Pristine Grace
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Accepting pedo-baptists to the Lord's table

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    England
    Posts
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Accepting pedo-baptists to the Lord's table

    A few years ago, I was of the standard strict baptist opinion that those who have not been baptised "by immersion" upon profession of faith, should not be received to the Lord's table. I have now repented of that viewpoint. I'm still a strict baptist. I still believe in baptism "by immersion" as they say, and I still believe that baptism should occur upon profession of faith. I still believe in a closed table. But, I do not believe anymore in excluding my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who have a different viewpoint from me on baptism, from the Lord's table.

    Why not, you may be wondering? Well, I probably can't make the full case for the change of heart. However, I know that certain things affected it. For one thing, I came to accept the moral-ceremonial distinction. Certain commandments have intrinsic moral value. Other commandments—those concerning symbolism—derive their moral value from what the symbolism depicts. So for example, human beings are made in the image of God, so it is intrinsically wrong to kill them. But it was never intrinsically wrong to eat pork. Noah and the Israelites abstained from this because of what Pork represented. So, for me, accepting that the symbol of baptism was just that, a symbol, reconfigured my view somewhat. I mean, true Christians have all been baptized by one Spirit into the same body, so regardless of whether they've properly symbolized that Spiritual baptism or not, in water baptism, surely they should all partake of the symbol of the bread and wine.

    Another thing that affected my change of heart was the realization that there has to be some forbearance among brethren, concerning sins. I still believe that pedo-baptism is a sin, but I now believe we must allow for people to be in error, in the church. There are things we all have wrong, and if we don't show some toleration of others, why should anyone ever tolerate us? This seems especially true over symbolical matters, rather than matters of intrinsic moral value. Now, to completely disregard a symbol does seem to be an intrinsically immoral thing to do, coming from a spirit of debauchery. Paul spoke of those getting drunk at the so-called Lord's Supper, in 1 Corinthians. However, he also made reference to sincere differences of opinion over symbolism in Romans 14, and, although he wasn't talking about present, active symbols, but rather defunct, Old Testament ones, I still regard the passage as having application to this issue. He began Romans 14 by saying, "receive the weaker brother, but not to questions of reasoning." That seems like a pretty universal rule, and whether or not sprinkling babies counts as baptism certainly seems like a question of reasoning to me. Ergo, the commandment is to receive them, and that means, to fully receive them, including to the Lord's table.

    Since my change of heart, I changed my church to a Congregationalist church, rather than a strict baptist one, as the strict baptists always insist on baptism by immersion before being admitted to the Lord's table.

    What do people think? Have I gone wrong? Was I better off before, with the standard strict-baptist view?
    Last edited by alt731; 01-14-19 at 06:08 PM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to alt731 For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (01-14-19)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •