# Just ranting...I dont get it!



## B.J. (Feb 18, 2007)

I do not understand why "Reformed Baptist" theologians think Jer. 31 is a nail in the coffin of the Paedo view.


_31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord,for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. _

This is with the elect, right? Right. Is this in its fullness right now? Baptist say yes, and Paedo's say already/not yet. How can this possibly be in its fullness right now if it is with the elect? Are all the elect born yet? Nooooo! Do we still teach people about God? Yessss!

Baptist say that reading an eschatological fullfillment into this text is wrongheaded, but I ask how else can it be read? There must be a future culmanation of these things. I agree that it has been established it is just not complete yet.

Something else.....
Baptist dont see an external/internal aspect to the New Covenant. At least that is what I keep hearing. Once someone is baptized they are viewed as members of the NC, but when they walk away they obviously were not. On Baptist presuppositions...

(1) Baptism is only for professers.
(2) a person repents and is then baptized.
(3) they are then viewed as a New Covenant member
(4) the New Covenant is with the elect.
(5) therefore, the New Covenant must only be with "professers" by necessity.
(6) said person is elect by his/her profession by necessity.
(7) Said elect person walks away from the faith.
(8) Whooops...
(9) looks like a profession isnt how we know who the elect are...
(10) looks like the elect are not always professers (infants)
(11) looks like there is an internal/external aspect to the New Covenant.
(12) looks like Baptist are in trouble.


----------



## Herald (Feb 18, 2007)

B.J. - I honestly don't know where to start in responding to your thread. It is full of assumptions and lacks credible sources to back those assumptions up. For starters...



> I do not understand why "Reformed Baptist" theologians think Jer. 31 is a nail in the coffin of the Paedo view.



I wasn't aware that the consensus of Reformed Baptist theologians consider this passage as a "nail in the coffin" of the paedobaptist view. I do happen to believe this is one proof-text of a true new covenant, not a refreshed covenant. But that is my opinion. I'm sure you have some sources to back up your claim in the above quote. Would you be so kind enough as to share them with us?




> This is with the elect, right? Right. Is this in its fullness right now? Baptist say yes, and Paedo's say already/not yet. How can this possibly be in its fullness right now if it is with the elect? Are all the elect born yet? Nooooo! Do we still teach people about God? Yessss!
> 
> Baptist say that reading an eschatological fullfillment into this text is wrongheaded, but I ask how else can it be read? There must be a future culmanation of these things. I agree that it has been established it is just not complete yet.



I'll ignore the fact that you are once again making assumptions without citing evidence. You actually believe that Baptist's do not view this passage as having some sort of futuristic eschatological content? You're wrong.



> Baptist presuppositions...
> 
> (1) Baptism is only for professers.
> (2) a person repents and is then baptized.
> ...



No B.J., Baptist's are not in trouble. What troubles me are _*your*_ presuppositions that are based on what you have heard, not on what you know. Honestly, your post troubles me greatly. You began this post as an attack on Baptist's, specifically accusing us of presuppositions. But that is exactly the tactic you have chosen. Presuppositions with ad hominem assumptions is a poor way to engage folks in profitable discussion.

I'm having nothing to do with this thread except to make known my profound sadness and disapointment with your comments.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 19, 2007)

What kind of church is Ephesus Church?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 19, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> B.J. - I honestly don't know where to start in responding to your thread. It is full of assumptions and lacks credible sources to back those assumptions up. For starters...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## turmeric (Feb 19, 2007)

Okay, I go to his profile and what do I find? He's attending a *Reformed Baptist Church!*

Things that make ya go...huh?


----------



## Timothy William (Feb 19, 2007)

I'm a Presbyterian, and almost fully convinced of infant Baptism, and I find the Jeremiah 31 passage to be about the only convincing text which could be used to support believers only baptism. I don't think the opening post deals very well with the passage, and perhaps the Baptist brethern here deserve some more respect


----------



## bob (Feb 19, 2007)

In regard to Jeremiah 31 and the section that indicates that we are all to be taught by God, are we to understand this as literal or is it a bit of hyperbolic expression. For example, Calvin comments:



> Here is mentioned another difference between the old and the new covenant, even that God, who had obscurely manifested himself under the Law, would send forth a fuller light, so that the knowledge of him would be commonly enjoyed. But he hyperbolically extols this favor, when he says that no one would have need of a teacher or instructor, as every one would have himself sufficient knowledge. We therefore consider that the object of the Prophet is mainly to shew, that so great would be the light of the Gospel, that it would be clearly evident, that God under it deals more bountifully with his people, because its truth shines forth as the sun at noon-day. The same thing Isaiah promises, when he says that all would become the disciples of God. (# Isa 54:13) This was indeed the case also under the Law, though God gave then but a small taste of heavenly doctrine: but at the coming of Christ he unfolded the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, so that under the Gospel there is the perfection of what had been begun; for we know that the ancient people were like children, and hence God kept them in the rudiments of knowledge: now, as we are grown up, he favors us with a fuller doctrine, and he comes, as it were, nearer to us.



M Henry remarks:


> Some take it as a hyperbolical expression (and the dulness of the Jews needed such expressions to awaken them), designed only to show that the knowledge of God in gospel times should vastly exceed that knowledge of him which they had under the law. Or perhaps it intimates that in gospel times there shall be such great plenty of public preaching, statedly and constantly, by men authorized and appointed to preach the word in season and out of season, much beyond what was under the law, that there shall be less need than there was then of fraternal teaching, by a neighbour and a brother. The priests preached but now and then, and in the temple, and to a few in comparison; but now all shall or may know God by frequenting the assemblies of Christians, wherein, through all parts of the church, the good knowledge of God shall be taught. Some give this sense of it (Mr. Gataker mentions it), That many shall have such clearness of understanding in the things of God that they may seem rather to have been taught by some immediate irradiation than by any means of instruction. In short, the things of God shall by the gospel of Christ be brought to a clearer light than ever (#2Ti 1:10), and the people of God shall by the grace of Christ be brought to a clearer sight of those things than ever, # Eph 1:17-18.


----------



## B.J. (Feb 19, 2007)

B.J. - I honestly don't know where to start in responding to your thread. It is full of assumptions and lacks credible sources to back those assumptions up. For starters...


*Bob, I honestly don't know where to start in responding to your response of my "ranting." Lets remember that I am "ranting" not writing a doctoral dissertation.*

I wasn't aware that the consensus of Reformed Baptist theologians consider this passage as a "nail in the coffin" of the paedobaptist view. I do happen to believe this is one proof-text of a true new covenant, not a refreshed covenant. But that is my opinion. I'm sure you have some sources to back up your claim in the above quote. Would you be so kind enough as to share them with us?

*"Nail in the coffin" is my phrase, not theirs per se. And by the way thanks for your opinion. It sounds alot like my "ranting." As far as sources go, try reading the "Refeormed Baptist Manifesto" for starters. Waldron argues from the get-go that Paedo's are weak when it comes to the Jer 31. Then try reading Malone's newest book, "Baptism of disciples alone." I guess you want page numbers too?*

I'll ignore the fact that you are once again making assumptions without citing evidence. You actually believe that Baptist's do not view this passage as having some sort of futuristic eschatological content? You're wrong.

*I'll ignore the fact you just asserted I was wrong without giving some source as to why I am wrong. 


*No B.J., Baptist's are not in trouble. What troubles me are _*your*_ presuppositions that are based on what you have heard, not on what you know. Honestly, your post troubles me greatly. You began this post as an attack on Baptist's, specifically accusing us of presuppositions. But that is exactly the tactic you have chosen. Presuppositions with ad hominem assumptions is a poor way to engage folks in profitable discussion.

*Bob, for starters, I am currently a Baptist. I have been struggling with this area for some time now. I am torn because I love my church and dont want to leave. But the force of the Paedo view is weighing me down. As for "my" presuppositions....Are you saying you disagree with numbers 1-7?
Okay so 8 was sarcastic, 9-11 were the logical conclusions of 1-7, and 12 was the way I feel when I ran this all through my head. If you disagree, please do correct them.*


I'm having nothing to do with this thread except to make known my profound sadness and disapointment with your comments.


*Well, I guess I dont need to exspect a response from you. I have noticed however that you seem to get a little emotional in these debates so perhaps you might not want to participate anymore. Just a thought. Sorry you feel the way you do.*


----------



## B.J. (Feb 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> BJ;
> Have you taken your concerns to your church brother? What has been their responses?



In small steps. They referred me to Malone's book.


----------



## B.J. (Feb 19, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


>



Ditto to you . You and Bob can share my response I gave him.


----------



## Philip A (Feb 20, 2007)

B.J. said:


> As far as sources go, try reading the "Refeormed Baptist Manifesto" for starters. Waldron argues from the get-go that Paedo's are weak when it comes to the Jer 31. Then try reading Malone's newest book, "Baptism of disciples alone." I guess you want page numbers too?



BJ,

Jeremiah 31 was my "last stand" as a Baptist. I actually learned the Reformed Baptist version of Covenant Theology from Barcellos, and had read Jewett, Welty, Waldron, and Malone. So I see the same thing you do: most of the RB's that I know of (and I, when I was one) use Jeremiah 31 as one of the primary texts to support their view. But just as you seem to be doing, I too began to see how the standard RB interpretation fails to take into account the already/not-yet eschatological perspective of scripture; to take the "all shall know me" in such an absolute sense is out of step with the way any of these men would interpret any of the other prophetic passages from the Major Prophets. If the same hermeneutical principles were applied elsewhere, then we would have to say that since Christ came, we're living in the new heavens and the new earth, swords have been beaten into plowshares, and all the kings of the earth give homage to Christ as Lord. The already/not-yet, two-age view of eschatology is the only way to understand these passages, and therefore it is inconsistent to demand that kind of fulfillment of the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31.

I had other problems with the passage as well, not the least of which was the fact that the inclusion of children in the New Covenant, in keeping with the "to you and your children" covenant structure, is also mentioned in the immediate context of Jeremiah 30-32 (the New Covenant is not just limited to 31:31-34), as well as the wider context of other parts of scripture where the New Covenant is mentioned (Ezekiel, Isaiah, Deuteronomy 30, etc). It's very difficult to maintain that the inclusion of covenant children is discontinued in the New Covenant when there are Old Testament passages that specifically include them. But then again, as a Baptist with a position to defend, I was somehow able to explain them away (handwaving, actually)!

So while I still have tremendous respect for men like Barcellos and Waldron, I see their position on Jeremiah 31 the same way that Malone sees the paedo view: weak from the get-go. Even when I was defending it here on the PB, in the back of my mind I felt uncomfortable, because I knew I had focused so intently on a few key phrases, but hadn't taken the time to examine the context, especially in light of the arguments from the other point of view.

As an aside, I remember being very excited when Malone's book came out, because I was so looking forward to finally reading the book that dealt decisively with all of the arguments I was seeing from the other side. I came away from reading Malone feeling disappointed, because he didn't ever get around to the arguments I was wrestling with. Or if he did, he dealt with them in a dismissive or cursory fashion.


----------



## jenney (Feb 20, 2007)

> (1) Baptism is only for professers.
> (2) a person repents and is then baptized.



Well, no, technically, a person "professes" and is then baptized. Only God knows if they have truly repented.



> (3) they are then viewed as a New Covenant member



I appreciate that you say "viewed" because a lot of times we are accused of claiming to know who is "in" and who is "out" with a lot of finger pointing and giggling at the obvious foolishness of that.



> (4) the New Covenant is with the elect.
> (5) therefore, the New Covenant must only be with "professers" by necessity.



Yes and no. A person can believe and not be able to communicate it. Elect infants, the mentally retarded, the comatose all might have saving faith given as a gift of God unrelated to their ability to articulate it. But I do believe they must _have faith_ in order to be saved. When we say professors,we mean people who claim to have faith. We won't baptize someone who doesn't claim to have faith. That is all.



> (6) said person is elect by his/her profession by necessity.



I'm not sure what this means. A person isn't elect by profession. A person is elect by the predestining will of God. Surely you aren't suggesting there are believers out there who deny Christ. There are certainly elect people out there who do, but they will believe at some point, at the time appointed by the God who elected them.



> (7) Said elect person walks away from the faith.


And what do paedos say about someone who joins the church and walks away? They don't claim any more/less than we do to know who is elect.

Both of us invite only professors to be _communicant_ members of the church and sometimes false professors are among the flock. So we discipline them and ask them out of membership as soon as it is clear that their profession is false. I don't see that as having anything to do with the interpretation of the CoG.



> (8) Whooops...
> (9) looks like a profession isnt how we know who the elect are...


we don't think we can know who are elect, profession or not.



> (10) looks like the elect are not always professers (infants)


no, they aren't. But that doesn't mean we baptise them.



> (11) looks like there is an internal/external aspect to the New Covenant.


Depends on what you mean by NC. There are false brethren in the church. They were never in the NC, nor the true church, the invisible church.



> (12) looks like Baptist are in trouble.
> 
> 
> > I guess it just doesn't to me.
> ...


----------



## B.J. (Feb 21, 2007)

Well, no, technically, a person "professes" and is then baptized. Only God knows if they have truly repented.

*Jenny, technically, Acts 2 says "Repent and be Baptized." This is the scripture used in "all" debates between paedo and credos as to whom the recipents of the covenant sign are suppose to be. However, I find it most intriguing that you are saying that only God knows who has truly repented.  This sounds like you are assuming an internal/external view of the New Covenant, or of at least the church members who have been baptized. Which is commonly viewed as New Covenant members. This is an uncommon view among "Reformed Baptist."*

I appreciate that you say "viewed" because a lot of times we are accused of claiming to know who is "in" and who is "out" with a lot of finger pointing and giggling at the obvious foolishness of that.

*The only reason you are accused of that is because you dont see Jer. 31 as having an already/not yet aspect to it, but with what you said above, perhaps you do.*


Yes and no. A person can believe and not be able to communicate it. Elect infants, the mentally retarded, the comatose all might have saving faith given as a gift of God unrelated to their ability to articulate it. But I do believe they must _have faith_ in order to be saved. When we say professors,we mean people who claim to have faith. We won't baptize someone who doesn't claim to have faith. That is all.

*Again, according to my 1-7 analysis of would be Baptist beliefs, "elect" infants, comatose, mentally handicaped, aborted, miscarried, or any other non-professing person, whether they have the ability, or not can not be saved. I am glad though that you see the absurdity of these strict, logical, Baptistic beliefs, and believe God can save without the help of vocal chords. Something I heard recently confirmed my suspucions about consistent Baptist. James White, in his debate with Shisko, actually said that the way we know who the elect are is from a profession of faith.:* 


I'm not sure what this means. A person isn't elect by profession. A person is elect by the predestining will of God. Surely you aren't suggesting there are believers out there who deny Christ. There are certainly elect people out there who do, but they will believe at some point, at the time appointed by the God who elected them.


* I could'nt agree more. However, you can't hold said belief unless you give up 1-5. Lets recap....A person professes faith, they are then Baptized because of their profession, they are then viewed as New Covenant members, the New Covenant is with the elect. Do you agree so far with this, and that there is "not" an already/not yet aspect to the New Covenant? If "yes" than by necessity..those who profess are elect. Also they can't be out of the New Covenant because it cant be broken.*


And what do paedos say about someone who joins the church and walks away? They don't claim any more/less than we do to know who is elect.

*Well, thats a question for a Paedo, and since I am still a Baptist, though not with good reason, I will let them speak for themselves.


Both of us invite only professors to be communicant members of the church and sometimes false professors are among the flock. So we discipline them and ask them out of membership as soon as it is clear that their profession is false. I don't see that as having anything to do with the interpretation of the CoG.

#7 isnt suppose to happen in the New Covenant. Remember? No one can break it.


we don't think we can know who are elect, profession or not.

I realize "you" dont. But in theory Baptist should.


Depends on what you mean by NC. There are false brethren in the church. They were never in the NC, nor the true church, the invisible church.

You probably should not have interacted with 9-11 because you are obviously not as Baptistic as you think. 

He is Risen, 
B.J.*


----------



## Chris (Feb 21, 2007)

Threads like these are the reason I won't attend a local Paedo church. I know there are lots of paedos in credo churches and vice-versa, out of percieved necessity, but threads like this remind me that good fences make good neighbors.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 22, 2007)

Chris said:


> Threads like these are the reason I won't attend a local Paedo church. I know there are lots of paedos in credo churches and vice-versa, out of percieved necessity, but threads like this remind me that good fences make good neighbors.



 

WOW....

You know, I was a baptist for 15 years (since being saved) and it was just a year ago that out of a long study, my views changed to paedobaptist. What I'm about to say is not a reflection on anyone in particular, but something I have wanted to say for a long time but lacked the courage.

A loving forebearance and true desire to help another understand your view goes a long way. I have appreciated a few of the paedobaptists on this board simply because of the lack of  and  in their comments. I, like Jenney, was truly CONFUSED on why paedobaptists believed what they did. It took me a LONG time (and a lot of frustration along the way) to begin to grasp it. It's a totally different approach to scripture and I had to work at it to understand. It's not something you just "get" right away. It's an entire hermanuetic that's required to approach it. And you know what, even when that is "grasped" and the understanding of the paedobaptist position is clear, a baptist may not still be fully convinced that it is the most scriptural position. It does not mean they are less intelligent than a paedo!!!  I really believe it comes down to which one holds your conscience, because I believe BOTH views are supportable by scripture (and by supportable I mean CREDIBLY supportable). For my dh and I personally, we just found that the one that held ours more was the paedo position. It was most consistent with the whole of scripture for us, _but for another sister or brother in Christ_, *their* conscience may be held by several of the NT scriptures that connect baptism with profession. I have heard of a few who really WANTED to be paedobaptist, but thier consciences just were not held by it. I would never want them to go against their conscience (and by conscience I'm obviously speaking of a biblically informed one), and just "be paedo" anyway. This whole topic is just not as "cut and dry" as we'd like it to be, else we wouldn't be having this discussion. Whatever view we have, we need to hold it with a sense of humility. PLEASE.

And Chris, your comment saddens me, mainly because I can understand it.

However, the paedobaptist church I am in is full of loving christians who have a very irenic spirit towards baptist brethren, as I am certain that the majority of paedobpatist churches are the same! I don't believe the answer is putting up more walls between us.  God forbid.


----------



## B.J. (Feb 22, 2007)

Chris said:


> Threads like these are the reason I won't attend a local Paedo church. I know there are lots of paedos in credo churches and vice-versa, out of percieved necessity, but threads like this remind me that good fences make good neighbors.



Oh? I thought the reason you would not attend a Paedo church is because you are Baptist. Anyway...if you dont have anything to say by way of rebuttal please refrain from voicing your opinon. That is what the Moderators would have us do.


----------



## B.J. (Feb 22, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> *You probably should not have interacted with 9-11 because you are obviously not as Baptistic as you think. *
> 
> 
> That quote reminds me of a racist fella I once knew that called black people a certain word. But one day, he met a black fella he liked. This shook his worldview so he told the guy, "I still don't like ____, but you my friend are not a ____...you are just black."
> ...



Thank you for your opinon. Did I say Baptist make stupid assertions? No! How did you infer this? I thought I explained clearly that given consistent Baptist reasoning, Baptist arent really who they say they are. Perhaps you would like to show me why I should still remain a Baptist, because if you should read the thread if you have not already. It should be clear that I am a "professing" Baptist. and I see problems with what "our" theologians would have us believe in order to be Covenantal. I also ask why you are shunning a fellow BAptist instead of helping me understand these things? This is what I was afraid of. When I bring these things up to my personal friends they just blow me off instead of correcting me. Oh well....I am still studing this out though.

He is Risen,
B.J.


----------



## B.J. (Feb 22, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> WOW....
> 
> You know, I was a baptist for 15 years (since being saved) and it was just a year ago that out of a long study, my views changed to paedobaptist. What I'm about to say is not a reflection on anyone in particular, but something I have wanted to say for a long time but lacked the courage.
> 
> ...



Well said, sister. I too am experiencing the difficulty of all this.


----------



## Chris (Feb 22, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Oh? I thought the reason you would not attend a Paedo church is because you are Baptist. Anyway...if you dont have anything to say by way of rebuttal please refrain from voicing your opinon. That is what the Moderators would have us do.



Rebuttal of what? Remember, you're 'just ranting' here.....


----------



## Chris (Feb 22, 2007)

When you 'defend' baptists by saying things such as 'it doesn't mean they're less intelligent than paedos' you reinforce my point - namely, that I can respect the paedo position much, much more when I'm not exposed to its attacks on what it genuinely (erroneously) sees to be an inferior position.


----------



## Chris (Feb 22, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Well said, sister. I too am experiencing the difficulty of all this.



Well, quit torturing yourself, and find a good paedo church.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 22, 2007)

Chris said:


> When you 'defend' baptists by saying things such as 'it doesn't mean they're less intelligent than paedos' you reinforce my point - namely, that I can respect the paedo position much, much more when I'm not exposed to its attacks on what it genuinely (erroneously) sees to be an inferior position.




Forgive me, brother, as I must have communicated this poorly. I meant absolutely NO disrespect in saying this. I was echoing what I have personally felt as a former baptist AND as a paedobaptist in terms of some paedo brethren _implying_ this. My statement was NOT a support that baptists ARE less intelligent!!!!! Absolutely not!!! My friend Jenney has expressed how she has felt this from paedos and it GRIEVES ME. I thought I made it clear in my post that it comes down to conscience NOT "intelligence" on EITHER side.

My post was a defense of baptists, of whom I highly respect and love and meant no "backhanded" comments towards in my post or in my heart.


----------



## Chris (Feb 22, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> Forgive me, brother, as I must have communicated this poorly. I meant absolutely NO disrespect in saying this. I was echoing what I have personally felt as a former baptist AND as a paedobaptist in terms of my paedo brethren implying this. My statement was NOT a support that baptists ARE less intelligent!!!!! Absolutely not!!! My friend Jenney has expressed how she has felt this from paedos and it GRIEVES ME.
> 
> My post was a defense of baptists, of whom I highly respect and love and meant no "backhanded" comments towards in my post or in my heart.



Sister, I didn't take offense. 

I *think* what I'm trying to communicate is this:

When you start at position 'a' and move to position 'b', it's going to forever cloud your view of those who hold position 'a'. 

As such, I genuinely, with no malice whatsoever, believe that those who change positions on a particular issue should change congregations *before* it becomes such a source of frustration and divisiveness. 

Example:

I don't know you, but have no doubt that if I did, we'd feel a kinship as brother and sister in Christ. We could greatly enjoy that kinship, but if we attended each other's churches, and heard teaching contrary to our own convictions - not convicting us of error, but condemning our positions as errant - this wouldn't help our relationship as siblings in Christ. 

I think things like PB are great - where we can poke, prod, and explore other people's convictions. Yet at the same time, to force ourselves to live in what is, theologically, a foreign world, is torture to an individual and destructive to his relationship with those who hold an opposing view. 

I don't have the answers here. But I'm quite sure that attending a church who holds a core doctrine counter to your own beliefs is NOT likely to bring you into closer fellowship with its members. 

As for your apology...I completely accept it. Forgive me if I read too much into your post. But please, please understand that it is very common for paedos to look down upon credos. This isn't the fault of paedos so much as it is the normal result of being on a board where the majority *are* paedos. 

If we all loaded up and went over to a good 'ole baptist board and joined and started posting, I shudder to think how much worse the average baptist would treat you guys....


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 22, 2007)

Chris said:


> I don't know you, but have no doubt that if I did, we'd feel a kinship as brother and sister in Christ. We could greatly enjoy that kinship, but if we attended each other's churches, and heard teaching contrary to our own convictions - not convicting us of error, but condemning our positions as errant - this wouldn't help our relationship as siblings in Christ.
> 
> I don't have the answers here. But I'm quite sure that attending a church who holds a core doctrine counter to your own beliefs is NOT likely to bring you into closer fellowship with its members.



I understand what you're saying, Chris. I don't have the answers either, and I didn't intend to communicate that credobaptists and paedobaptists _shouldn't_ be in different churches. Like you, I consider us to be brethren, but I do understand the difficulties inherent in these two views and why it would probably be impossible to be able to practice and apply them in the exact same church (which is why we felt we needed to leave our old church, though we love and miss them greatly). I thought your comment on you not attending a local paedo church and fences making good neighbors was basically expressing a sort of "I'm fed up with how paedos act" (due to the "looking down on credos" thing) and not specifically because of just the practical differences. I misunderstood.



Chris said:


> As for your apology...I completely accept it. Forgive me if I read too much into your post. But please, please understand that it is very common for paedos to look down upon credos. This isn't the fault of paedos so much as it is the normal result of being on a board where the majority *are* paedos.



I think you are very generous in your assesment, but it still should not be, "majority" or not. I've seen people here and on another board I frequent (a christian board but not calvinistic) express their opposing views in a very Christ honoring way, without a sense of superiority or smugness in their beliefs. I know as sinners we have all been guilty of doing or thinking such at times  , but it's a great encouragement when differences can be discussed and debated in a humble and irenic way. 

Thank you for forgiving me and for not taking offense.


----------

