Pedobaptists: Start arguing like Bunyan!

Status
Not open for further replies.
SolaScriptura

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
For my Baptist History paper I wrote on the open membership debates that went on between John Bunyan and some Baptist leaders back in the day.
The Baptists, arguing along historic Christian lines, said that water-baptism was entry into the visible church and must, therefore, precede both membership with the church and participation in the Lord's supper.
Bunyan argued that water baptism was not a church ordinance and that submission to it in no way, shape, or form was necessary for church membership or communion.

Anyway, one of the challenges Bunyan repeatedly offered his opponents was to find even one example in the NT of someone being prohibited from church membership or communion for not being baptized with water.

I started thinking: perhaps pedobaptists should argue along the same lines... whenever Baptists say "show me an example of a baby being baptized..." we should respond with, "Show me one example of a baby being refused baptism!"

See? John Bunyan has something to teach pedobaptists. :D
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by Pilgrim
I think that's the old argument from silence.
Click to expand...

I know! But the beauty is that it is indefeatable! ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps in some circumstances. I would think some (if not all) paedocommunion (or fill in the blank) advocates use arguments from silence too.

The question "When did you quit beating your wife?" has a certain undefeatable quality to it too. Unless the questioner means beating her at tennis!
 
Of course as I'm sure you point out in your paper, Bunyan's argument differs from both paedos and credos here--both paedos and credos agree that water baptism is the entry point into the church. This is why some Baptists say Bunyan wasn't really Baptist in his ecclesiology. I haven't studied him much, but I understand that for Bunyan, only a profession of faith was what was required for entrance to the local assembly. I think he left it up to the individual to whether to be immersed.

Interesting that he would say water baptism isn't a "church ordinace." What pray tell, did he consider it to be? Did Bunyan think it alright to serve communion to those who had never been baptized at all? Most people then probably would have at least been "christened" in either a Roman or Anglican church if not somewhere else.

[Edited on 2-1-2006 by Pilgrim]
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
For my Baptist History paper I wrote on the open membership debates that went on between John Bunyan and some Baptist leaders back in the day.
The Baptists, arguing along historic Christian lines, said that water-baptism was entry into the visible church and must, therefore, precede both membership with the church and participation in the Lord's supper.
Bunyan argued that water baptism was not a church ordinance and that submission to it in no way, shape, or form was necessary for church membership or communion.

Anyway, one of the challenges Bunyan repeatedly offered his opponents was to find even one example in the NT of someone being prohibited from church membership or communion for not being baptized with water.

I started thinking: perhaps pedobaptists should argue along the same lines... whenever Baptists say "show me an example of a baby being baptized..." we should respond with, "Show me one example of a baby being refused baptism!"

See? John Bunyan has something to teach pedobaptists. :D
Click to expand...

WOW! Now this is interesting. Could you please direct me to the source of this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top