Donations for the month of June


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 3,211
Joined: September 2003
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,527
Posts53,968
Members970
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,222
Tom 4,220
chestnutmare 3,211
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,838
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 14
jta 10
Tom 10
John_C 3
Meta4 3
Recent Posts
Nicene Creed Question
by jta - Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:28 AM
Preachers of old
by jta - Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:50 AM
Roe is Dead. Praise God!!!!
by Tom - Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:43 PM
Travel Story
by Tom - Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:23 PM
The Spiritual Profit of Fuller Delight in God's Perfections
by Pilgrim - Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:07 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Tom #57189 Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:46 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,222
Likes: 43
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,222
Likes: 43
Originally Posted by Tom
Perhaps you remember it?
drop


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Tom #57190 Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:26 AM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
Tom, I don't worry myself over the pedobaptists or stress my differences of that topic when among those holding to the WCF and similar historic confessions, for I am in so much agreement with them on weightier matters. In my desire to go no further than explicit statements of the Scriptures my view on baptism is rather simple. It was a command of Christ, so I consider it an "ordinance" just as I do the Lord's Supper that Jesus commanded.

If I were to label it further, I'd go only so far as to say they both are symbols of the inner reality. I find no Scripture labeling it "covenant of baptism" or calling it a "sign of baptism" and I personally do not refer to it as a "means of grace" or a "sacrament". It appears to me that Acts 2:38; 22:16, indicate that the symbol of baptism can be seen or spoken of as the reality, the terms used interchangeably. I believe this because of how the Lord worded the ordinance of the Communion, where he said the bread was his body and the wine was his blood that was shed for many. He was sitting there before them so it has to be seen as a symbol as I read it.

In recently weeks I've had an occurrence within our family that puzzles me. My younger sister who is already in her 70s had renewed attendance in her SBC church. She had professed her faith and was baptized as a teenager. She and her late husband both attended this same SBC church for years, but due to various factors they had lapsed in regular attendance. She has recently renewed her commitment and I suppose repented of her backsliding; but, she then had herself re-baptized.

I questioned her why she had herself baptized again and she seemed to base her decision mainly on feelings rather than some biblical reason for it. I do not find it biblical and maybe this is not a question that would even come up with a pedobaptist, but as an ordinance and symbol, should it be repeated? I know some men in the pulpit preach in unsound way to cause many to doubt their salvation so that they can get more people running repeatedly down the aisle, seemingly to increase their 'numbers', but I'm not aware of people being baptized again.

Any thoughts on that situation? Am I correct that among pedobaptists, there would be no re-baptisms such as that?


Eddie

A New Covenant believer who embraces the Five Solas. My Sola Scriptura study uses the KJV, RV, YLT & LXX English translations using the 1828 Webster's Dict.; and word studies based on the Hebrew, Greek & LXX. I value the doctrinal understandings held in unison by the body of Christ as in the old paths, Jeremiah 6:16.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 4
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 4
DiscipleEddie
First, I would like to comment on the last part.
Quote
Any thoughts on that situation? Am I correct that among pedobaptists, there would be no re-baptisms such as that?

You are definitely correct that Paedo-Baptists would not do re-baptisms in such cases.
I of course am a Credo-Baptist and although I definitely can’t speak for all Credo-Baptists. However, based on what you told me about your sister getting “rebaptized”, although I certainly understand why she wanted to get re-baptized. I never the less, do not believe it is biblical.
Does she somehow believe that she lost her salvation and got saved again; and now needs to be re-baptized?

Although I believe baptism is a “secondary issue”, never the less it is still an important issue and therefore, although I do not believe we should separate from other believers over the issue. Never the less, I don’t want to make light of it either.
RC Sproul was my favorite theologian and he was a Paedo-Baptist. So that should tell you a little about me.
However, there are sure a lot of people on both sides who really take the matter seriously (too seriously).
For example, one Paedo-Baptist I know told me in no uncertain terms that all Credo-Baptists are sinning because they will not get their own children baptized.
I thought I would ask the person, if it would be a sin for someone who believed in Credo-Baptism to get their baby baptized?
She said:
Quote
No, because Paedo-Baptism is biblical and God would understand where they are coming from.

This person of course forgets some very important things from Scripture. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
Any Credo-Baptist that got their baby baptized while still believing it is wrong, is doing it to appease someone else, rather than doing it because they genuinely believe the Bible teaches it.

Quote
In my desire to go no further than explicit statements of the Scriptures my view on baptism is rather simple. It was a command of Christ, so I consider it an "ordinance" just as I do the Lord's Supper that Jesus commanded.

Simply stated, what you are saying here; is more in line with the Credo-Baptism I held to as a Dispensationalists, rather than either 1689 Federalism, or the WCF.
Understand here, that in CT (both in the 1689 LBCF and the WCF), they have no problem calling baptism and the Lord Supper “sacraments” or “means of grace”; provided that it is not associated with Roman Catholicism. That can be explained further, but at the moment I don’t want this to get longer.

As for saying: “covenant baptism”, or “sign of baptism”, there is nothing wrong with them as long as one understands what they mean. There are of course differences between WCF CT and 1689 CT, but if one understands the CT of the positions, they are ok. One must remember that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, yet the doctrine of the Trinity is very biblical.



Tom

Last edited by Tom; Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:30 PM.
Pilgrim #57194 Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:58 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 4
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 4
Pilgrim

My memory is failing me. What is the main difference between the view held by John Gerstner and his protégé R.C. Sproul, Sr.

Tom

Tom #57196 Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:11 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,222
Likes: 43
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,222
Likes: 43
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim

My memory is failing me. What is the main difference between the view held by John Gerstner and his protégé R.C. Sproul, Sr.

Tom
Gerstner was an Edwardian on this matter as I also am. The infamous statement of Edwards' view of children, paraphrased, was "Little vipers in diapers". In short, unless children, are regenerated, repent and believe on Christ with a saving faith, they shall perish. Sproul, on the other hand, held to a mild form of presumptive regeneration. I have a video discussion between Sproul and Gerstner on this subject and it is clear they were not in 100% agreement. You know my position on this, or you should. ALL children are in dire need of salvation and thus the most important thing anyone, especially parents can and must do is make known the Gospel to them and pray that God would draw them to Christ by the Spirit's work; convicting them of their sin/sinfulness, of their absolute need of Christ's perfect righteousness, and the judgment to come. Baptism is OBJECTIVE and not as many/most view it as SUBJECTIVE, i.e., it is outward sign of one's inward reality, which taken to it's logical conclusion... all who are baptized are saved. nope grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Tom #57197 Sat Dec 11, 2021 1:32 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 4
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 4
Thanks, although I am a Credo I agree that children are "vipers in diapers".
Yet that surprises me that Sproul would not agree with that. Mainly, because I have been on lot of boards with Paedo Baptists who turned out to believe in Presumptive Regeneration and they seemed to believe that their position was the majority position and said that RC Sproul's position is strange.

Tom

Pilgrim #57204 Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:44 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 4
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 4
I know you were paraphrasing Edwards.
But did’t he say they were vipers in covenant diapers?

The reason why I ask this, is because many people believe adding the word “covenant” makes a big difference.
Need to admit though, I am sure what the difference is.

Tom

Tom #57206 Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:02 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,222
Likes: 43
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,222
Likes: 43
Originally Posted by Tom
I know you were paraphrasing Edwards.
But did’t he say they were vipers in covenant diapers?
shrug I've not seen "covenant" used in Edwards' description of children, whether 'covenant children' i.e, children of professing believers or not. Gerstner, one of the foremost authorities on Edwards didn't think it made one wit of difference and thus thought of all children as "little vipers in diapers", i.e., unregenerate and in need of the Spirit's supernatural working in them, bringing forth genuine repentance and saving faith. As stated above, I am in 100% agreement with Edwards and Gerstner & co..


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 98 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Nana Dadzie Jr., Cliniql, John E, ManassehAmerican, jta
970 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
June
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
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,349,084 Gospel truth