Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,862
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,712
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,296
Tom 3,303
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 22
Pilgrim 18
John_C 2
Recent Posts
Law and Grace
by Tom. Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:45 PM
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
#19542 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:07 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Yes, they can be.

But it's generally been the case that those churches who let paedobaptists into membership soon have paedobaptist leaders.

Another issue is having the paedobaptists be baptized as believers by immersion. Someone's conscience is gong to be violated there- either the paedobaptist who is being immersed, or the Baptist church that would allow a paedobaptist into membership without immersing him or her.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#19543 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:09 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


And you have yet to show this "ideal" from scripture.


God bless,

william

#19544 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:10 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood [Re: MarieP]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
SemperReformanda said:
Would you agree with this article by Thomas Goodwin? Would Goodwin's views be the common view among paedobaptists?

No many (including myself) in the Reformed camp would say, but some "even here" persist in this belief.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#19545 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:49 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood [Re: J_Edwards]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
SemperReformanda said:
Would you agree with this article by Thomas Goodwin? Would Goodwin's views be the common view among paedobaptists?

No many (including myself) in the Reformed camp would say, but some "even here" persist in this belief.


Hey, where did you get that avatar?! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Ron

#19546 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:54 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
A man named Pilgrim developed it for me.... He did a fine job.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#19547 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:55 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
averagefellar said:
And you have yet to show this "ideal" from scripture.


God bless,

william



William,

You're putting the cart ahead of the horse. Walk with me on this...

Do you believe that communion is only for the converted yet the unconverted will receive what is not intended for them? Yes, you do. Therefore, in priniple a practice cannot be counted wrong simply because the "ideal" is not met. Accordingly, the Baptist position is not found wrong because they cannot meet the intention of what they would like to pursue as an ideal, a pure baptized church. Accordingly, the argument against their position must be found elsehwere, which is no problem for us. If you don't understand this, I can't help you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />

Thanks,

Ron

#19548 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:57 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood [Re: J_Edwards]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
J_Edwards said:
A man named Pilgrim developed it for me.... He did a fine job.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

#19549 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:48 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Oh no, I understand you. Yet I still await the scriptural answer. I don't really care what you think is a better ideal but what scripture assigns as proper.


God bless,

william

#19550 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:08 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
averagefellar said:
Oh no, I understand you. Yet I still await the scriptural answer. I don't really care what you think is a better ideal but what scripture assigns as proper.


God bless,

william


William,

Did I ever say that it is a better ideal to take measures to try to ensure a converted baptized community? No, I have said nothing of the sort. My point, which for some reason you have not responded to, is that it is erroneous for you to argue against the Baptist position on the grounds that it is virtually impossible for them to reach their ideal of a converted baptized visible church. That’s my point.

Indeed, the Baptist position is not taught in Scripture, so the ideal that they aim for, which they know is unattainable, is wrong. But that’s never been a bone of contention between us, which I believe you know! Accordingly, I'm inclined to take your last several posts as simply red-herrings to avoid my response to your faulty argument against the Baptist position.

Once again, you never dealt with my post. Again:

1. Do you believe that communion is only for the converted yet the unconverted will no doubt receive what is not intended for them? Yes, you do. Accordingly, the "ideal" of only having the converted partake of the supper will most likely not be met, yet we maintain the practice of examination for communion in an effort to try to ensure an ideal that we know we cannot ensure in practice, which you would agree is proper.

2. Therefore, you must agree that in principle a practice may not be counted wrong simply because the "ideal" is not met. Accordingly, the Baptist position is not found wrong because they cannot meet the intention of what they would like to pursue as an ideal, a pure baptized church.

3. Accordingly, you must agree that the argument against their position must be found elsehwere, which is no problem for the paedobaptist.

The more you argue against what I am saying the more you show that either you don't yet grasp the point or that you're being -- (should I say it?) -- a bit stubborn. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> My guess is that since you are a bright guy that it must be the latter! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ron

#19551 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:30 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Scripture please?


God bless,

william

#19552 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:34 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
averagefellar said:
Scripture please?


God bless,

william


For what? Be specific. While you're at it, what's my point (in your own words please)?

Ron

#19553 - Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:15 PM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood [Re: MarieP]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
SemperReformanda said:
Yes, they can be.

But it's generally been the case that those churches who let paedobaptists into membership soon have paedobaptist leaders.

Another issue is having the paedobaptists be baptized as believers by immersion. Someone's conscience is gong to be violated there- either the paedobaptist who is being immersed, or the Baptist church that would allow a paedobaptist into membership without immersing him or her.


Paedobaptists typically don't object to immersion, though Jay Adams does (or at least did).

Ron

#19554 - Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:18 AM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Pilgrim,

First of all, thank you for stepping in, and thank you for trying to play the peacemaker. O.K. here I go. Wish me luck!

Quote
I think what William is addressing is that which so many Baptists use to argue against paedobaptism, i.e., that since infants cannot believe, then they are not valid recipients of baptism because in the New Covenant, the command is "believe and be baptized".


I see this more as a fundamentalist-Baptist argument and not one that comes forth from Reformed Baptists, though I’m sure they do claim it on occasion. Reformed Baptists typically appreciate that if they press the Great Commission too far they’d end up with baptism being necessary for salvation. In any case, there’s no big deal on this one.

I think that Reformed Baptists appreciate that the “mission field” is in view and, therefore, concede the point that the Great Commission is not a great argument for credo-baptism. Their case is made more from Jeremiah 31 and their belief that the Old Covenant was made with the reprobate and elect as opposed to the New, which is made with only the elect. Again, no major point is being made here either.

Quote
They then annex this argument by then stating that the "new" covenant consists of ONLY the elect and, as the argument goes, since only those who are elect can believe, then they are those baptized. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" /> But, they will be quick to deny, as you are of course aware, that not all who are baptized are elect. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />


I agree that they think that the New is made with the elect, and we would heartily agree. As I see it, the main reason that they argue for a change of administration is that they believe that the Old was established with both the elect and the non-elect. Therefore, a change in administration would follow from the alleged change with respect to those with whom the covenant is established.

Quote
It is especially so for those who have retained the "old" term of "believer's baptism[/i], which is a misnomer and embarrassingly contradictory to their confession that not all who are baptized are true believers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />


“Believers baptism” simply means that Baptism is for Believers only. Please hear me out. I so wish to be understood here because I think we can be way too unfair to our Baptist brothers, whom the Lord purchased with his own blood.

The table is only for believers. This we agree upon. We wouldn’t say that the table is only for professing believers. Actually, that would be misleading for such a term might suggest that the table is open to those who profess Christ apart from having saving faith. We say, therefore, that the table is only for believers. It’s a “believers table”, though unbelievers partake of it all the time. It is not a misnomer, therefore, to call the Lord's Table a "believers table", since it is our desire that only believers come and eat. Well, given the Baptist position that only believers are to be baptized, the same reasoning would follow. I don't think that the term “believer’s baptism” is a misnomer given baptist theology. Yes, the theology behind the practice is wrong. I can’t stress that enough I suppose; but given the theology and what Baptists wish to convey, the term is most appropriate I believe. If only believers are to be baptized, then the term “believers baptism” is appropriate even though unbelievers will be baptized. In the like manner, the Lord’s Table is a “believers table” and should not be called a credo-table, even though many unbelievers will come and eat, yet without clean garments.

If I were to throw a party for my middle daughter’s Sunday school class, the party would be a “five year olds' Sunday school class party.” If I am fearful that a seven year old might crash the party incognito, would it be better for me to call the party “a professing / credo five year olds' Sunday school party”, as opposed to “a five year olds' Sunday school party"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Again, I’m not defending the Baptist position; I am suggesting that given their theology, the term "believers baptism" is appropriate. Their term is not in need of correction per se, their theology is. Once they get their theology right, the term will fall by the wasteside. Their term, given their incorrect theology, is spot on I think.

Finally, that the Baptist cannot ensure a pure church is not an argument against their theology that only believers are to be baptized. It just doesn’t follow, as I’ve labored with William.

I almost didn’t write this because as you know, it can be painful when people simply ignore what you write and respond in an unfair manner. If you think I’m wrong, please take the care to respond kindly and carefully to what I am trying to say. In fact, maybe paraphrase my position as you interact with it so that I know we are communicating over what I mean to say.

Blessings in Christ,

Ron

#19555 - Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:58 AM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,296
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,296
NH, USA
Quote
I see this more as a fundamentalist-Baptist argument and not one that comes forth from Reformed Baptists, though I’m sure they do claim it on occasion.

I think that this is part of the difficulty that you and William are having at present. It would appear that the differences are due to contrasts in "experience". What I'm saying is that I do understand your objective apologetic argument and I agree. However, I do think that you are not recognizing the fact that the overwhelming majority of Baptists are not "Reformed", but rather they are of the "fundamentalist-Baptist" camp. In my own experience, dealing with the typical Baptist, they DO base their argument of "believer's baptism" on the idea that infants and very young children cannot believe and therefore they are not proper subjects to be baptized. They insist that the Bible teaches "BELIEVER'S baptism" only, which therefore prohibits infants from the sacrament ummm ordinance. Therefore, although it may not be "ideal" to dispute their argument by showing them their inconsistency, i.e., that no one can infallibly discern if someone actually possesses true saving faith; they will admit that not all who are baptized have faith, which seems to have no effect upon them and they never seem to catch the incongruity of their position.

And lastly, I agree, one of the better arguments is to deal with the biblical understanding of what new means, in regard to Jer 31. The typical Baptist, fundamentalist and Reformed types, bring in an unwarranted discontinuity, which some of us recognize as akin to the Dispensational hermeneutic, which radically bifurcates Israel and the Church. However, from what I understand from the Hebrew, the new doesn't mean totally new, i.e., radically different from that which precedes it, but rather a fulfilling of that which precedes it, i.e., the Old covenant. The New Covenant is the bringing to pass which was foreshadowed in the Old Covenant. I think this interpretation of Jer 31 is most faithful to the original language, etc......... 'nough said, although I must say that I have used another approach which I have found most effective in helping Baptists of all flavors to at least see a major problem in their present position.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#19556 - Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:53 AM Re: Covenant in Christ's blood [Re: MarieP]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,304
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,304
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Quote
If we let a paedobaptist into the church, then what will keep that person from becoming an elder? And the church would not want the paedobaptist to become an elder because the elders would then be in disagreement over one of the two ordinances given to the church.


Actually most paedobaptists don't have a problem with baptizing people who have made a profession by immersion. They just see sprinkling and immersion to be both legitimate ways of baptism.
Of course if they did have a big problem, then I doubt they would seek membership or even leadership in the Church.
In my particular Church, people who want baptism and membership are interviewed by the leadership.
When I was in leadership, I made it a priority to make sure everyone being interviewed knew the beliefs of the Church. I also asked them to look over a small booklet stating the doctrine of the Church.
Of course if someone who was a paedobaptist was seeking a leadership position, I would hope that because of the importance of the matter, he would be prevented from doing so.
I do know that if I was still in leadership and I became a paedobaptist, I would step down, both for my own sake and for the rest of the body. But it would not cause me to revoke my membership.

Tom

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 119 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
651,889 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.054s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 2.7056 MB (Peak: 3.0185 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-22 07:26:33 UTC