The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Thoughts on 1Cor 7:12ff

Hi Pilgrim:

You said:


I couldn't agree more and if you will go back and look at my very limited posts on this matter, because I too believe it is a small matter, you will see that I have espoused your view, unlike some who have made it a Shiboleth, both with respect to their stated views about it being a matter of obeying the King and so on and with respect to shear volume of words. So I believe your words are directed to the wrong person. As I have said, and Steve has said, the only Baptism that ulitmately matters is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.


I am not "extemely anti dispensational" (another label), but having come from that error and having tasted the bitter fruit thereof and also, more importantly, the sweet fruit of covenant theology, of which I believe my understanding is every bit as valid as yours, I consider my hermeneutic and my understanding of the scriptures to be covenental, not dispensational. As I have gone to reasonable lengths to explain, just because my understanding of the Covenant is not the same as yours doesn't mean that I am "dispensational."

Yes, Pilgrim, credo baptists are hard on paedo baptists, but as I have noted in other posts so are paedo baptists hard on credo baptists, calling our position a "great sin". One of the things I like about the Highway is that both views have been respected, at least until now.

I could say more but I feel it is falling on deaf ears.

In Him,

Gerry

Gerry,

As to my several comments at the very end of my reply re: "why all the huff, etc.", that was addressed to the general readership! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> It was not directed at YOU personally. I suppose I should have made that clear when I wrote them.

And did I not say the same? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But why the little "dig" here, "until now"? If I had to guess, I would say that the membership here consists of an even split between paedobaptists and credobaptists. Even further, there have been credobaptists on staff here and we still have one on staff. I think you will find, that I have been and will continue to be MORE than gracious to my brothers and sisters who differ with me on this matter. In fact, in my particular case, I get it from BOTH sides! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />.

I do NOT believe it is a "great sin" to neglect the baptism of one's children. But what I do consider a "great sin" is to either assume that one's children are saved, considered elect, regenerate or to treat them as Christians OR to neglect raising them up in the admonitions of the Lord OR to push little children to make some simple profession of faith, dunk them and then assure them they they "belong to Jesus". There's plenty of fault to be found on BOTH sides, IMHO.

So, let's please not let these discussions turn into that which is unbecoming to those who profess godliness and resort to personal attacks and name calling. Vehement defense of one's position is fine at times. But I do think that Joe was treated unkindly in this specific instance of late. I would call for a little more restraint on the part of everyone from hence forth in this matter. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim:


Thanks for the clarification, it helps.


Neither do I, but as I said before in another post this was the postion taken by an OPC pastor who cited the WCF 28.5 as his source, which reads as follows in reference to both adult and infant baptism:

"Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace...."

You said in that regard, to which I reply, Amen Brother.





Since you have asked the question, I assume you are interested in the answer? The answer is found in statements like the following several lines farther down in the same post:


Perhaps so, but I would remind you that that unkind treatment, if that is what it was, was in response to an uncalled for remark about Steve's understanding of the salvation of OT saints. A remark FIRST made by Joe which you have chosen to explain away as "understandable". Sorry, but I don't buy it. When you are as even handed with Steve as you are with Joe, then I will not feel inclined to make the kind of statement I made above about "until now". It was not, in my opinion, a dig, but rather a comment on how the situation was handled.

I totally agree and when you evidence the same concern for the name calling and uncharitable remarks made to Steve, I will feel like your actions match your words.

In Him,

Gerry

To those who have started and contributed to this attack on Joe I think you're wrong.

I have read the comments in this thread and I think it's very unfortunate that this discussion has degenerated into bashing Joe. In my opinion Joe didn't make any uncharitable remarks in this thread toward Steve or anyone else. He took Steve's comments at face value and replied as he saw fit. Joe stayed on topic throughout this thread and defended his views quite well. It's really unfortunate that those who disagree with him are now making personal attacks rather than biblical arguments. It doesn't matter which side of the baptism issue you are on Joe deserves better treatment than this.

I think Pilgrim's words were very appropriate in response to this and I'm thankful he's made them. I hope that we can learn from this.

Let's not grieve the Holy Spirit...

• Therefore, putting away lying, "Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor," for we are members of one another. "Be angry, and do not sin": do not let the sun go down on your wrath, nor give place to the devil. .....Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you."

We may have differences on the issue of baptism but let's take to heart Paul's words here to the Ephesian church.

Wes

Wes,

I agree.


RJ
[color:"FF0000"]Psalm 73:25,26 [color:"0000CC"]

To the Highway,

I would like to bring clarity to the intention of my post, since it apparently has been misunderstood.

First, I was surprised by these words from Steve. Knowing that he is a Christian, conservative, and a Baptist, this would normally mean that he would believe that Old Testament saints are saved. But, having moved from England years ago, I am not familiar with what the Baptist Churches in England are teaching these days. If I look at several Baptist Churches in America I see a degradation in theology (thank God for the Founder’s Conference which hopefully will be instrumental in turning the tide here). Truly, when I read Steve’s words, “The Old Covenant may have included children, [color:"0000FF"]but it did not save them[/color],” I could not believe my eyes and I responded in grace to correct that which I saw as an error in theology. This was not a personal attack on Steve, but a response to his words above. But, there his words sit and still without an explanation. Steve, I apologize to you if I have misinterpreted the words as written. But, Steve I still must ask, what do your words mean?

Second, I would like to state that I do have many positive and meaningful discourses with Baptists both here on this forum and even in Florida where I am now privileged to live. As matter a fact, I will be preaching at a Baptist church next week. Thus, this does make me wonder what is really behind the responses here. Maybe this e-mail will add some clarity:

Third, Steve to your little snippet on “Polemic Theology.” Indeed, this is a great article and IMHO nowhere did I violate it. I responded to you with a Scriptural argument, but also responded to protect the integrity of what the Scripture teaches. But, how have you and/or your Baptist friends responded? Has this not been some of your replies, [color:"FF0000"]“How can I bash this person right down into the ground in order to annihilate objections and differences?" [/color] (a quote from the article).

Fourth, Tom I appreciate your openness as a Baptist, to express your views at the risk of being hated, as I. Your courage in this matter is to be commended. Thank you brother. Additionally, to those who took up the fight to preserve the “whole truth” of the matter (Pilgrim, Wes, RJ, and the others that responded by e-mail) thank you for your integrity in the matter.

Lastly, I regret that the intent of my words in my original posts were misunderstood. I further regret that others reading these posts have to see this side of Christianity—unfortunately it does exist. But, where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. I for one need much grace, for my sins have much abounded. May God have mercy on all.

Joe,

I for one did not wish to involve myself in any sort of bashing when I posted the whole article on "Polemic Theology." I only wished to post it because it had been alluded to and thought it was a good article. So I wanted to say I have no feelings harbored against you or how you reacted to Steve.

I also am sure that, in light of the genuinely caring group of believers I find here, we will be quick to fogive one another in love on this issue.

I haven't responded to anything much on this thread just recently because I'm suffering from eye-strain, so this has to be quick because I need to rest my eyes.

1. Joe, do you believe that everyone in the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was saved? If not, there's your answer.

2. I said that several of US needed to read that article. It was supposed to be some sort of peace offering. Clearly it failed abysmally.

FYI, although there are no reformed Presbyterian churches in my area, I am happy to preach at Congregational, and occasionally at Anglican churches. As a member of Gideons Int, I am committed to work with Bible -believing Christians of all denominations.

I am not aware of having tried to 'bash you into the ground.' If you feel that I have done then, if you show me where, I will certainly apologize. All I have done is ask you not to refer to me as dispensational, which name, being totally non-descriptive of my theology, is irritating to me.

Blessings to all,
Steve

Dear Wesley,

Rightly or wrongly, I was offended by what I perceived to be Joe's provocative comments to Steve. I have not discussed this with Steve, so I do not know if he was offended or not. My intention was to make Joe aware that his remarks had the potential of provoking a brother to wrath. I cannot judge another's motives, and certainly I could have erred in my assumption that Joe was trying to misrepresent Steve.

All that being said, I think it is unhelpful to judge the motives of those of us who saw this differently than you do and to accuse us of "Joe Bashing". (How charitable is that characterization?)

While I do have the greatest respect for you and for Joe, I don't think it is helpful to judge your brothers and sisters regarding our motives. Steve has not been a part of this and returned, probably with surprise, to see the mess that has transpired here. Gerry, who has made great contributions to this forum and who has one of the most tender hearts here, deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt concerning his motives. I would say that he was obviously upset, but he did made valid points and his foremost concern was that a brother was being unfairly treated here. He was also defending me. I don’t think that it is asking too much for the paedos to refrain from using the term “dispensational” since it carries so much unhelpful baggage and only causes ill feelings.

I have seen the Lord working in many hearts here and thank God for that. We all have a long way to go and we all fall short of the glory of God. I am thinking mostly of myself here. I have been reading Owen's Sin and Temptation and am all too aware of my own deceitful heart. I know that even when I think my motives are innocent, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Only God can search our hearts because they are deceitful above all things, mine included.

Dear Susan,

While I would have rather had this discussion with you in private I'll respond to your reply here since you have made your comments openly.


I regard you as a godly woman and a true Sister in the Lord. However your perception changed the focus of the discussion on this thread. The discussion was no longer on the topic but on Joe's motives.



Now you're doing the same thing regarding my comments. I regret that since you don’t appreciate the message you are resorting to attacking the messenger. I know we don't always understand each other as well as we should but we shouldn't resort to assessments of one's character or intentions. I assure you my comments were motivated by love for those participating in this discussion. I have an appreciation for everyone who was posting in this thread. I was hopeful that the verses I quoted at the bottom of my post would have been a wake up call for those making hurtful personal comments.


Then please don't do it. As I have told you in private this thread became contentious when it was no longer discussing the different views of the paedobaptists and the credobaptists but resorted to bashing Joe. I would have thought that since Joe has made it clear that your perceptions were wrong that these sort of comments would end.

Unfortunately we have left a vibrant discussion between Joe and Steve which quite frankly I was enjoying reading to discuss our perceptions of who’s being the nice guy here. Didn’t you even read my comments about grieving the Holy Spirit?

My dear Sister let's be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as Christ has forgiven us.


Wes