Neil wrote:
"...those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ..."
Wow, sounds like "works/statement" by your standards! Yet it comes from the WCF! Thus the absurdity (or hypocrisy): you accuse your own sect when you accuse Baptists of Arminianism on this ground

I guess you choose not to see my point.

__________

Observer[/AUTHOR
You have presented an incoherent explanation (the usual convoluted theological nonsense we hear from Presbys...

Mike wrote:
You think Presby is a woman?

__________

John UK wrote:
Besides which, "the promise" is only to those who repent, not to those who are proxilogically penitent.

BTW Very impressed by your newly invented word. I can see you are dedicated to the Baptist penchant for "rewrite" - viz rewrite history, rewrite confessions and now rewrite words when you can't find the Biblical. Well done John.

______

Neil wrote:
I've never heard of a "Qualifying Emphasis" in Baptist doctrine

Observer wrote:
incoherent rubbish

__________

John UK wrote:
1. So you are unwilling to baptise children of unbelievers, even though some of them will be elect.
2. Yet you are willing to baptise children of believers, even though some of them will not be elect.

2. The promise is to them and their children John, as taught in one of your favourite verses, I recall.

____________

Neil wrote:
adult baptism using language almost identical to the Baptist Confession

But again - your "QUALIFYING EMPHASIS" (spoken ability of sinner) discriminates against the Covenanted believers children, - and emphasises the verbal statement to AUTHENTICATE the rite. It is the Baptist who depends upon a works/statement for a "successful" baptism - we do not!

Neil wrote:
Just answer my question, please.

Let me expand further.
Presby baptism - Paedobaptism - Relying wholly upon God for the ongoing inclusion of believers children into the Covenant.

Baptist baptism - The "qualifying emphasis" of the Baptists baptism rite is that the person MUST BE old enough to make a verbal contribution to the rite. Thus disqualifying the children of believers as being unable to participate by virtue of an act. This 'reliance' upon the statement of the evil hearted sinner to authenticate the baptism is an Arminian style pursuit.

The answer to your second point on 'who carries out' the baptism. As I said baptism is NOT dependant upon the person who administers the baptism; - If it were otherwise then all those non-elect reprobate pastors in your denomination, and others, would be delivering a false baptism.

Baptism;
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost"

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Observer wrote:
in denial

'Regeneration' was used by folks in Calvin's day of the idea of new birth and sanctification.

The Reformed teach a sacramental doctrine.
The RCC teach sacramentalism. Rome identifies the sign and the thing signified.
The Reformed way is to distinguish between them.

Calvin's teaching is that the Spirit's baptism is that which removes guilt.
__________

Neil wrote:
(1) So does this imply that Presbys never baptize adult converts? Or if they do, then how is it conducted in a way that does not run afoul of the alleged Baptist Arminian errors you describe?

(2) BTW, I can't resist adding that Charles Hodge argued that Catholic baptism is valid Christian baptism (implying no re-baptism req'd for Presby converts). So watch out: playing the “Who's the Crypto Catholic” game can go either way.

John UK wrote:
I am wondering how this fits in with your "covenant children" theory. Only asking, that's all.
Think not....

Re "Covenant Children" ~~

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

______________

Observer wrote:
Of course you know that the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration

piqued my interest wrote:
I am aware that there is a deeply felt need on the part of some Presbys to rewrite history. But hopefully there are enough of us interested in history to check their attempts.

John UK wrote:
promoting a false church

Quote;
"Fortunately, however, the Christian Gospel was still preserved --especially in Northern Europe. In 1377, the English 'Pre-Reformer' John Wycliffe (1324-84) assailed the Romish mass.41 In 1402, the Wycliffite Huss did the same in Bohemia.42

Neither of them ever questioned infant baptism. To the contrary, Wycliffe declared: "On account of the words in the last chapter of Matthew [28:19], our church introduces believers who answer for the infant....

"The child of a believer is carried into the church to be baptized, according to the rule of Christ." Yet "it seems hard...to assert" like the Romanists, "that this infant will be lost" if dying unbaptized. Nevertheless, "without a doubt, infants are duly baptized with water." [URL=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/index.html]]]Anabaptists and their stepchildren. F.N.Lee.[/URL]

Lurker wrote:
What God ordained in Genesis 17 has been surpassed by the new covenant

BTW I'm worried about you Baptists in that you are rejecting the Covenant of God, by not trusting God with your children. God must be angry at the fact that in your doctrine you refuse to trust in Him sufficiently, to bring your infant children into Covenant with God as ordained by Him in the OT. You cannot ignore the teachings of the OT as if they were irrelevant.

By forcing upon your children this Arminian idea to wait until they can verbally confess, is putting a greater onus upon the children and demonstrating a lack of faith in the parents.
Making the verbal confession a basis of authenicity for baptism reflects greater emphasis on all things human, whilst revealing a lesser trust in God to bring the child into Covenant. Is this not disobedience of God and a form of attack upon His grace?

Luk 18:15-17 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Baptists only biblical wrote:
1. baleful effects in Christian history

2. departure from Scripture

3. It was the open door through which the unregenerate world flooded into the Church

4. the ideal of a pure church vanished

5. Without infant-baptism there never would have been a Catholic church

6. the Christian world would have been different

7. Baptists believe that these indisputable historical effects

John UK wrote:
refute that post

History records that paedo baptism has been used by God to effectively build His Church for millennia.
Whereas deep water combined with Arminian style confession basis baptism only arrived in the 16th century. AND definitely has not built a "perfect" church which "Bob" implies.
Simple logic demonstrates that fact.

"Bob" quote; "the open door through which the unregenerate world flooded into the Church and finally overwhelmed it"- Ever heard of sin? Ever read "there are none righteous not even one"?? Have you Baptists found out yet that this is a fallen world? God Christ and the Holy Spirit build the Church in a fallen world, they save "sinners"
NOT BY BAPTISM!!!
Baptismal regeneration doesn't work. Got that?

Christ did not die upon the cross FOR BAPTISM. The human ceremony of deep water and verbal confession does NOT CAUSE REGENERATION.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Baptists reject infant baptism because it isn't biblical.

Baptists only biblical wrote:
"Baptists reject infant-baptism because of its baleful effects in Christian history. Hardly any other departure from Scripture teaching has been so prolific of evil. It was the open door through which the unregenerate world flooded into the Church and finally overwhelmed it. The whole of society poured into the Church through this door, all distinction between the Church and the world disappeared, the ideal of a pure church vanished, church discipline ceased ; henceforth the world and the Church were identical. Without infant-baptism there never would have been a Catholic church and the whole history of the Christian world would have been different. Baptists believe that these indisputable historical effects constitute a sound reason for rejecting the practice."

If this is the best of Baptist theology on the subject which they have made the 'rock' of their church, then I am not in the least surprised at the erroneous remarks made on here to support them.

Lurker wrote:
I've often wondered, Presby.
Is there anyone on this forum, with the probably exception of RP, which you honestly consider a brother or sister in Christ?

Baptists only biblical wrote:
(1) The Baptist view is not only fully biblical but being so serves to protect the church from unregenerate

(2) Presby. covenant theology positively encourages unregenerate

(2) You are wrong here also! Again you are cutting God out of the picture and assuming the "works" based ceremony of the baptist are sufficient unto salvation. You are similar to the Roman Catholics who believe in baptismal regeneration. - Your version would be "Baptist-baptismal only regeneration."

Baptism is the sign and seal of our Covenant of Grace with God. In this respect it is the same as circumcision.

John UK wrote:
"Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included."

John UK wrote:
just have a read through the 1689 Baptist confession, or even the inferior wcf, and you will find out

The 17th century Baptists "borrow" the information in the Westminster Confession of Faith to write their 1689 version - YET here we see a baptist condemning it as quote "inferior"???

Some Christian eh???

All that water they insist on using might mean he has water on the brain cell!!

1689 Baptist Confession...
"It was based upon, and drew its inspiration from the Confession drawn up by the Westminster Assembly of Divines a generation earlier, and indeed differs only from it in its teaching upon those matters, such as baptism, the Lord's Supper, and church government, upon which among the Reformed churches the Baptists differ from the Presbyterians."