I've been engaged in some healthy (and not so healthy) debate on the subject of baptism for some time. I've been leaving the subject alone for a while as I don't really have the energy for some of the polemics.
I thought of a way to advance the discussion where I normally have trouble interacting with Credo-Baptists and that is to try to understand if the argument for Credo-Baptism is a valid argument.
In order for this thread to work, I need to first define what an argument is. I'm doing this, not because I believe that the end of all truth is propositional but because, in this case, it is important to be able to see the argument in its parts and whether or not the conclusion is true or false.
It is important to remember that Arguments are not True or False. They are either valid or invalid. It is the propositions (or premises of the argument) that are either true or false. For example, this is a valid argument:
Proposition 1: All mermen can breathe underwater.
Proposition 2: Rich is a merman.
Conclusion: Rich can breathe underwater.
The argument is valid. That is to say that the form leads to the conclusion drawn BUT Proposition 2 is false, therefore the conclusion is false.
Let's look at another argument:
P1: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
P2: Rich is among the All.
C: Rich has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Valid argument, true premises, true conclusion.
OK, here we go. I want my Credo-Baptist friends to provide the missing premises to this argument:
P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: ?
P3: ?
....
Pn: ?
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
A few rules for this thread:
1. No soliloquies. I'm not interested in long editorial comments.
2. Present your premises as concisely as possible.
3. After you've presented your premises, please provide the Scriptural reference that supports the premise.
4. I want to see, specifically, the missing premises that connect the membership of the New Covenant to the subjects of baptism. For the purposes of this exercise, we are assuming that P1 is True. On the assumption that P1 is true, string true premises that logically connect to one another to form a valid argument with a conclusion is that true by necessity of its premises.
5. Only Credo baptists are permitted to reply per the forum rules.
I thought of a way to advance the discussion where I normally have trouble interacting with Credo-Baptists and that is to try to understand if the argument for Credo-Baptism is a valid argument.
In order for this thread to work, I need to first define what an argument is. I'm doing this, not because I believe that the end of all truth is propositional but because, in this case, it is important to be able to see the argument in its parts and whether or not the conclusion is true or false.
It is important to remember that Arguments are not True or False. They are either valid or invalid. It is the propositions (or premises of the argument) that are either true or false. For example, this is a valid argument:
Proposition 1: All mermen can breathe underwater.
Proposition 2: Rich is a merman.
Conclusion: Rich can breathe underwater.
The argument is valid. That is to say that the form leads to the conclusion drawn BUT Proposition 2 is false, therefore the conclusion is false.
Let's look at another argument:
P1: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
P2: Rich is among the All.
C: Rich has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Valid argument, true premises, true conclusion.
OK, here we go. I want my Credo-Baptist friends to provide the missing premises to this argument:
P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: ?
P3: ?
....
Pn: ?
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
A few rules for this thread:
1. No soliloquies. I'm not interested in long editorial comments.
2. Present your premises as concisely as possible.
3. After you've presented your premises, please provide the Scriptural reference that supports the premise.
4. I want to see, specifically, the missing premises that connect the membership of the New Covenant to the subjects of baptism. For the purposes of this exercise, we are assuming that P1 is True. On the assumption that P1 is true, string true premises that logically connect to one another to form a valid argument with a conclusion is that true by necessity of its premises.
5. Only Credo baptists are permitted to reply per the forum rules.