Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $140 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Anthony C.
Anthony C.
NJ/PA
Posts: 192
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,549
Posts50,772
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,309
Tom 3,320
chestnutmare 2,868
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 28
Pilgrim 21
Recent Posts
Presuppositional Apologetics
by Tom. Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:42 PM
Adam created holy, so how could he fall?
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:40 PM
Christmas
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:01 AM
Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic
by PerpetualLearner. Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:11 PM
Glorious Bach
by goldenoldie. Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:46 AM
Nothing New Under the Sun?
by PerpetualLearner. Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#19626 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:36 AM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Quote
What Scriptural support do you have for baptizing an unbeliever?


None.

What Scriptural support do we see for non-Christians partaking communion? None. What Scriptural support is there to allow non-Christians into full-membership of the church? None. Yes, I know that you all agree, but that's not my point. My point is that we do not have any Scriptural support for these, but they all end up happening. They shouldn't happen, but they end up happening.

I'm content to leave this discussion at that and move on. Pilgrim's right in that we don't want something to happen like last time.


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
#19627 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:41 AM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: MarieP]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Would you please prove the equivocation from scripture? Or shall we assume it's truth by your mere persistence?


God bless,

william

#19628 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:10 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Will,

You're not getting my point.

My point is that just because Baptists erroneously baptize non-believers does not make it an argument against credobaptism, and it doesn't make baptizing non-believers right either.


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
#19629 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:32 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: MarieP]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
SemperReformanda said:
Will,

You're not getting my point.

My point is that just because Baptists erroneously baptize non-believers does not make it an argument against credobaptism, and it doesn't make baptizing non-believers right either.


Marie,

Baptist ministers don't "erroneously" baptize unbelievers when the unbeliever professes salvation. (The same goes for Paedobaptist ministers when they are called upon to baptize professing believers who are not genuine believers.) Moreover, baptizing unbelievers is "right" from the Baptist perspective when the responsibility of the minister is in view. What is wrong from the Baptist perspective is for an unbeliever to present himself for baptism. When this occurs, it is indeed right for the Baptist minister to baptize.

Kindly,

Ron

#19630 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:39 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: MarieP]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


I understand that. I never said
Quote
that just because Baptists erroneously baptize non-believers
is an argument against credo-baptism. What I did say is that it is an argument against only believers being baptized. Now here's my next point. Since not all those baptized are elect(invisible), what covenant do all professors belong to? The visible covenant. Now the question becomes, "who are members of this visible covenant?" Professors? Yes. Who else?

New Covenant = Elect only and baptism only for those in the New Covenant doesn't add up. The church, both baptist and otherwise, have never practiced this. The scriptural examples show a continuity of familial inclusion in the visible Church and baptism rightly administered unto professors and their OIKOS.

I'm still waiting for somebody to show who are the proper subjects from scripture. Only that is "right", not this ideal we keep seeing put forth.


God bless,

william

Last edited by averagefellar; Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:11 PM.
#19631 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:40 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [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
What Scriptural support do we see for non-Christians partaking communion? None. What Scriptural support is there to allow non-Christians into full-membership of the church? None. Yes, I know that you all agree, but that's not my point. My point is that we do not have any Scriptural support for these, but they all end up happening. They shouldn't happen, but they end up happening.

Before we can accept that statement does it not have to be grounded in principles of Scripture (sola scriptura)? SemperReformanda, since “they end up happening,” it is part of God’s decretive will. God did not stop Abraham from circumcising Ishmael. Abraham was suppose to follow God’s perceptive will (as are we). Thus, there is Scriptural Support if you understand how the covenant works. Of course, without a covenant understanding you are left without any Scriptural support.

When I asked in essence, "What basis do you have from Scripture to be in "error" here?” you stated that there is none from the Baptist position, to which I agree. Paedos though do have biblical grounds. When they do unknowingly admit unbelievers to the sacraments, because of their proper understanding of the God’s covenant and sacraments they are not in “error”—but actually following Scripture (visible/invisible Church distinction, oikos formula, etc). God taught in the O.T. that unbelievers could in fact be and actually were a part of the external covenant—Ishmael (Gen 17), etc. This is part and parcel of His plan. God’s plan has not changed. Unbelievers are still apart of the New Covenant.

Thus, again I assert that Jer 31:34, “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD," is not yet a full reality in this earth! If we understand our “union with Christ” and thus, the union of the chain of redemption, we will understand that in justification we do come to KNOW the LORD, but it does not stop there. Sanctification is still in progress and we KNOW the LORD more and more each day, etc. Thus, every time a Baptist, or any other person, preaches sanctification they are asserting “KNOW the LORD.” However, Jeremiah clearly says, “they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD,” and thus while we are one step closer each day to its full fulfillment, it is not yet fully fulfilled, etc. Fulfillment will not be till our glorification!

Additionally, we must remind ourselves again that Jer 31:34 falls on the heels of Jer 31:32 which says, “It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant…." However, the New Covenant today is still broken every time we sin (remember Heb 12 on discipline follows Heb 8 on covenant, Jer 31)! In addition, unbelievers break the N.C. :

Quote
Hebrews 10:28-31 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Please note first that these verses follow Heb 8 which is a summation of Jer 31 (as pointed out here). These passages make it clear that until Christ returns it is possible for the N.C. to be broken. In fact, the author applies the warning “the Lord will judge his people” from Deuteronomy 32:36 (a warning to the covenant people under the Mosaic covenant) to this N.C. situation, thus equating the circumstances of the N.C. prior to the return of Christ to the situation Israel faced under the O.C. (continuity in the covenant). Judgment was and is possible for both the O.C. & N.C. communities, and judgment flows only from covenant breaking, not from covenant keeping. If judgment is a possibility under the N.C., then so is the covenant breaking that leads to that judgment.

When Christ returns in glory, everyone in the new creation after Christ’s return will have the law of God written on his or her heart. We will all love and delight in His ways, just as Christ already does (2 Cor. 3:16-18; 1 Thess. 3:11-13). In this sense, we expect Jeremiah’s prophecy to find complete fulfillment when Christ returns. At the present time, however, this expectation is only partially fulfilled. There is a sense in which the hearts and minds of believers have been renewed by God’s grace (Rom. 12:1-2). At the same time, however, we are also commanded by NT writers to observe the Scriptures and to watch for corruption in our thinking (Rom. 1:18-2:29; Eph. 4:17-32; 2 Pet. 3:17). The NT speaks this way because the promise of complete internalization of the law of God has only begun within believers, but it has not yet been completed.

As the parables of the Ten Virgins and Talents (Matt 25:1-30) illustrate, there are many in the N.C. community who will prove themselves not to be truly regenerate. Consequently, there is no need to withhold baptism from infants on the basis of Jeremiah’s N.C. expectations. Until the consummation the N.C. will continue to be mixed with true believers and unbelievers.

Much of this material is from notes from Dr. Richard Pratt's lectures on Jer 31, which I will attempt to find a complete copy of and post later.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#19632 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:23 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


William,

You do appreciate that the one covenant of grace is established with Christ, the single Seed of Abraham. In him the covenant is established with the elect as well. The reason we baptize the children of professing believers is because although the covenant with Abraham was established with Christ and the elect in him, God commanded Abraham to administer the covenant with his household. Since God never abrogated this principle, we dare not stop. The covenant is made with the invisible church, but we are to administer it to professors and their offspring.

Blessings,

Ron

#19633 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:44 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


I believe we are holding hands on this one. Inclusion into the visible covenant has always had a familial understanding. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

#19634 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:06 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


It's a beautiful thing! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" />

Ron

#19635 - Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:26 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: MarieP]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline
Addict
john  Offline
Addict

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Quote
SemperReformanda said:
Quote
What Scriptural support do you have for baptizing an unbeliever?


None.

What Scriptural support do we see for non-Christians partaking communion?


Hi Marie,

How would you comment on Jesus allowing Judas to partake in the Last Supper. This is where the practice of communion was instituted and it is clear that Judas was a non-Christian, and yet Jesus did not prevent Judas from eating with them. It's certain that Jesus knew the true state of Judas's heart. Note that I'm not saying this is support for non-professing, non-Christians partaking of communion. Actually, I never thought about this particular passage in this light until today, so I'm not sure what to think about it yet.

John

#19636 - Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:02 AM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: john]  
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
I must come to Marie’s defense here as I don’t think Judas ever “finished” the Lord’s Supper. After supper, Jesus took a second cup, gave thanks and offered it to the disciples, ……

Passover celebrations involve four cups of wine, so it seems more likely that Jesus was observing a similar ceremony with multiple cups of wine. The 4-Cups of wine used in the Passover symbolize the 4 distinct redemptions promised by God to the Hebrews as told in Exod 6:6-7: (1) "I will take you out of Egypt," (2) "I will deliver you from Egyptian slavery," (3) "I will redeem you with a demonstration of my power," and (4) "I will acquire you as a nation". Since each of these cups of wine symbolize an action that was performed by God, Jews fill a small cup with wine at 4 different points in the Passover and drink each cup of wine…..

Jesus after the 2nd cup, then said someone is going to betray me… Judas dipped his hand…. Judas left.

Please note that the other TWO cups of wine had not yet been drunk and thus Judas never completed the Passover meal, though he did eat and drink damnation to himself in the "part" he did partake in (1 Cor 11:29).


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#19637 - Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:00 AM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline
Addict
john  Offline
Addict

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Quote
J_Edwards said:
I must come to Marie’s defense here as I don’t think Judas ever “finished” the Lord’s Supper.


First of all, I hope it didn't sound like I was attacking Marie. I pretty much agree with her, but I was just throwing that point out for discussion (which seemed to have worked since I learned some new things :grin).

Quote
Passover celebrations involve four cups of wine, so it seems more likely that Jesus was observing a similar ceremony with multiple cups of wine. The 4-Cups of wine used in the Passover symbolize the 4 distinct redemptions promised by God to the Hebrews as told in Exod 6:6-7: (1) "I will take you out of Egypt," (2) "I will deliver you from Egyptian slavery," (3) "I will redeem you with a demonstration of my power," and (4) "I will acquire you as a nation". Since each of these cups of wine symbolize an action that was performed by God, Jews fill a small cup with wine at 4 different points in the Passover and drink each cup of wine…..


Do you have a good reference for these customs? I am not familiar with the four cups of wine and their symbolism.

Quote

Jesus after the 2nd cup, then said someone is going to betray me… Judas dipped his hand…. Judas left.

Please note that the other TWO cups of wine had not yet been drunk and thus Judas never completed the Passover meal, though he did eat and drink damnation to himself in the "part" he did partake in (1 Cor 11:29).


Would you mind explaining how you came about this chronology a little more. I re-read through all the gospel accounts again, and it is not clear to me how this chronology is arrived at. I do agree completely that Judas did eat and drink damnation to himself in the part he did partake in.

John

#19638 - Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:05 AM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: john]  
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
As far as references the earliest I know of are the Jewish texts: Pesah 10:1–9 and Targum Pesah 10.1–14. Sources that you may have available would be the Jewish New Testament Commentary which implies that Judas drank from all but the last cup to (several commentaries do), Mishnah Pesahim X. 2–10, A. Edersheim, The Temple, S. Greijdanus, Korte Verklaring, Vol. II, J. B. Segal, The Jewish Passover from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, London, 1963. Though commentaries vary on whether Judas drank from all but the last 2 cups or only the last cup they pretty much agree that the Lord’s Supper was instituted at this “Passover Meal.”

The order of The Passover Feast, The main elements were as follows (Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Vol. 11, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke):

1. A prayer of thanksgiving by the head of the house; drinking the first cup of (diluted) wine.

2. The eating of bitter herbs, as a reminder of the bitter slavery in Egypt.

3. The son’s inquiry, “Why is this night distinguished from all other nights?” and the father’s appropriate reply, either narrated or read.

4. The singing of the first part of the Hallel (Psalms 113, 114), and the washing of hands. The second cup.

5. The carving and eating of the lamb, together with unleavened bread. The lamb was eaten in commemoration of what the ancestors had been commanded to do in the night when the Lord smote all the first-born of Egypt and delivered his people (Exod. 12 and 13). The unleavened bread was in commemoration of “the bread of haste” eaten by the ancestors.

6. Continuation of the meal, each eating as much as he liked, but always last of the lamb. The third cup.

7. Singing of the last part of the Hallel (Psalms 115–118). Fourth cup.

As far as a parallel account I do not have time to lay one out for you, but the internet, or better yet a book on the Synoptic Gospels would give the account much quicker than I could copy it…… Here is a website: Synoptic Parallels. Here are some books:

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: Joel B. Green
Harmony of the Gospels: Loraine Boettner
Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels: Darrell L. Bock


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#19639 - Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:05 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Peter Offline
Old Hand
Peter  Offline
Old Hand

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
BTW, I still don't understand why erroneously baptizing unbelievers is an argument against credobaptism.

In my post above you will see that I said, "Baptists and Presbyterians BOTH baptize individuals which are not saved." Presbys do it based upon a covenant relationship. On what basis do Baptist's do it? What Scriptural support do you have for baptizing an unbeliever?

The remainder of your post was answered here.


First Joe glad to hear about your wife I hope her recovery go smoothly and that she will be in good health once again in a short time.

Second now when you say that both Presbyterians and Baptists baptize individuals (and at this point I'm assuming you mean adults) whom are not saved you mean those persons who have falsely stated that they are believers but in fact are not.

If so then you are correct there is nothing in baptist theology that states we are to baptize unbelievers (adult) However, I believe that there is scripture procedure that should be done once this has been discovered.
Quote
And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed. Now when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, "Give me also this power, that whoever I lay my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit." But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart isn't right before God. Repent therefore of this, your wickedness, and ask God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity." (Ac 8:13, 18-23)


The elders of the Church must confront the man or woman and tell them to repent and if they do not then they must be treated as an unbeliever and if necessary put out of the church. How do the Presbyterians respond?


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
#19640 - Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:38 PM Re: Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING [Re: Peter]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
If so then you are correct there is nothing in baptist theology that states we are to baptize unbelievers (adult) However, I believe that there is scripture procedure that should be done once this has been discovered.


We shouldn't intentionally baptize any adults who do not make a profession. Nobody's theology states we should intentionally baptize unbelievers. I agree that discipline is necessary for those found to be outside of the faith.


God bless,

william

Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (goldenoldie), 18 guests, and 100 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
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
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
666,201 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.059s Queries: 16 (0.005s) Memory: 2.7147 MB (Peak: 3.0234 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-16 05:06:23 UTC