Baptism should be administered to the true seed of Abraham, the elect in Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.
:rofl:

You read all the way through to the end and then you discover the author has retracted...

I was thrown by reading a covenantal argument for credobaptism but after discussion with others and a study of the issue in more detail I believe I was too hasty in rejecting paedobaptism.

:handshake:
 
I was thrown by reading a covenantal argument for credobaptism but after discussion with others and a study of the issue in more detail I believe I was too hasty in rejecting paedobaptism.

:handshake:

[yoda on] So close to enlightenment, you were. Returned to the dark side, you have. [yoda off]

Blessings, brother.

JH
 
Spirit/not water

SemperFideles said:

If I answer a Baptist according to his own conclusions then my point is that New Covenant membership has nothing to do with who you baptize based upon your own principles because:

1. You believe the NC cannot be broken.
2. You believe a person can be baptized and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe baptism doesn't make a person a member of the NC.
3. You believe a person can have what appears to be a true profession and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe profession doesn't make a person a member of the NC. (So much for "...evidences of the fruit of regeneration...")

Thus, Baptists have an imbalance in their argument for Baptism. It doesn't matter what we believe here and how you believe it applies to us. You must deal with your own conclusions. Starting with the argument for the unbreakability of the New Covenant you cannot get from there to believer's only baptism.

It can't be done. Richard has failed repeatedly. Doesn't matter how many times he quotes Gill and Spurgeon. They fail to make that leap as well.

But Rich, It is not water baptism that saves, It is Spirit baptism that saves. you keep going back to this point,and assume that romans 6, col.2,,,,speak of water baptism. the NT. teaches believers baptism. In all cases they had the Holy Spirit first as most of the sign gifts attested too.
In most padeobaptist literature that I have seen,they want it both ways.They speak of the so called"covenant child" as if he was already quickened and in union with Christ. as if he were assured of regeneration.
Some I have heard get annoyed if someone suggests to their children that they must be born again. Well they are not saved unless Jesus saves them.
If The Spirit does not place them into the body,they are still without.
You can invent visible and invisible church if you want to, but The bible describes one true body of Christ,,,,with goats ,tares and others who attach themselves for a while,,,as both grow together until the harvest.
Jesus said every tree that My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Bringing your child to a baptismal font, does not indwell them with the Holy Spirit. It does not give them faith. Are you saying that "all covenant children" somehow can recieve spirtual truth without having the Spirit quicken them? 1cor 2;14 eph 2;1-3 ,,,,,
I find it interesting that you do not see the Apostles using the language or arguments of padeo baptist theologians in Acts 15,,,,,,How easy it would have been to just say in response to the question about the place of circumcision in the NT.,,,oh well baptism has just replaced circumcision.
They did not do it,,,,,,,,because regeneration was the obvious fulfillment of the promise,,,so they identified those who professed belief,manifesting evidence of spiritual life,,,,,with believers baptism.:book2:
 
But Rich, It is not water baptism that saves, It is Spirit baptism that saves. you keep going back to this point,and assume that romans 6, col.2,,,,speak of water baptism. the NT. teaches believers baptism. In all cases they had the Holy Spirit first as most of the sign gifts attested too.
In most padeobaptist literature that I have seen,they want it both ways.They speak of the so called"covenant child" as if he was already quickened and in union with Christ. as if he were assured of regeneration.
Some I have heard get annoyed if someone suggests to their children that they must be born again. Well they are not saved unless Jesus saves them.
If The Spirit does not place them into the body,they are still without.
You can invent visible and invisible church if you want to, but The bible describes one true body of Christ,,,,with goats ,tares and others who attach themselves for a while,,,as both grow together until the harvest.
Jesus said every tree that My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Bringing your child to a baptismal font, does not indwell them with the Holy Spirit. It does not give them faith. Are you saying that "all covenant children" somehow can recieve spirtual truth without having the Spirit quicken them? 1cor 2;14 eph 2;1-3 ,,,,,
I find it interesting that you do not see the Apostles using the language or arguments of padeo baptist theologians in Acts 15,,,,,,How easy it would have been to just say in response to the question about the place of circumcision in the NT.,,,oh well baptism has just replaced circumcision.
They did not do it,,,,,,,,because regeneration was the obvious fulfillment of the promise,,,so they identified those who professed belief,manifesting evidence of spiritual life,,,,,with believers baptism.:book2:

Strange use of commas. Is your keyboard broken?

Did you read the actual argument that Richard originally posited and is now retracting? If you did, you would understand that your response is off-topic. I'm willing to take up your problems but it will need to be coherent and on topic with an original post.
 
my keyboard is just fine,this is not typing class

Rich,
I was responding to your responses. It seems to me that many times your responses are ad hominem attacks, more than genuine responses,as if you are trying to win a philosophical debate rather than offer scriptural remedies.
Your smug comment about my use of comma's is an example.
I use the commas that way as if I were speaking to you in person. The more of them I use the more I would like you to pause and respond to the issue at hand. If it is too much for you to handle I will try to refrain when typing to you.
I am very slow on the computer. But maybe you might want to review some of your posts and see if my observation might have some truth there.
I am not thin skinned Rich. If you feel my response to you is in error,or I have missed something you can say so.
Many times I am on here after a long workday. I am trying to learn and look forward to some of the back and forth debate .
I will confess right now that my typing and spelling might be off a bit.
Rich can I ask you a question?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[some comma's for you]
If a visitor comes into your church,and mis-speaks a word are you the first one to correct his speaking,or are you glad he has come to worship?:think:
 
My observations above were in no way ad hominem. You didn't actually interact with my argument but with what you perceived the argument to be. I used Baptistic premises to show that, according to the Baptist Scriptural interpretation, they did not yield the conclusion.

Here is the OP: Only the elect should be baptized.

My response is very simple:

Premise: Only the elect ought to be baptized (according to the OP)
The Elect are known only by God
The visible Church does not know who the Elect are
Therefore, nobody should be baptized.

Thus, Baptists, by their own admision, are not baptizing on the basis of election.

Regarding your use of commas. You claim yourself to be a teacher and therefore are not ignorant. If you want to be received as somebody with some knowledge then you ought to learn to write properly.

I teach and interact with a broader diversity of ethnic and educational levels than you can imagine. I have no problem with the way people speak in the Church.

But this is a forum and the goal is to communicate thoughts clearly. Your strange use of commas and method of quoting others makes for very difficult reading. You are apparently thin-skinned about it but that's neither here nor there. I've asked you to be clearer in your presentation if you would like to interact meaningfully on the board. You also need to follow the flow of the argument so you know what you're arguing for and against.
 
My observations above were in no way ad hominem. You didn't actually interact with my argument but with what you perceived the argument to be. I used Baptistic premises to show that, according to the Baptist Scriptural interpretation, they did not yield the conclusion.

Here is the OP: Only the elect should be baptized.

My response is very simple:

Premise: Only the elect ought to be baptized (according to the OP)
The Elect are known only by God
The visible Church does not know who the Elect are
Therefore, nobody should be baptized.

Thus, Baptists, by their own admision, are not baptizing on the basis of election.

Baptists obey the teaching of scripture to baptize believer's.
Your premise only the elect should be baptized is your own premise.
Only the elect are Spirit baptized.
We are nowhere told that we will know who the elect are until we all assemble on the last day.
Baptists like they did in Acts,baptize those who believe.
You also will not baptize an adult unless he says that he believes.
If a single mother comes in your church with two teenager's and says she believes, do you administer the sign of the covenant to her teenagers even if they do not profess faith? what if they are 12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
|Do you have a cut-off age for them? Or are you the same as the baptist?
 
Baptists obey the teaching of scripture to baptize believer's.
Your premise only the elect should be baptized is your own premise.
{sigh}

Seriously, this is very frustrating. Let me ask you to do something very simple.

Stop what your doing, move your eyeballs to the top of the Screen and read the title of this thread. Let me bold what it says:

Baptism should only be administered to the true seed of Abraham, the elect in Christ

Do you understand what Richard was arguing for now?

Would you like to retract your false statement now that this was my premise?

I can stomach a lot of obtuseness but that simply takes the cake when you tell me this is MY premise. It's not my premise at all.

If you would simply pay attention to the argument and not import what you want then you would see that no ad hominems are being argued at all.

It's a horrible premise and so it yields a horrible conclusion. This thread should have ended long ago but it has a life because people can't follow the simple logic because they want to jump all over the place and forget what the OP was about.

Only the elect are Spirit baptized.
Again, immaterial to the original post.

We are nowhere told that we will know who the elect are until we all assemble on the last day.
Immaterial to the original post.
Baptists like they did in Acts,baptize those who believe.
Immaterial to the original post.
You also will not baptize an adult unless he says that he believes.
Immaterial to the original post.
If a single mother comes in your church with two teenager's and says she believes, do you administer the sign of the covenant to her teenagers even if they do not profess faith? what if they are 12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
|Do you have a cut-off age for them? Or are you the same as the baptist?
Immaterial to the original post.

You see it works like this on this forum: we read what others write and respond to the arguments they make. We then evaluate the arguments from Scripture and see if they yield what the original poster was arguing for.

I could just as easily throw out right now: Say, the Yankees stink at baseball because they have credo-baptist fans.

Might lead to an interesting argument but it has nothing to do with this thread.

After going in a large circle let me repeat what I said a few posts ago that rings ever true:

Did you read the actual argument that Richard originally posited and is now retracting? If you did, you would understand that your response is off-topic. I'm willing to take up your problems but it will need to be coherent and on topic with an original post.
You would be advised to read the warnings carefully so you don't have to show that you have NOT read the original post as enjoined.

I'm not going to waste any more time bringing new issues into this thread. I will delete any posts or portions of the post that go off track.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top