Forum rules
For discussions of credo-baptism. No debates of the view are allowed. Anyone participating in this forum is assumed to be in agreement with the position.
marno
Invested Member
marno
Invested Member
Joined: 4:27 AM - Apr 28, 2013

9:21 PM - May 05, 2013 #11

PARoss:19282 wrote:Correctly read it says that the infant baptism position requires baptism for membership and when an infant is baptized s/he becomes a member.
O-o-o-k-a-a-a-y, since you are the author of the chart, you must know the "correct" reading of it. If your chart actually means to represent our position to be that baptized infants are considered members of the church on the basis of their baptism, fine.  :dontknow:
And now for a word from our sponsor:

:angryfire: :angryfire: WORDS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING UNTIL THEY HAVE A CONTEXT! :angryfire: :angryfire:
Quote
Like
Share

PARoss
Invested Member
PARoss
Invested Member
Joined: 12:44 PM - Sep 22, 2009

10:11 PM - May 05, 2013 #12

The point of the chart is more practical than theological. It just shows that the same elements are involved in both views, though there are variances.
Quote
Like
Share

marno
Invested Member
marno
Invested Member
Joined: 4:27 AM - Apr 28, 2013

10:22 PM - May 05, 2013 #13

PARoss:19288 wrote:The point of the chart is more practical than theological. It just shows that the same elements are involved in both views, though there are variances.
I don't think that's what the chart shows at all. I think the point of the chart has everything to do with theology and little to do with practicality. I think you are attempting to mitigate the significant theological differences between the baptistic v covenant views.

I still think you are misrepresenting both positions. But you say you are not. I have only the words to go by. You are using special pleading with a "correct" method of interpreting your chart. So be it.

I could create a chart showing all the similarities between the Catholic Mass and Protestant Communion, to show that there are few practical differences. After all, they both use bread and wine, both are in reference to the body and blood of Christ, so let's not get all tangled up in differences in theology.

Though I do not think the difference between the credo v. covenant views of baptism is as serious a matter as that between the mass and communion, the differences are far more significant than your chart makes them out to be.

If you really care about discussing the doctrine of baptism, be sure you are able to state what the positions really are, and the true differences between them.

[Edited this a bit late. I got called away and probably should not have posted what I wrote originally. My apologies.  :confused2:   ]
And now for a word from our sponsor:

:angryfire: :angryfire: WORDS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING UNTIL THEY HAVE A CONTEXT! :angryfire: :angryfire:
Quote
Like
Share

Reformed Baptist
RTI Guru
Joined: 5:59 PM - Nov 20, 2015

7:24 AM - Jul 13, 2018 #14

marno wrote:
PARoss:19288 wrote:The point of the chart is more practical than theological. It just shows that the same elements are involved in both views, though there are variances.
I don't think that's what the chart shows at all. I think the point of the chart has everything to do with theology and little to do with practicality. I think you are attempting to mitigate the significant theological differences between the baptistic v covenant views.
This is an old thread, but I think a point of clarity is needed - the historical Baptist position (both general and particular) is a view built around a covenant framework. The fundamental difference between Baptist and Presbyterian covenantalism is that baptists don't see the covenant with Abraham and the new Covenant as being 'administrations' of the covenant of grace, rather for us the new covenant is the covenant of grace, and all the old testaments covenants are (in one form or another) pointers to (and promises of) the covenant of grace. 
Just thought I would clear that up - those many who call themselves Baptist but he read Scripture through a dispensational lens or misnamed.  
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon
Quote
Like
Share

Ask Mr. Religion
Site Founder
Joined: 9:13 AM - Jul 28, 2008

4:48 PM - Aug 05, 2018 #15

Comparison of WCF and the LBCF:
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

In particular:
WCF — Chapter XXVIII: Of Baptism 
LBCF — Chapter XXIX: Of Baptism
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog
Quote
Like
Share

Reformed Baptist
RTI Guru
Joined: 5:59 PM - Nov 20, 2015

5:50 PM - Oct 09, 2018 #16

1. Infant dedication ceremony
(a symbol of God’s grace)
  • To be dedicated as a symbol of God’s Covenant is to be brought under God’s eternal covenant with all its attendant promises and threatenings (Deuteronomy 28, 2 Samuel 7, Jeremiah 31:31-40, Matthew 26:26-30, Acts 3:12-26) by the blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit in the hope of salvation, symbolized by the laying on of hands upon the infant and the parents’ commitment to God’s covenant
I have to ask if this is actually 'Baptist' - it appears more mainstream evangelical to me (and even that is pushing it) - most baptists that know who 'dedicate' are actually giving thanks to God for the child and dedicating the parents, with the churches assistance, to bring that child up 'in the fear and admonition of the law'
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon
Quote
Like
Share