By "believer," we mean one who credibly professes to be born again. They claim to be trusting in Jesus for the remission of sins, and their life bears that out.
Right. In the time I've been browsing this board, in these types of threads I've also not heard a peep about any hangup with regular visitors who may attend the church where it's clear they are not believers. Following this line of thinking, I'd assume it's a church member's job, or at the very least the pastor's job, to give them a friendly reminder, "hey, love that you're here, but please don't sing along and definitely don't say amen during the service!" It's patently absurd. We ought only to fence the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper.
I see the same problem, as I pointed out in #56:
I’m assuming this type of precaution is not happening towards guests in R/P churches. Likewise it is not happening in Baptist churches. Aren’t we happy when a guest enters the doors? I understand that the church is the fellowship of believers, but I think we ought to rejoice when God’s providence brings an unbelieving guest to our celebration of the work of Christ, which God may use to convert them.
That's right you did, and my apologies. I should have been clearer and also referenced your earlier post. I more meant that I don't think I've seen this complaint raised by someone who is considering, or holds to, the P/R position.
Oh, I wasn’t salty. I am interested to see a Paedo response to this idea.
Fair enough, brother. I appreciate your efforts at explaining your view.
I am at the very beginning of my study of Reformed covenant theology. Therefore, until I really understand how they get to their answers, I can’t really assess them.
Yet infant baptism didn't come into practice for another 2 centuries. Didn't seem to discourage the spread of the church.
I appreciate your response and transparency! Based on what you said, may I suggest that you first study the RB view at a deeper level? Use resources perhaps suggested by your pastor and what has been recommended by proponents of baptist covenant theology in other threads on this board. Or maybe just start by studying the 1689! In my opinion, trying to dive into the topic and study both sides simultaneously is not wise - as you said, it's so large and complex. I'm not saying or hoping doing this will automatically result in deep conviction on the RB position, but some of the questions you are asking seem to indicate you may be examining the P/R position without having sufficient understanding of our view. In other words, I wouldn't start a study on the topic by asking an online forum, largely consisting of paedobaptists, for the fatal flaw in baptist covenant theology.
agreed. @Lowlander your pastor ought to be involved in this (if he isn't). We all owe it to our overseers on topics that potentially makes us leave the church.
Just curious, what is your reference here?
Thanks for your advice.
Thank you, brother.
In which view would you put Nehemiah Coxe's works?
I think there is no hard-and-fast rule. Our pastor has stated that the youngest person he baptised was a girl of 8 (or 10, can't remember exactly). He emphasised the fact that we do not baptise adults, but believers (hence, a credible confession of faith). The girl had a strong desire to be baptised and demonstrated an understanding of Christ's atonement for the sins of those who repent and believe.
I think this is a faulty question. I'm not aware of any right-thinking Christian, including Reformed Baptists, that would regard baptism as "a mere outward declaration towards God from man."
It might not be described as such in any written confession, but I have heard it colloquially many, many times.
Then they're un-confessional, not right-thinking, and badly taught.
Of course, on that particular point, I agree. I was just noting that there are Christians who, while right-thinking in general, on this particular point believe baptism to be a sign from man to God.
From the Founders Ministry's version of the 1689 BCF in Modern English:
That phrasing is unfortunately more ambiguous, but I highly doubt Founders intended to change the original meaning.
I think you’re misreading this. “TO those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him…” it is a sign TO them, not FROM them.
It sounds from your posts that you're suggesting that baptism is something that God does to You, and that's what you want to see. But Baptism is not about God doing something to you--it's about several other things.
