007)

KMK said:


> Error does 'beget' error.
> 
> How do you explain the soteriological error of Arminianism among paedobaptists?



_Beget_. Thank you, Ken!

To which Arminian Paedobaptists are you referring?


----------



## Chris (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> _Beget_. Thank you, Ken!
> 
> To which Arminian Paedobaptists are you referring?



Cumberland Presbyterians, for one...


----------



## Dagmire (May 30, 2007)

*ahem*


Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that baptizing _anyone_ is sin?



I really want to know.


----------



## Chris (May 30, 2007)

Dagmire said:


> *ahem*
> 
> 
> Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that baptizing _anyone_ is sin?
> ...



It's right next to the passage that says God is a Trinity.


----------



## KMK (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> _Beget_. Thank you, Ken!
> 
> To which Arminian Paedobaptists are you referring?



Methodists for another...


----------



## non dignus (May 30, 2007)

Chris said:


> I could use the 'small group' argument to support our being wrong or right; it's all a matter of how you skew it.
> 
> Might does not make right. Please, stop making such spurious arguments.



Chris,
My point was to the question of whether the Reformation found it's climax with the London Confession of 1689. Given the ratio of Baptist numbers to Reformed numbers, I don't see it. Does anyone else see it? Spurgeon? Was the mid 19th century the high mark of theology?

To revisit _begetting,_ isn't hyper-Calvinism most prevalent among baptists?

My motivation here is not to beat up on my baptist brothers, but to ask them to examine church history and ask whether or not there was a secession from the Protestant Church.


----------



## Dagmire (May 30, 2007)

Chris said:


> It's right next to the passage that says God is a Trinity.




I don't see how that's the same thing. Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father in him. And the Spirit goes out from the Father and Son... three... in one.


Some people baptize their children in faith that God will bless them as a part of His covenant with them, as they are the offspring of His people.

Some people baptize those who profess faith gained in Christ.



I don't understand all the fuss.


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

Might I interject a quote from the most Rev. Divine Spurgeon on this topic of Secession and then I will fade back in my screen...


" We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect. 

—Charles H. Spurgeon"





non dignus said:


> My motivation here is not to beat up on my baptist brothers, but to ask them to examine church history and ask whether or not there was a secession from the Protestant Church.


----------



## Chris (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> To revisit _begetting,_ isn't hyper-Calvinism most prevalent among baptists?



Amongst Baptists, we have the Primitive Baptists, which are a tiny, tiny, tiny group. Most Baptists are anything but hyper-calvinist anymore. Baptist culture simply won't tolerate hyper-calvinism nowadays. 



> My motivation here is not to beat up on my baptist brothers, but to ask them to examine church history and ask whether or not there was a secession from the Protestant Church.




I wouldn't say we seceeded from you so much as we merely refused to join you.


----------



## Chris (May 30, 2007)

Dagmire said:


> I don't see how that's the same thing. Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father in him. And the Spirit goes out from the Father and Son... three... in one.
> 
> 
> Some people baptize their children in faith that God will bless them as a part of His covenant with them, as they are the offspring of His people.
> ...




A sincere belief in either view virtually necessitates a sincere rejection of the alternate theory. 

Please keep in mind, we are NOT killing each other over it.


----------



## Dagmire (May 30, 2007)

How does it necessitate rejection of the other?


----------



## non dignus (May 30, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Might I interject a quote from the most Rev. Divine Spurgeon on this topic of Secession and then I will fade back in my screen...
> 
> 
> " We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect.
> ...



Very interesting, but I'm not sure Spurgeon is helping your case. It sounds as though he is appealing to the radical reformers of whom are descended the Mennonites and other groups with less than stellar ecclesiastical pedigrees.


----------



## KMK (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Very interesting, but I'm not sure Spurgeon is helping your case. It sounds as though he is appealing to the radical reformers of whom are descended the Mennonites and other groups with less than stellar ecclesiastical pedigrees.



I don't think that most Reformed/Particular Baptists would agree with Spurgeon. I know Waldron does not.


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

The Waldenses which is one group he is refering to was very Calvinistic and very Baptistic way before the reformation and by some account as old as the 2nd century. They later merged with the Reformers and became paedo but they did have higher ecclesiastical pedisgrees then the reformational anabaptist groups..

Michael



non dignus said:


> Very interesting, but I'm not sure Spurgeon is helping your case. It sounds as though he is appealing to the radical reformers of whom are descended the Mennonites and other groups with less than stellar ecclesiastical pedigrees.


----------



## KMK (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> the baptists were a small minority and remain so.



Prostestants remain a minority to the RC majority. Is that because we are in error?


----------



## non dignus (May 30, 2007)

Let me research the Methodists and Cumberland Presbyterians. I'm guessing they go both ways as liberals often do. Nobody mentioned the Anglicans. I will do my homework and wait for the paint to dry as I have painted myself into a corner.......


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

I know a many of Reformed Baptist that do agree with Spurgeon and I am friends with many of those pastors....

I might also mention that John Gill mentions the same thing way before Spurgeon....

Michael



KMK said:


> I don't think that most Reformed/Particular Baptists would agree with Spurgeon. I know Waldron does not.


----------



## non dignus (May 30, 2007)

KMK said:


> Prostestants remain a minority to the RC majority. Is that because we are in error?




No. Good point. I was speaking in the context of post-Reformation. Of course now orthodoxy is the slim minority because so much time has elapsed since Luther and Calvin.


----------



## KMK (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Let me research the Methodists and Cumberland Presbyterians. I'm guessing they go both ways as liberals often do. Nobody mentioned the Anglicans. I will do my homework and wait for the paint to dry as I have painted myself into a corner.......



Anglicans are Arminians???? I did not know that!


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

They are now.. Historically they have been calvinist.....



KMK said:


> Anglicans are Arminians???? I did not know that!


----------



## non dignus (May 30, 2007)

KMK said:


> Anglicans are Arminians???? I did not know that!



Anglicans are a motley crew. They have an essentially Reformed creed, a Catholic liturgy, and an Arminian priesthood!


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Anglicans are motley crew. They have an essentially Reformed creed, a Catholic liturgy, and an Arminian priesthood!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 30, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Might I interject a quote from the most Rev. Divine Spurgeon on this topic of Secession and then I will fade back in my screen...
> 
> 
> " We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect.
> ...



Landmarkism anyone?

- break, break -

Chris, non dignus, et al...

This debate is getting pointless. Trudging out the evil paedobaptists or the evil credobaptists on either side doesn't prove a point.

Someone can correlate doctrinal decline to an excessive emphasis that either side could make. Pharisess were paedo-circumcisionists but it didn't keep them from turning circumcision into some sort of salvific act in the same way that some Christian bodies view baptism.

Orthodoxy is hard to hold, period. Paul was rebuking paedobaptist Churches in his Epistles after all. How do I know that? Because paedobaptism is taught in the Scriptures.  (I obviously expect that Credo-baptists will say the same of their own view. The point is that either side would have to acknowledge that error creeps in quickly regardless of your sacramental view and the perversions were not all corruptions in sacramentology).

This discussion is about Church discipline regarding one's views of the Sacraments. If there's nothing further to say along that line of discussion then let's move on.


----------



## JM (May 30, 2007)

> Landmarkism anyone?



I didn't see anything that would stink of Landmarkism.


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

Ahemmmmmmm


Though Secessionism is one aspect of Landmarkism, Secessionism is by no means limited to Landmarkism AND many other Baptist groups hold to the same belief without holding to Landmarkism..................................................



Michael



SemperFideles said:


> Landmarkism anyone?
> 
> - break, break -


----------



## JM (May 30, 2007)

Until someone starts quoting the Trail of Blood...


----------



## MW (May 30, 2007)

thunaer said:


> The Waldenses which is one group he is refering to was very Calvinistic and very Baptistic way before the reformation and by some account as old as the 2nd century. They later merged with the Reformers and became paedo but they did have higher ecclesiastical pedisgrees then the reformational anabaptist groups.



THE WALDENSES
No Anabaptists, but
Presbyterians.

TO THE REV. JAMES WHAREY.

Rev. and Dear Brother—

You request me to give some solution of the question, why in the "History of the Waldenses," by Mr. William Jones, of the Baptist denomination, which has been extensively circulated in the United States, nothing appears to indicate the pædobaptist belief and practice of those far-famed witnesses of the truth? In reply to this inquiry, I have only to say, that two facts are unquestionable. The one fact is, that the ancient records of the Waldenses do contain abundant and conclusive evidence that they did baptize their children. The other fact is, that Mr. Jones has carefully withheld all the evidences of this fact from his readers. What were his motives for doing this, and how he reconciled it with historical candour and verity, are questions which it is not incumbent on me to answer, and on which I dare not pronounce. They must be submitted to the judgment of every impartial reader. But both facts are unquestionable.

1. As to the first fact, it is not necessary to go into much detail, but on the accuracy of the following quotations you may rely.

In an old "Defence," which the Waldenses of Bohemia sent to Ladislaus, their king, who had severely persecuted them, dated A.D. 1508, about ten years before the Reformation by Luther commenced, they repel a number of calumnies, which had been circulated against them by the Romanists. In this defence we find the following unequivocal passage:

"The fourth calumny was concerning Baptism, which it was said, they denied to little infants, but from this imputation they acquit themselves as follows: Neither is the time or place appointed for those who must be baptized. But charity and the edification of the church and congregation ought to be the rule in this matter. Yet notwithstanding, we bring our children to be baptized, which they ought to do to whom they are nearest related, as their parents, or they whom God hath inspired with such a charity." "True it is," say they, "that being for some hundreds of years constrained to suffer our children to be baptized by the Roman priests, we deferred the doing of it as long as possible, because we detested the human inventions annexed to the institution of that holy Sacrament, which we looked upon as pollutions of it. And by reason that our pastors, whom we call Barbes, are often in travels abroad for the service of the church, we could not have baptism administered to our children by our own ministers; we therefore sometimes kept them long without baptism, upon which delay, the priests have charged us with that reproach." Perrin, Part II. Book I. Chap. IV.

In a "Treatise of the Old Waldenses and Albigenses, concerning Antichrist, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and the Sacraments," and dated by Perrin in 1220, the following passage, under the head of Sacraments, occur. 'That which is of no necessity in the administration of baptism, is the exorcism, the breathing on, the sign of the cross upon the infant's breast and forehead, the salt which they put into his mouth, the spittle put into his ears and nose, &c." Perrin. Part II. Book V. Art. IV.

In a "Brief Confession of Faith," made with general consent by the ministers and heads of families of the churches in the valleys of Piedmont, assembled at Augrogne, Sept. 12, 1532, the following explicit declaration is found:

"Concerning the matter of the Sacraments, it has been determined by the Holy Scripture, that we have but two sacramental signs left us by Jesus Christ; the one is Baptism, the other is the Eucharist, which we receive to show that our perseverance in the faith is such as we promised when we were baptized, being little children, and moreover, in remembrance of that great benefit given to us by Jesus Christ, when he died for our redemption, and washed us with his precious blood." Morland, Book I. Chap IV.

Again, Perrin tells us that, in the year 1506, that is about eleven years before the Reformation by Luther commenced, Louis XII. king of France, having been informed that a certain people inhabited a particular part of his dominions, who refused to commune with the Church of Rome, and were represented as exceedingly corrupt in their practices, sent a trusty agent to visit them and inquire into their real character and habits. The agent on returning, reported that he had found the people whom he had been charged to examine, and that they were by no means so corrupt as they had been represented; nay, that the information which had been given concerning the Waldenses of Provence, was notoriously false; "that they were not any ways guilty either of sorcery or adultery, but lived like honest men, doing no hurt or injury to any man; that they caused their children to be baptized, and taught them the articles of the creed, and the commandments of God; that they carefully observed the Lord's day, and that the word of God was purely expounded unto them." Perrin, Part II. Book II. Chap. VIII.

Perrin mentions this report concerning the Waldenses in another place, as a remarkable instance of a testimony in their favour, extorted from adversaries. Perrin, Part II. Book I. Chap. V.

I might quote several other passages from the early documents of these ancient people, but these are enough. They establish, incontestably, the first fact to which I referred, as well as ten thousand. Now,

2. As to the second fact which I mentioned, it is certain that not a syllable of the Foregoing extracts, or anything like them, is to be found in Mr. Jones's history. He refers familiarly to the works of Perrin and Sir Samuel Morland, and speaks of them as the principal sources from which he had drawn his materials, but carefully excludes every thing which they say that savours of infant baptism. Nay more, he expressly quotes the "Treatise on Antichrist, &c." and the "Defence," sent to king Ladislaus, and seems to regard them as perfectly authentic documents, worthy of entire credit, and proceeds to pick out from them what suited his purpose, as a Baptist; but the facts, so clearly and unequivocally stated, which make against the Baptist cause, he studiously withholds from his readers.

But this is not the worst. The last extract above stated, from Perrin, found in Book I. Chap. V. of his History, Mr. Jones directly tampers with, and falsifies. In other cases, he was only chargeable with withholding from his readers, testimony of the most direct kind, which lay plainly before him, and which, from his manner of quoting, it is impossible he should have overlooked. But in the case before us, he is guilty of direct forgery! The statement in Perrin stands thus:

"King Louis XII. having received information from the enemies of the Waldenses, dwelling in Provence, of several heinous crimes which they fathered upon them, sent to the place Monsieur Adam Fumèe, Master of Requests, and a certain Sorbonnist Doctor, called Parui, who was his confessor, to inquire into the matter. They visited all their parishes and temples, and neither found there any images, or sign of the ornaments belonging to the mass, or ceremonies of the Romish Church. Much less could they discover any of those crimes with which they were charged. But rather, that they kept the Sabbath duly; caused their children to be baptized, according to the primitive Church; taught them the articles of the Christian faith, and the commandments of God. The king, having heard the report of the said commissioners, said, with an oath, that they were better men than himself or his people." Book I. Chap. V.

Now, this passage Mr. Jones professes to quote: and expressly refers to Perrin as the source from which he derived it. But, instead of honestly copying the statement above quoted—"they caused their children to be baptized, according to the primitive church;"—he alters and makes it read thus—"They kept the Sabbath day; observed the ordinance of baptism, according to the primitive Church; instructed their children in the articles of the Christian faith," &c. Jones, II. Chap. V. Sect. IV. p. 71. Here is neither more nor less than the very essence of forgery! It is solemnly, in the face of the public, representing an author as saying what he does not say; and that, most evidently, to serve a sectarian turn.

On these facts further comment is unnecessary. Such management is unworthy of a good cause. I leave the whole matter to be estimated by every candid reader.—If Mr. Jones had told his readers that there were such passages as I have quoted to be found in the documents from which he professed to derive testimony, and had, at the same time, assigned his reasons for refusing to believe them, all would have been well. But, as the matter now stands, can he be exculpated from the charge of premeditated deception?

I know that some of our Baptist brethren have ventured to allege that the Waldenses were Antipædobaptist, because the followers of Peter de Bruis, who was considered as belonging to those people, is said to have rejected infant baptism. But the Petrobrussians were only a small fraction, probably not more than a thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole Waldensian body; and entirely differed from the mass of their brethren on this subject. Just as well might it be said that the Baptist denomination in the United States, keep Saturday as their Sabbath, because there are a few seventh day Baptists in our country. Besides, after all, the form in which the Petrobrussians held the Antipædobaptist doctrine, renders it wholly unavailing to the cause of our Baptist brethren. Peter de Bruis taught that infants were incapable of salvation, and THEREFORE ought not to be baptized. But if we wish to know the opinions of the Waldenses as a body, we must go to their Confessions, and other public documents. This we have done.

It may be shown, with equal evidence, that these pious witnesses of the truth not only baptized their children, but also that they adopted the Presbyterian form of Church government. That is, they had no bishops, in the prelatical sense of the word; their ministers were all equal; each church was governed by a bench of Ruling Elders; and their whole body regulated and bound together by a Synodical Assembly, which met once a year, at which time their candidates for the ministry were commonly examined and ordained. I think we may say with confidence, that if ever there were Pædobaptists and Presbyterians in Scotland, they were also found, long before the Reformation, in the Valleys of Piedmont.

I am, reverend and dear sir, with great respect your brother in Christ,

SAMUEL MILLER.
Princeton, N.J.
March 7, 1838.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 30, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Ahemmmmmmm
> 
> 
> Though Secessionism is one aspect of Landmarkism, Secessionism is by no means limited to Landmarkism AND many other Baptist groups hold to the same belief without holding to Landmarkism..................................................
> ...



I take your  and raise you  

The similarity is in form not completely in substance although it goes to the heart of the fact that some want to deny that they broke away from the Church's historic testimony of a practice by supplanting their own version of it no matter how strained it is. I think Spurgeon is engaging in wishful thinking on this point. He was a great preacher but hardly an authority on that subject. I consider that an assertion.

BUT...this thread is not about that stuff. It's about Church discipline...


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

Waldensians where BAPTIST


Waldenses Confession of 1544

1. We believe that there is but one God, who is a Spirit - the Creator of all things - the Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all; who is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth - upon whom we are continually dependent, and to whom we ascribe praise for our life, food, raiment, health, sickness, prosperity, and adversity. We love him as the source of all goodness; and reverence him as that sublime being, who searches the reins and trieth the hearts of the children of men.

2. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son and image of the Father - that in Him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells, and that by Him alone we know the Father. He is our Mediator and advocate; nor is there any other name given under heaven by which we can be saved. In His name alone we call upon the Father, using no other prayers than those contained in the Holy Scriptures, or such as are in substance agreeable thereunto.

3. We believe in the Holy Spirit as the Comforter, proceeding from the Father, and from the Son; by whose inspiration we are taught to pray; being by Him renewed in the spirit of our minds; who creates us anew unto good works, and from whom we receive the knowledge of the truth.

4. We believe that there is one holy church, comprising the whole assembly of the elect and faithful, that have existed from the beginning of the world, or that shall be to the end thereof. Of this church the Lord Jesus Christ is the head - it is governed by His word and guided by the Holy Spirit. In the church it behooves all Christians to have fellowship. For her He [Christ] prays incessantly, and His prayer for it is most acceptable to God, without which indeed their could be no salvation.

5. We hold that the ministers of the church ought to be unblameable both in life and doctrine; and if found otherwise, that they ought to be deposed from their office, and others substituted in their stead; and that no person ought to presume to take that honour unto himself but he who is called of God as was Aaron - that the duties of such are to feed the flock of God, not for filthy lucre's sake, or as having dominion over God's heritage, but as being examples to the flock, in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, and in chastity.

6. We acknowledge, that kings, princes, and governors, are the appointed and established ministers of God, whom we are bound to obey [in all lawful and civil concerns]. For they bear the sword for the defence of the innocent, and the punishment of evil doers; for which reason we are bound to honour and pay them tribute. From this power and authority, no man can exempt himself as is manifest from the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, who voluntarily paid tribute, not taking upon himself any jurisdiction of temporal power.

*7. We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and external sign, which represents to as that which, by virtue of God's invisible operation, is within us - namely, the renovation of our minds, and the mortification of our members through [the faith of] Jesus Christ. And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life.*

8. We hold that the Lord's supper is a commemoration of, and thanksgiving for, the benefits which we have received by His sufferings and death - and that it is to be received in faith and love - examining ourselves, that so we may eat of that bread and drink of that cup, as it is written in the Holy Scriptures.

9. We maintain that marriage was instituted of God. That it is holy and honourable, and ought to be forbidded to none, provided there be no obstacle from the divine word.

10. We contend, that all those in whom the fear of God dwells, will thereby be led to please him, and to abound in the good works [of the gospel] which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them - which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, sobriety, and the other good works enforced in the Holy Scriptures.

11. On the other hand, we confess that we consider it to be our duty to beware of false teachers, whose object is to divert the minds of men from the true worship of God, and to lead them to place their confidence in the creature, as well as to depart from the good works of the gospel, and to regard the inventions of men.

12. We take the Old and the New Testament for the rule of our life, and we agree with the general confession of faith contained in [what is usually termed] the apostles' creed. 



armourbearer said:


> THE WALDENSES
> No Anabaptists, but
> Presbyterians.
> 
> ...


----------



## JM (May 30, 2007)

It is the strict Baptist alone that follows the precept of the Lord of the house by holding and practicing first, discipleship; secondly, baptism; thirdly, communion.
―J.C. Philpot

BUT...as Semper wrote this thread is not about that stuff. It's about Church discipline...

I was told I'd be allow to join the local ARP but would be disciplined for not having my children sprinkled. What would the next step be if I continued to refuse?

Thx.

j


----------



## non dignus (May 30, 2007)

Thanks, Rich.

I was definitely foundering back there.

SAVED BY THE BELL!!


----------



## MW (May 30, 2007)

thunaer said:


> *7. We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and external sign, which represents to as that which, by virtue of God's invisible operation, is within us - namely, the renovation of our minds, and the mortification of our members through [the faith of] Jesus Christ. And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life.*



There is no exclusive claim being made here for personal profession of faith. The WCF along with other reformed confessions teach the same thing with relation to adult converts. Samuel Miller's article provides their own testimony as to their practice of baptising infants. That suffices to prove they were paedobaptist.


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

He wrote that in 1838 long after the Waldensians were absorbed into the Reformational camp and over 1000 years since they wrote their own writing in the 9th and 10th Century which are clearly baptistic......





armourbearer said:


> There is no exclusive claim being made here for personal profession of faith. The WCF along with other reformed confessions teach the same thing with relation to adult converts. Samuel Miller's article provides their own testimony as to their practice of baptising infants. That suffices to prove they were paedobaptist.


----------



## Coram Deo (May 30, 2007)

I am not going to respond anymore to the secessionism argument so this thread can get back on track.......

I have said my peace....

Michael


----------



## MW (May 30, 2007)

thunaer said:


> He wrote that in 1838 long after the Waldensians were absorbed into the Reformational camp and over 1000 years since they wrote their own writing in the 9th and 10th Century which are clearly baptistic......



The article was written in the 19th century but it provided testimony which is dated prior to the Reformation. There is nothing clearly baptistic, that is, antipaedobaptist, from the Waldensians.


----------



## JM (May 30, 2007)

So, when the Waldenses wrote the Confession of 1544 they didn't know what they were confessing?


----------



## MW (May 30, 2007)

JM said:


> So, when the Waldenses wrote the Confession of 1544 they didn't know what they were confessing?



Larger Catechism, answer 166: "Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him."

Waldensian Confession (1544), thesis 7: "And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life."

Both knew exactly what they were confessing, and neither of them is antipaedobaptist.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 30, 2007)

Matthew, from where is this letter taken?


armourbearer said:


> THE WALDENSES
> No Anabaptists, but
> Presbyterians.
> TO THE REV. JAMES WHAREY.
> ...


Miller has a footnote in his 1835 work on Infant Baptism where he more briefly addressed the work of Mr. Jones: "See John Paul Perrin's account of the Doctrine and Order of the Waldenses and Albigenses; Sir Samuel Morland's do.; and also Leger's Histoire Generale des Eglises Vaudoises. Mr. William Jones, a Baptist, in a work entitled, a History of the Waldenses, in two volumes octavo, professes to give a full account of the Faith and Order of these pious witnesses of the truth; but, so far as I have observed, carefully leaves out of all their public formularies and other documents, every thing which would disclose their Paedobaptist principles and practise! On this artifice comment is unnecessary." Samuel Miller, _Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable _(Philadelphia, Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 29.


----------



## MW (May 30, 2007)

Chris,

It is an appendix to James Wharey's Sketches of Church History published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication. Here is an incomplete copy of it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4Bls82iWjV4C&pg=PR8&dq="James+Wharey"#PPA13,M1


----------

