|
Posts: 14,473
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
|
Forums30
Topics7,797
Posts54,960
Members974
| |
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Addict
|
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710 |
Never heard of that one but with the name Starr it must be good. Ya know, the longer I'm around the more I believe that all a man really needs is the Bible and Westminster standards or the Bible and the 3 forms of unity nothing else. Nowadays man seems to think he needs a book for every topic but what he really needs is to read few books many times.
Have a good Lord's day,
William
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187 |
From the 1646 Baptist Confession of Faith The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds out to be a disiple; it being nowhere tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the Gospel Normally, evangelism takes place under the auspices of a church and the baptisms that result likewise. What we are looking at here is an extraordinary situation, perhaps more like Acts 11:19-21 than anything else. From what I can see, this young man has received the Gospel in a country where conversion can mean death. There is no church within hundreds of miles that can give him supervision, and any church that he might find in the big cities might not be a Gospel church or not have a Pastor willing to risk his life by trekking out into alien territory to perform these baptisms so I say that rather than leave these new believers unbaptized, he should get on and baptize them himself. If the information we have is true, then this young man is risking his life daily in preaching the Gospel. I praise God for him. Who will say that he is unworthy to perform a baptism? Not I! His ordination is from God, not men. Mark 10:38ff. Steve Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710 |
From the 1646 Baptist Confession of Faith
The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds out to be a disiple; it being nowhere tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the Gospel Mr. Owen, Do you believe this holds true to the Lord's Holy Supper also? Calvin in his INSTITUTES. . . it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptize, but to those whom he had appointed apostles. . . . The practice which has been in use for many ages, and even almost from the very commencement of the Church, for laics to baptize, in danger of death, when a minister could not be present in time, cannot, it appears to me, be defended on sufficient grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,473 Likes: 58
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,473 Likes: 58 |
grace2U,
1. Is not the Church ruled by Christ? And thus do you not think that He by His Spirit knows the situation described? And, do you not suppose that the Head of the Church is capable to providing what is needed in that situation? Perhaps this man is not a true Christian? Perhaps his gospel is false? Perhaps Christ has no intention of building a church in that area? Lots of possibilities, eh?
2. God ordains but not without MEANS, which is always through men. As in #1, the sovereign Lord is more than knowledgeable of the situation and capable of providing ALL that is needed for those whom He has called to Christ and given repentance and faith. He has set forth the order to be followed for His Church to which we are to simply and graciously submit.
3. Is baptism so indispensable that without being baptized one is not saved? Is baptism so essential that one cannot progress in sanctification without it? Why is it therefore so expedient that these people be baptized, particularly when there is no organized church there?... again, refer to #1.
In His grace,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif) simul iustus et peccator![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,473 Likes: 58
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,473 Likes: 58 |
From the 1646 Baptist Confession of Faith
The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds out to be a disiple; it being nowhere tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the Gospel The document from which you quoted and upon which you evidently have established your view that any disciple may baptize is a spurious document written by a very small schismatic group of hyper-Calvinists who also denied the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated in the Nicene Creed. This group openly rejected the teachings of the Reformers, Puritans, etc. What I think is a more reliable document for those who adhere to a credo baptist position is the London Baptist Confession of Faith. Here is what it says concerning baptism and its administration in the church: The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXVI
Of the Church
VII. To each of these churches thus gathered, according to His mind declared in His Word, He hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which He hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.[14]
14. Matt. 18:17-18; I Cor. 5:4-5; 5:13; II Cor. 2:6-8
VIII. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which He entrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.[15]
15. Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1
IX. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself;[16]and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein;[17] and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.[18]
16. Acts 14:23
17. I Tim. 4:14
18. Acts 6:3, 5-6
The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper
I. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His church to the end of the world.[1]
1. Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 11:26
II. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.[2]
2. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 4:1 In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187 |
Hello Pilgrim. First of all, feel free to call me Steve; all my friends do. grace2U,
1. Is not the Church ruled by Christ? And thus do you not think that He by His Spirit knows the situation described? And, do you not suppose that the Head of the Church is capable to providing what is needed in that situation? Perhaps this man is not a true Christian? Perhaps his gospel is false? Perhaps Christ has no intention of building a church in that area? Lots of possibilities, eh? 1. Yes. 2. I'm quite sure He does. 3. He certainly is, and perhaps He has. 4. Possibly not, but perhaps the man sent from the church 300 miles away will not be a Christian. Perhaps he will be from PCUSA or some other apostate body. What then? 5. What the man needs may be teaching. He needs a Priscilla and an Aquilla to come and help him. We should be praying that God will send him such. There are false teachers ordained all over Britain and America. Ordination by men, at its best, only witnesses to what God has already done. 6. If Christ does not wish to build His church there it will not be built. 7. Yes indeed, but not all of them are relevant. 2. God ordains but not without MEANS, which is always through men. As in #1, the sovereign Lord is more than knowledgeable of the situation and capable of providing ALL that is needed for those whom He has called to Christ and given repentance and faith. He has set forth the order to be followed for His Church to which we are to simply and graciously submit. God has indeed ordained the means. He has granted these poor, benighted folk a preacher and brought them to faith. They now need to be baptized. 3. Is baptism so indispensable that without being baptized one is not saved? Is baptism so essential that one cannot progress in sanctification without it? Why is it therefore so expedient that these people be baptized, particularly when there is no organized church there?... again, refer to #1. Baptism is an ordinance of God. If you can show me one incidence in the Bible of anyone waiting to be baptized while some 'ordained' person was found, I will submit to your wisdom. Otherwise I offer you Acts 8:12, 36ff; 9:18. Who was Ananias? 'A certain disciple.' No more. These folk in Pakistan have placed themselves in deadly danger by trusting in Christ. They need to be baptized without delay in order to confirm them in their faith. Steve Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187 |
Pilgrim wrote:- The document from which you quoted and upon which you evidently have established your view that any disciple may baptize is a spurious document written by a very small schismatic group of hyper-Calvinists who also denied the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated in the Nicene Creed. This group openly rejected the teachings of the Reformers, Puritans, etc. I am sorry to say that you show a shameful ignorance of the early Baptists. FYI, the only two signatories to the 1644/6 confession who were then living also signed the 1689 Confession (Kiffin & Knollys). Also, the 1646 confession is largely based on William Ames' Marrow of Theology, especially that part that deals with the Trinity. FWIW, I am a subscriber to the 1689 Confession and see no substantial difference between them. I. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His church to the end of the world.[1]
1. Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 11:26
II. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.[2]
2. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 4:1 Amen! Exactly so. Steve Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710 |
I am a subscriber to the 1689 Confession and see no substantial difference between them. I. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His church to the end of the world.[1]
1. Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 11:26
II. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.[2]
2. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 4:1 Amen! Exactly so. Steve Owen Your Baptist history is correct. As for me, having recently come out of the Reformed Baptist movement. I must say I never knew that they were in agreement with the 44/46 Confession of Faith and believed that any believer with a hankerin to preach can administer the sacrament of baptism. Are you sure see no substantial difference between them. 1677/89 Baptist Confession of Faith
1. Baptism and the Lords Supper are ordinances of positive, and soveraign institution; appointed by the Lord Jesus the only Law-giver, to be continued in his Church (a) to the end of the world.
a Mat. 28 19,20. 1 Cor. 11.26.
2, These holy appointments are to be administred by those only, who are qualified and thereunto called according (b) to the commission of Christ.
b Mat. 28.19. 1 Cor. 4.1.
1646 First London Baptist Confession of Faith
THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.
Isa.8:16; Eph.2:7; Matt.28:19; John 4:2; Acts 20:7, 11:10; 1 Cor. 11: 2, 10:16,17; Rom. 16:2; Matt. 18:17.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,473 Likes: 58
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,473 Likes: 58 |
I. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His church to the end of the world.[1]
1. Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 11:26
II. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.[2]
2. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 4:1 Amen! Exactly so.  NOT exactly so.... for this confession categorically states previously in Chapter XVI WHO those "qualified" individuals are which I also included in the quote which for some reason you omitted, but I do again supply below: The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXVI
Of the Church
VII. To each of these churches thus gathered, according to His mind declared in His Word, He hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which He hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.[14]
14. Matt. 18:17-18; I Cor. 5:4-5; 5:13; II Cor. 2:6-8
VIII. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which He entrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.[15]
15. Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1
IX. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself;[16]and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein;[17] and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.[18]
16. Acts 14:23
17. I Tim. 4:14
18. Acts 6:3, 5-6 Contrariwise, the "1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith" states: XLI.
The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.
Isa. 8:16; Eph. 2:7; Matt 28:19; John 4:2; Acts 20:7, 11:10; 1 Cor. 11:2, 10:16,17; Rom. 16:2; Matt. 18:17. So as you and everyone else can plainly see, the 1689 teaches that ONLY ordained office bearers may administer baptism. And these office bearers are to be ordained by a local church, etc. This is in complete disagreement with the 1646 which allows ANY "disciple" to perform baptism. The 1689 is in complete accord with the Belgic Confession, Westminster Confession, Thirty-nine Articles, Savoy Declaration, et al. In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187 |
I think you misunderstand what the 1689 is saying.
With reference to baptism itself, the 1689 goes out of it way in XXVIII:2 to disagree with the WCF XXVII:IV and the Savoy which state that 'only a minister of the Word lawfully ordained' may dispense baptism or the Lord's Supper.
1689 XXVI:8 is speaking of the local church. Of course the Elders of the congregation have the duty to ensure that the ordinances are properly performed and this will normally mean that they administer them prsonally. However, in the situation that we are considering, there is no local church. In such circumstances, the word of God tells us very clearly that baptism was not delayed, but was administered by someone on the spot, usually the very person who had converted the one baptized. See Acts 8:39; 10:48; 16:14-15, 33; 22:16.
Nowhere do we read of a baptism being delayed until a 'lawfully ordained minister' can be found. The 1689 Confession speaks of those called according to the commission of Christ, not of men.
Steve
Last edited by grace2U; Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:29 AM. Reason: Correction of mistake
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187 |
I have now had time to read the thread on the other forum. I am from Pakistan, as you know this is an Islamic country. Christians have very less chances of learning about Jesus. Churches like Catholic, Salvation Army, reformed or other like this are working in big cities of Pakistan like Lahore Sahiwal, Karachi and Islamabad. We have great distance between Lahore and our city. There was a time when a Pastor was coming in our city but now from a long time Pastor does not come here. He lives in a big city. I said him many times but he says that he remain busy. First of all, this chap's name is Saul Masih. Masih is a Christian name so he comes from a Christian family of some sort. He is not a totally new believer. Secondly, he has rightly tried to get someone from his denomination to come to his town, but without success. How long should he wait? A month? A year? Five years? I say he should get on and baptize these new believers and at the same time look for help from a sound Christian group who will come and help him. He sems very humble and teachable. In the meantime I think we should be in much prayer for this guy and sending him some on-line Christian resources. Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710 |
See Acts 8:39; 10:48; 16:14-15, 33; 22:16. Philip was a deacon (Acts 6:5), whom both parties consider to have been commissioned to baptize, and futhermore he was an evangelist (Acts 21:8) Ananius was a disciple who received an express command fron God (Acts 9:10-11, 15). It is not mentioned who baptized the Family of Cornelius; Peter himself was present there, and thus, there was no emergency. Baptism was administered in obediance to a command, and thus whoever baptized was commissioned to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187 |
See Acts 8:39; 10:48; 16:14-15, 33; 22:16. Philip was a deacon (Acts 6:5), whom both parties consider to have been commissioned to baptize, and futhermore he was an evangelist (Acts 21:8) Both parties bieng Who? Philip and the Ethiopean? OK, then if Saul and his converts are happy there can be no problem with him baptizing them. Furthermore, whatever Saul may or may not be, he is an evangelist. He has 27 converts!! Ananius was a disciple who received an express command fron God (Acts 9:10-11, 15). We have all received an express command from God if we are disciples. It is in Matt 28:19. If you will reply that the command was only to his Apostles, then there can be no discipling, no baptizing and no teaching for ever more, because there are no apostles today. Steve [/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710 |
We have all received an express command from God if we are disciples. It is in Matt 28:19. If you will reply that the command was only to his Apostles, then there can be no discipling, no baptizing and no teaching for ever more, because there are no apostles today. We have all have received a common priesthood also but priesthood and ministry are not the same thing. The Apostles were sent to and gathered different churches. "When they were established, there ceased to be apostles, and pastors took their place, each in his church." Sorry out of time. William, .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,473 Likes: 58
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,473 Likes: 58 |
We have all received an express command from God if we are disciples. It is in Matt 28:19. If you will reply that the command was only to his Apostles, then there can be no discipling, no baptizing and no teaching for ever more, because there are no apostles today. Let's just run with your interpretation of Matt. 28:19 if we may? IF, as you are insisting that ALL disciples are given the warrant to teach and baptize, then it must be that women and children who profess faith in Christ are also allowed to teach and baptize. There is nothing in the passage that would restrict them from doing so. Soooooo? I believe the answer is "progressive revelation".... Hermeneutics 101: The Epistles interpret the Gospels.  Thus, as I and others have maintained and which the 1689 also teaches, qualified men ordained by the Church only are to administer the sacraments (Baptist terminology: ordinances). In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
108
guests, and
19
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
