# Arminian Dispenationalists may be in error but



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> Baptism of Believers Only is not Scriptural. It is an error that needs to be repented of.



As I've said to you several times now, this argument is not "settled" because you have said so (even if you believe your final word has is backed by scripture) and I am getting a little annoyed now.

I would be saying the same thing if a Baptist was in this thread telling all paedo's to repent because they were not following scripture, but so far I've not seen that. I don't see Amill believers telling those who have other eschatological beliefs to repent either and so should it be here so for the LAST time I am asking you to please stop insisting that in this age old debate it is YOU who have discovered the ultimate truth of the matter and have come to us all in order to call many out of their error with your "final words" of wisdom.

Argue and debate what you believe, don't stomp your foot and declare victory crushing others under your boot heel of demanded repentance. Now I am done asking nicely.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> As I've said to you several times now, this argument is not "settled" because you have said so (even if you believe your final word has is backed by scripture) and I am getting a little annoyed now.
> 
> I would be saying the same thing if a Baptist was in this thread telling all paedo's to repent because they were not following scripture, but so far I've not seen that. I don't see Amill believers telling those who have other eschatological beliefs to repent either and so should it be here so for the LAST time I am asking you to please stop insisting that in this age old debate it is YOU who have discovered the ultimate truth of the matter and have come to us all in order to call many out of their error with your "final words" of wisdom.
> 
> Argue and debate what you believe, don't stomp your foot and declare victory crushing others under your boot heel of demanded repentance. Now I am done asking nicely.



Dear Sir:

In what way am I stomping my heel? My language is not overly hostile nor is my tone abrasive. To call someone to repentance is not a hostile act - it is one of the most loving acts that one can do for another!

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

It seems to me after all the baptism discussion here that in the end, both side are pretty much equal. I know few on either side would be willing to admit this, but In my humble opinion that is very much the case. That said, I find it arrogant and flat out wrong for anyone from either side to insist that their position is completely correct and most biblical and anyone who disagrees needs to repent. We can discuss it until Christ returns, that's fine, but no one can point to another and demand their repentance.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Dear Sir:
> 
> In what way am I stomping my heel? My language is not overly hostile nor is my tone abrasive. To call someone to repentance is not a hostile act - it is one of the most loving acts that one can do for another!
> 
> ...


 Until someone above me tells me I'm wrong here I am simply asking you to not do this, is this a problem for you?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Dear Sir:
> 
> In what way am I stomping my heel? My language is not overly hostile nor is my tone abrasive. To call someone to repentance is not a hostile act - it is one of the most loving acts that one can do for another!
> 
> ...


 Until someone above me tells me I'm wrong here I am simply asking you to not do this, is this a problem for you?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> As I've said to you several times now, this argument is not "settled" because you have said so (even if you believe your final word has is backed by scripture) and I am getting a little annoyed now.
> 
> I would be saying the same thing if a Baptist was in this thread telling all paedo's to repent because they were not following scripture, but so far I've not seen that. I don't see Amill believers telling those who have other eschatological beliefs to repent either and so should it be here so for the LAST time I am asking you to please stop insisting that in this age old debate it is YOU who have discovered the ultimate truth of the matter and have come to us all in order to call many out of their error with your "final words" of wisdom.
> 
> Argue and debate what you believe, don't stomp your foot and declare victory crushing others under your boot heel of demanded repentance. Now I am done asking nicely.





CalvinandHodges said:


> Dear Sir:
> 
> In what way am I stomping my heel? My language is not overly hostile nor is my tone abrasive. To call someone to repentance is not a hostile act - it is one of the most loving acts that one can do for another!
> 
> ...


Adam,

I actually agree with CH on this one. Calling somebody to repent for refusing to baptize their child in obedience to the Scriptures is as Confessionally consistent as Baptists who consider our practice a sin.

CH may be _saying_ this, and it may ruffle feathers, but he's not barring anyone from the table as Baptists do to people who have not been immersed as adult professors. John Piper will share a stage with R.C. Sproul in a theological presentation but his Church will still not open the Table to him, in truest fellowship, when the Lord's Supper is celebrated.

Let's keep everything in perspective here.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Then Piper is wrong and the other side should not be given a "broader brush" because of another's arrogant mistake.



> Let's keep everything in perspective here.



I think I am, calling someone to repentance is claiming you are 100% correct in what you believe. No one I know can make this claim in regard to this issue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

Adam,

ALL Baptists confessionally consider the baptism of infants to be contra-Scriptural and a sin. This is not an issue where their Confession leaves room for liberty of conscience. If it wasn't a core issue for them then they wouldn't call themselves Baptists.

I don't get angry with them for calling me to repentance. I know, from the Word, however, that it is they and not I that will have to answer to Christ for refusing to obey His command. I also believe, however, that Christ's blood covers even that sin.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

They sure aren't as arrogant and proud as many Reformed Calvinists tend to be from my experience. Maybe in some cases ignorance in bliss?

Look, one thing I've loved about reformed theology, Calvinism, and the like is the pursuit of biblical truth. It has been so refreshing to find a community (real and cyber) where the desire to do as God wishes was the top priority! However, the baptism debate here (amongst other things) so often sickens me. We start making rules about who can partake of the Lords supper based on issues that no man can make a final declaration regarding total biblical truth about. We pridefully beat our chests thanking God that we are not like "the other man" who is a credo, or postmill, or not as educated in the D.o.G., or what ever other terms we are so proud to be.

We want to make sure our shorts aren't too short, and that men attempt to grow beards and never watch a UFC match while chastising one another if we dunk instead of sprinkle or believe Nero is the anti-Christ instead of the Pope all while relieving our parched throats with the best alcohol on the market hoping we aren't pulled over for drunk driving on the way home from the pub.

All I am saying here is that lets keep pursuing biblical truth as we deny ourselves and take up our cross remembering not to stop along the way in order to nail someone else to it. Christ died for us, and while we are called to spread the good news we are not called to cast stones at those who love Christ as well, but may not be as far along the windy path as we (or as far as we THINK we are any way).


----------



## Puritanhead (May 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I don't get angry with them for calling me to repentance.


 Sorta, like I don't angry how F.N. Lee cites continued adherance to the doctrine of credo-baptism as evidence of possible reprobation.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2007)

Well, I know legalists and arrogance in every tradition, but I agree with your post.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> F.N. Lee cites continued adherence to the doctrine of credo-baptism as evidence of possible reprobation.



That's where BOTH sides will eventually lead just as the extreme insistence on the D.O.G. leads to hyper Calvinism and the extreme insistence upon preterism leads to hyper preterism.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Oh that's true (being on both sides) but I am talking to "my" community.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

Adam,

I copied the posts above so everybody knows exactly who you are calling uptight and arrogant.

Thank you for the label. That was very kind of you. I was calmly dialoging on the matter with you. In that exchange, you were the only party of the three of us that was getting upset.

I don't relish pointing out error but when we're talking about Truth we need not shy away from it when I believe the error is consequential.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

I clearly was NOT talking about you Rich, sorry. I am talking about the idea of what you wrote about Piper! If you agree with that idea, I am sorry to label you by inference, but it was NOT a *personal* attack.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> but when we're talking about Truth we need not shy away from it when I believe the error is consequential.



Do not both sides of this debate believe this? I think you've already told me that they do. So if this is the case, wouldn't ever single baptism thread turn into "Repent!" "No, you repent!" demands? Isn't that silly and immature?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

Adam,

I'm honestly amazed that you do not know the difference in how the Confessions treat eschatology compared to sacramentology.

Your statement is simply a categorical fallacy.

If people cannot be called to repentance for something as Confessionally core as the Sacraments then they cannot be called to repentance for any issue.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

But Rich, we're talking about Baptists and Presbyterians debating baptism, not Presbyterians and...Presbyterians.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I think I am, calling someone to repentance is claiming you are 100% correct in what you believe. No one I know can make this claim in regard to this issue.



??? Our respective confessions show otherwise. I think what Adam is driving at is that the board allows both Confessions, 1647 and 1689, and hence the other side is entitled to a hearing without being called to renounce their confession. That is fair enough.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Thank you!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

Well, every post could have that as an ending to it. It might lose some force. There is a dialogue going on but the underlying assumption on both parties who are Confessional in their views is that one side is in error.

We simply cannot both be right and the issue is not secondary.

Look, the truth of the matter is that Presbyterians are actually the more ecumenical party in this longstanding debate. They allow communicant membership to Baptists but obviously bar them from leadership and teaching roles. Baptists, by confession, typically bar men baptized as infants from Church and communicant membership. It's something I've understood for a while and accept. It's really not worth getting upset with them over because I understand why they do it. I think the theology is wrong that undergirds it but what is wrong is their views on Baptism and not that they, in conscience, hold somthing to be sin on the basis of their conscience.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> It's really not worth getting upset with them over because I understand why they do it.



Well, it upsets me, understanding it doesn't make a difference. If I expect too much out of members here to not treat one another in this way or talk to one another in that fashion then maybe I shouldn't moderate, because I don't see myself being able to "just accept it". I think it's wrong. Take Susita for example, she comes in and asks a simple question and suddenly ,many of those who are supposed to be more "Spiritually mature" than she lash out at one another and make bold claims about repentance, truth, etc. Do you honestly think that's attractive to her and others who may be searching for what they believe to be true? I don't imagine it is, it certainly isn't to me.


----------



## Herald (May 27, 2007)

> but he's not barring anyone from the table as Baptists do to people who have not been immersed as adult professors.



Rich - my church does not require a believer to be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper, although we do require that they have been baptized.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - my church does not require a believer to be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper, although we do require that they have been baptized.



That's great!!


----------



## etexas (May 27, 2007)

I was Baptised as an infant and in 97 I went to the Holy Land and was Immersed in the River Jordan. I've got all my bases covered!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> > Originally Posted by houseparent
> > I think I am, calling someone to repentance is claiming you are 100% correct in what you believe. No one I know can make this claim in regard to this issue.
> 
> 
> ??? Our respective confessions show otherwise. I think what Adam is driving at is that the board allows both Confessions, 1647 and 1689, and hence the other side is entitled to a hearing without being called to renounce their confession. That is fair enough.



{sigh}

OK, Adam, make sure you understand the two things that you thanked Rev. Winzer for.

1. You thanked him for pointing out how strange it is for you to be wondering why somebody would be claiming to be 100% correct in what they CONFESS.

2. You thanked him for pointing out that we shouldn't be calling people to renounce their confession.

I've spent less time dealing with the latter and more dealing with the first issue.

That Confessional people of both paedo- and credo- persuasions are permitted to dialogue on this board is apparently obvious to the casual observer. I am not advocating that every single post be "repent and baptize your children, every one of you" but, in a board that allows Confessional expression the words are permitted now and again. There ought not to be shock and horror that a Presbyterian or Baptist believes the way they do on an issue.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> I am not advocating that every single post be "repent and baptize your children, every one of you"



A post from a young lady who is confused on the issue is at least ONE post where that cry is not needed. If not for who the post was from and what they were asking about I would have never even entered it.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Oh no, Double baptism! Someone will call you to repentance soon enough.


----------



## Coram Deo (May 27, 2007)

It's called Ana-Baptizing

In other words a Re-Baptizer...

hehe








houseparent said:


> Oh no, Double baptism! Someone will call you to repentance soon enough.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Well, it upsets me, understanding it doesn't make a difference. If I expect too much out of members here to not treat one another in this way or talk to one another in that fashion then maybe I shouldn't moderate, because I don't see myself being able to "just accept it". I think it's wrong. Take Susita for example, she comes in and asks a simple question and suddenly ,many of those who are supposed to be more "Spiritually mature" than she lash out at one another and make bold claims about repentance, truth, etc. Do you honestly think that's attractive to her and others who may be searching for what they believe to be true? I don't imagine it is, it certainly isn't to me.



I would hope Susita would want to be convinced that there IS a position on the issue of Baptism and that it's one or the other and not a third, unrevealed, option. Either one Confession is right and the other Confession is wrong. They are not both correct.

Does the Bible make bold claims about repentance, truth, etc? I really don't get it Adam. I was very gentle with Susita and was trying to help her understand our position. I can only lay out what the Scriptures teach on a subject. If the Scriptures teach that the children of believers are to be baptized then to refuse to baptize and to say that the Scriptures do not teach that children are to be baptized cannot be merely admitted as immaterial. If I believe only professors are to be baptized and admitted to the Table, according to the teaching of the Word, then it is sin to allow someone not so baptized to the Table.

Now, I grant that I can be firm in my convictions without being mean or petty about them but I have in no way been so in this or the other thread. I'm simply stating what I Confess the Scriptures teach. At that point, whether or not anyone is attracted to the teaching is really immaterial. If they ask questions or object then I'll continue to try to persuade.

What I don't understand, Adam, is how uncomfortable you are with Confessional confidence by Baptists and Presbyterians on this issue. What other core doctrines (Trinity, Justification, etc) would you call me to task for affirming?


----------



## etexas (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Oh no, Double baptism! Someone will call you to repentance soon enough.


Chuckle. I knew I was leaving myself open! Be kind to the Anglican.


----------



## Herald (May 27, 2007)

1689 LBC on Baptism:


> Chapter 29: Of Baptism
> 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
> ( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )
> 
> ...



I am positive that particular Baptists of the 17th century would have denied membership to an individual who was baptized as an infant. I would agree that this has been the custom of most Baptist churches since the 17th century and up until today. But can a Baptist church retrain its strong stand on credo-baptism while not insisting that a paedo believer be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper and for membership? I believe the answer is "yes." While this may be inconsistent with historical Baptist practice, I do not believe it is inconsistent with scripture. 

Baptism is required of all who claim faith in Christ. The credo is baptized upon a profession of faith while the paedo is baptized into the covenant community. I am making a case, as a Baptist, that the evidence of a changed life eliminates the need to be immersed for someone that has been baptized as an infant. While I may be in agreement with John Piper, I certainly would be in a distinct minority among Baptists. I am fine in my own skin with this view, and I do not believe it underminds credo-baptism.

Allow me expand further on my view. If brother Rich were to attend our church and desired to partake of the Lord's Supper, I would gladly allow him to do so. The only requirement being that he had been baptized and was not abiding willful or gross sin in his life. If brother Rich desired to join our fellowship I believe it would be necessary for him to learn our doctrinal distinctives which would include the observance of the sacraments. If the elders concured that brother Rich displayed evidence of his faith, I see no reason for requiring him to be baptized by immersion. He would need to understand our position on credo baptism and would be barred from teaching against it. If Rich desired a teaching ministry he would have to agree with credo-baptism, not just be understanding of it. 

My church does not require that a believer be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. We just require that they be baptized. As far as membership requirements re: baptism, I cannot speak for my other elders. I lean more towards Piper's position and am going to bring this issue up at our next elders meeting.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - my church does not require a believer to be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper, although we do require that they have been baptized.



Bill,

That's a decision your Church made. I didn't say the practice was uniform. You need to admit that you are the exception and not the norm.

The irony, Adam, is that you don't want us to be challenge others for believing something is sin but then you're calling all the Baptists on this board sinners for barring others from the Table because you don't think they should be doing that.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Do not both sides of this debate believe this? I think you've already told me that they do. So if this is the case, wouldn't ever single baptism thread turn into "Repent!" "No, you repent!" demands? Isn't that silly and immature?



Firstly, one thing I think could be really helpful in clarifying the nature and implications of this issue is this discussion , started by a Baptist, that took place here a couple years back. Although there was some debate, I think the general consensus throughout the discussion (by both the paedos _and_ the credos) helped to illustrate the biblical and ecclesiastical necessity and wisdom of considering the other side on the sacramental issues to be in sin.

I think a key thing to remember is that it is _the Church_ that has the ultimate authority (and responsibility) to pronounce a believer as being in need of repentance. In light of that, how is the Church to go about deciding which acts warrant a call to repentance? That is where the confessional documents come in, and the Church should then call sin whatever those documents call sin - since the the very purpose the confessions serve, by definition, is to record _what the Church confesses_. (In light of that, WCF 28.5 "_Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance_, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it.") As such, unless or until the confessions are changed, the Church as a whole cannot but call people to repentance who practice the sacraments differently, or else the confessions are meaningless, pick-and-choose documents altogether, and we end up in low-church broad evangelicalism or else PCUSA-style "confessionalism."

An acknowledgment that a different practice of the sacraments is _a sin_ (and thus, by definition, warrants a call for repentance, and even church discipline) does _not_ mean, however, that believers practicing such should or will be viewed or treated as second-class citizens in the Church. In an earlier thread, Fred Greco excellently explained that in light of this whole issue of baptism, sin and repentence:



> I will say this: if you view neglecting to baptize your children as a sin, _and all good paedobaptists should view it that way_, then you must of necessity "discipline" a member of your church is not baptize his children. Now before everyone gets all bent out of shape, let me remind you that my good friend Phillip Way (a good Baptist minister) completely agrees with me on the issue of baptism in sin. He is perfectly willing for me to say that for a Baptist not to baptize his children is a sin, because that is the case from my perspective. In the same way I am perfectly willing for him to say that I am sinning by baptizing my children. There is no way around it. But just because it is a "sin" does not mean that it is an unpardonable sin or a sin that bars Fellowship.
> 
> Now back to the matter of "discipline". Discipline takes all sorts of forms, the problem is what many think of discipline, they only think of trials and excommunications. *But actually pastoral counsel, admonition and rebuke are just as much discipline as charges and trials.* The difference is one of degree not of kind. So I would in fact discipline a member of my church who failed to baptize his children, but for me, that would take the form of admonition and rebuke not charges and trials. Why? You might ask. Is because I view it to be a more serious sin not to join and be a member of the church and to fail to baptize one's children. To be very honest with you I would be more except with my session if they permitted a person to be a "visitor" for two years and then if they allowed a Baptist to join the church. I would encourage the Baptist to join the church, with the knowledge that he was going to be subject to preaching, teaching, and encouragement that would continually and directly contradict his beliefs on baptism.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Rich, at no point was I ever talking to you. I had been trying to admonish the poster who kept going on, and on, and on, and on, and on about her need of repentance. I thought the point had been made a little harshly and that once was certainly enough. I was slightly annoyed with you ok'ing it, and I was annoyed at what you told me Piper believed, but honestly short of those issues I was never addressing you directly.


----------



## Herald (May 27, 2007)

> As such, unless or until the confessions are changed, the Church as a whole cannot but call people to repentance who practice the sacraments differently, or else the confessions are meaningless, pick-and-choose documents altogether, and we end up in low-church broad evangelicalism or else PCUSA-style "confessionalism."



Chris - in principle I agree with you. In my previous post I quoted and excerpt from the 1689 LBC on the matter of baptism. I believe an argument can be made on allowing paedos to join a Baptist church. Maybe I see the LBC as slightly ambiguous on this matter. That is why I believe a Baptist can remain firmly credo while embracing a brother who was baptized as an infant.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> 1. You thanked him for pointing out how strange it is for you to be wondering why somebody would be claiming to be 100% correct in what they CONFESS.



In a baptists vs. Presbyterian debate, yes. Because it leads to 



> 2. You thanked him for pointing out that we shouldn't be calling people to renounce their confession.



It's fine to debate and answer questions in regard to why each believes what they do, but it's pointless to demand repentance as each side can do that. You say they shouldn't always do so, but I see no other way every debate can end but that way once you allow either to do it even once.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Wow....

All I've been saying is that when Presbyterian's and Baptists debate baptism there is no real reason to allow either side to call the other side sinners in need of repentance. That would lead to "I know you are but what am I" child like responses. This is also why I am a fool for venturing into the baptism board. I won't make that mistake again.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> The irony, Adam, is that you don't want us to be challenge others for believing something is sin but then you're calling all the Baptists on this board sinners for barring others from the Table because you don't think they should be doing that.



I think this illustrates why this issue, at its heart, can't simply be dismissed as an issue of how we as believers treat each other. That certainly can (and often does) _become_ an issue _in the midst_ of these discussions, but it is not the issue at the _heart_ of the question of sin and repentance with respect to baptism. That is because, as the above illustrates, it is impossible to truly be "neutral" on the issue with regards to who is in sin.

So it is not a personal issue, or even one of charity. It is a _doctrine_ issue, and the churches on _both_ sides have historically confessed and maintained the doctrine that the neglect of biblical sacramentology (as understood and confessed by the credo churches on the one hand, and the paedos on the other) is itself a sin; and the doctrinal issue of whether or not they are correct on that need not be viewed as uncharitable viewing of people on either side.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Rich, at no point was I ever talking to you. I had been trying to admonish the poster who kept going on, and on, and on, and on, and on about her need of repentance. I thought the point had been made a little harshly and that once was certainly enough. I was slightly annoyed with you ok'ing it, and I was annoyed at what you told me Piper believed, but honestly short of those issues I was never addressing you directly.



I understand that Adam. I'm not angry with you. CH never addressed Susita, he was actually addressing another. Could he have been more subtle about his insistence? Perhaps. What I became more concerned about was the notion that some have that the issue was Confessionally ambiguous and if we had any right to be insistent. I think you really need to cool down and re-read this thread later and try to see what I'm driving at. Forget that we're talking about Baptism and look at this as an issue of Truth and whether we have any way to be insistent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> I think this illustrates why this issue, at its heart, can't simply be dismissed as an issue of how we as believers treat each other. That certainly can (and often does) _become_ an issue _in the midst_ of these discussions, but it is not the issue at the _heart_ of the question of sin and repentance with respect to baptism. That is because, as the above illustrates, it is impossible to truly be "neutral" on the issue with regards to who is in sin.
> 
> So it is not a personal issue, or even one of charity. It is a _doctrine_ issue, and the churches on _both_ sides have historically confessed and maintained the doctrine that the neglect of biblical sacramentology (as understood and confessed by the credo churches on the one hand, and the paedos on the other) is itself a sin; and the doctrinal issue of whether or not they are correct on that need not be viewed as uncharitable viewing of people on either side.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Chris - in principle I agree with you. In my previous post I quoted and excerpt from the 1689 LBC on the matter of baptism. I believe an argument can be made on allowing paedos to join a Baptist church. Maybe I see the LBC as slightly ambiguous on this matter. That is why I believe a Baptist can remain firmly credo while embracing a brother who was baptized as an infant.



So did John Bunyan. As a Presbyterian I can't allow unbaptised persons to partake of communion -- decency and order. If I were Baptist I would have to regard a person baptised in infancy as unbaptised. Hence if I were a Baptist I could not allow a person baptised in infancy to partake of communion until they were baptised upon profession of faith. All praise and thanks to the Lord that I am not a Baptist! I am also thankful when I see Baptists disowning their own unbiblical tenets.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

I think both sides believe they have a right to be insistent and unless the PB takes a stand one way or another there is no way one side can truely be. I'm all for the board taking a stand on the issue! I always have been, but then the Baptism forum would be closed and a large part of our posts are found there.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Wow....
> 
> All I've been saying is that when Presbyterian's and Baptists debate baptism there is no real reason to allow either side to call the other side sinners in need of repentance. That would lead to "I know you are but what am I" child like responses. This is also why I am a fool for venturing into the baptism board. I won't make that mistake again.



Adam,

If I believed that's all that CH had said then I would agree with you. You said much more than this and this was the need for the dialogue on Confessionalism.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> All praise and thanks to the Lord that I am not a Baptist! I am also thankful when I see Baptists disowning their own unbiblical tenets.



No offense Reverend, and it may be because I seldom venture into Baptism discussions, but I've not seen baptists make these type of bold claims here. If they have I am sorry and take back what I've said except that I have not personally seen it. (I won't either, as I have learned a hard lesson here).


----------



## etexas (May 27, 2007)

To the Holy Land with all of ya! If you cats did what I did......you could have communion with almost anyone!


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> All I've been saying is that when Presbyterian's and Baptists debate baptism there is no real reason to allow either side to call the other side sinners in need of repentance. That would lead to "I know you are but what am I" child like responses. This is also why I am a fool for venturing into the baptism board. I won't make that mistake again.





SemperFideles said:


> Adam,
> 
> If I believed that's all that CH had said then I would agree with you. You said much more than this and this was the need for the dialogue on Confessionalism.



Fine, then I apologize for going on too much in an attempt to explain what I was saying. The statement above is all that I ever meant to express.


----------



## Herald (May 27, 2007)

> All praise and thanks to the Lord that I am not a Baptist!



Matthew - you're in my prayers. There's still hope for you yet.


----------



## Herald (May 27, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> So it is not a personal issue, or even one of charity. It is a _doctrine_ issue, and the churches on _both_ sides have historically confessed and maintained the doctrine that the neglect of biblical sacramentology (as understood and confessed by the credo churches on the one hand, and the paedos on the other) is itself a sin; and the doctrinal issue of whether or not they are correct on that need not be viewed as uncharitable viewing of people on either side.



Chris - so it really comes down to what Adam alluded to earlier. Both sides believe the other is in sin. Both sides are beyond convincing and are rock-solid in their belief. Fine. So the next question to ask is, "Is continued dialogue profitable?" I'm not suggesting the subject itself does not merit discussion, but whether discussion between credos and paedos (that are completely convinced of their position) is warranted. To be sure there have been more than a few PB'ers that are wavering on the baptismal issue. But most are pretty set and are not likely to be swayed.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Ok, I exposed my personal beliefs/feelings right now in regard to baptism. in my opinion that's another subject. All I wished to express (at this time) was my belief that calling one another to repentance seems silly only because it can go back and forth and back and forth adnausium. 

Ad to the fact that I "relate" to Susita in this subject made me more "defensive" rather than simply stating what my first paragraph explains here and leaving it at that.

Right now I am a credo, and I don't wish to really discuss that here, not until I at least speak to my pastor about it. I say this now because it's obviously been exposed. But, the bottom line of this entire episode is still my belief that the call to repentance between baptists and Presbyterian's in the baptism forum could get stale, and immature very quickly. 

I may be in an extreme minority with that opinion thus why I should indeed stay out of the baptism forum unless and until I change my mind.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew - you're in my prayers. There's still hope for you yet.



 "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt!"


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Chris - so it really comes down to what Adam alluded to earlier. Both sides believe the other is in sin. Both sides are beyond convincing and are rock-solid in their belief. Fine. So the next question to ask is, "Is continued dialogue profitable?" I'm not suggesting the subject itself does not merit discussion, but whether discussion between credos and paedos (that are completely convinced of their position) is warranted. To be sure there have been more than a few PB'ers that are wavering on the baptismal issue. But most are pretty set and are not likely to be swayed.



I not only think it's unprofitable, I think there is a clear bias here toward one side and it would be wise to just make that side the official stance of the PB.


----------



## Herald (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I not only think it's unprofitable, I think there is a clear bias here toward one side and it would be wise to just make that side the official stance of the PB.



Adam - the problem with making paedo baptism the official stance of the PB is that it would force all us credo's to resign our membership. If you tell me that I must be a paedo in order to remain a member of the board then I will have to leave. Defacto, the majority opinion is paedo. That is because the majority of PB'ers are Presbyterian. Me thinks they are amply represented.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Chris - so it really comes down to what Adam alluded to earlier. Both sides believe the other is in sin. Both sides are beyond convincing and are rock-solid in their belief. Fine. So the next question to ask is, "Is continued dialogue profitable?" I'm not suggesting the subject itself does not merit discussion, but whether discussion between credos and paedos (that are completely convinced of their position) is warranted. To be sure there have been more than a few PB'ers that are wavering on the baptismal issue. But most are pretty set and are not likely to be swayed.


Bill,

Unless there is a man holding a gun to your head, you don't _have_ to participate in the Baptism forum. I know you can't resist it though! 

Seriously, one of the reasons it's important is that, even for the "sides", it educates on the reasons for their Confessions. I also believe it helps to expose weakness in lame argumentation from both sides.

Presbyterians would need it just for ourselves to protect against the un-Confessional misunderstandings of many.

I don't believe it's a matter of wavering or not wavering. I've actually never engaged in dialogues believing that somebody was going to have a Damascus experience from my participation there.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> Adam - the problem with making paedo baptism the official stance of the PB is that it would force all us credo's to resign our membership. If you tell me that I must be a paedo in order to remain a member of the board then I will have to leave. Defacto, the majority opinion is paedo. That is because the majority of PB'ers are Presbyterian. Me thinks they are amply represented.



Yes, I know that's the problem so I guess we all just go on calling one another to repentance. Here's the thing though, if I am a confused credo seeking counsel and am told to repent in order to see the truth, and I repent and ask God to help me and my mind does not change...then what? The reverse is also true. If I am paedo and ask for the Credo position to be explained to me and am told to repent, and do so, yet still do not see it, what does that say?

I said this some time ago, does it not have to lead one to eventually say one is reprobate, unable to repent because if repentance is all that stands between you and "understanding" and you still do not understand, then what? You have not and possibly cannot repent.

Right?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Yes, I know that's the problem so I guess we all just go on calling one another to repentance. Here's the thing though, if I am a confused credo seeking counsel and am told to repent in order to see the truth, and I repent and ask God to help me and my mind does not change...then what? The reverse is also true. If I am paedo and ask for the Credo position to be explained to me and am told to repent, and do so yet still do not see it, what does that say?
> 
> I said this some time ago, does it not have to lead one to eventually say one is reprobate, unable to repent because if repentance is all that stands between you and "understanding" and you still do not understand that what? You have not and possibly cannot repent.
> 
> Right?


Adam,

Again, if CH had simply continually posted "Repent!" your argument might have more force. I think you're being very unfair to him by repeating this accusation. He laid out several lengthy arguments. "Repent" was at the end of the "Why".

Whenever we teach something against Scripture it is a sin. Yet we tell each other all the time on this board that somebody's view of Scripture is faulty and not merely on the Baptism forum. Such misunderstandings need to be repented of and when I hear I am teaching or holding something that is against the Word of God, I don't view it with any less gravity than being told I need to repent.

I mean, seriously, you have Presbyterians on one side saying: "The Scriptures teach this..." and every time a Baptist says the Scriptures teach otherwise the implied understanding is: You're teaching error. It's implied. It's understood. If I agreed with them then I would repent.

We'd have to close every forum on this board if we couldn't challenge people with things they might need to repent of.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Ok, but how is my conclusion wrong?



> I said this some time ago, does it not have to lead one to eventually say one is reprobate, unable to repent because if repentance is all that stands between you and "understanding" and you still do not understand that what? You have not and possibly cannot repent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

You don't have to be reprobate to be yet unperfected. We are simultaneously just and sinners. Regeneration does not perfect our minds. I don't believe Baptists have to gain capacity in order to understand and embrace Covenant theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

I would also add that simply believing the Scriptures on this one issue doesn't solve all of our problems. As I've pointed out before, Baptists and Presbyterians live out our faith very similarly but it's more a matter of our Confession lining up with our practice in some cases.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Ok, so if I continue to study and pray and cannot be swayed to paedobaptism I'll will be able to freely admit that here without retribution or damaging my reputation? I am pretty close to making such a stance and have been for some time. I've prayed and studied this issue since my arrival to the PB and I cannot be swayed in my mind, spirit, or conscience the way I almost immediately was in my eschatology that I had held to for over 20 years!


----------



## Ivan (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - my church does not require a believer to be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper, although we do require that they have been baptized.



Same here.


----------



## Herald (May 27, 2007)

Ivan said:


> Same here.



Ivan - glad to hear it. Perhaps there are more Baptist churches in agreement with us then we are lead to believe. I'm not referring to the churches that fail to protect the purity of the sacrament but the ones that volitionally choose to allow paedos to participate.


----------



## etexas (May 27, 2007)

The Anglican Communion is "open" to all who are Baptised.


----------



## Ivan (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ivan - glad to hear it. Perhaps there are more Baptist churches in agreement with us then we are lead to believe. I'm not referring to the churches that fail to protect the purity of the sacrament but the ones that volitionally choose to allow paedos to participate.



Protect the purity we do. It has been my position for over 15 years now to invite all who trust Christ as LORD and Savior regardless as to when or how they have been baptized . Sproul and Piper are both welcome to our table, as are our brethren at PB.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Amen!


----------



## Herald (May 27, 2007)

Ivan said:


> Protect the purity we do. It has been my position for over 15 years now to invite all who trust Christ as LORD and Savior regardless as to when or how they have been baptized . Sproul and Piper are both welcome to our table, as are our brethren at PB.



Do you require that participants in the Lord's Supper be baptized (whether credo or paedo)?


----------



## Ivan (May 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Do you require that participants in the Lord's Supper be baptized (whether credo or paedo)?



Yes.


----------



## turmeric (May 28, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Ok, so if I continue to study and pray and cannot be swayed to paedobaptism I'll will be able to freely admit that here without retribution or damaging my reputation? I am pretty close to making such a stance and have been for some time. I've prayed and studied this issue since my arrival to the PB and I cannot be swayed in my mind, spirit, or conscience the way I almost immediately was in my eschatology that I had held to for over 20 years!



My understanding of the PCA is that members can take exceptions to the WCF. It seems like you could do the same. You certainly wouldn't be the only credo on the board!

I almost never come into this forum unless I have a specific question, simply because it becomes such a mosh pit! I'm not up to it most of the time. It can be fun to watch sometimes!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (May 28, 2007)

Ivan said:


> Protect the purity we do. It has been my position for over 15 years now to invite all who trust Christ as LORD and Savior regardless as to when or how they have been baptized . Sproul and Piper are both welcome to our table, as are our brethren at PB.



That is the postion of our church as well.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (May 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Adam,
> 
> Again, if CH had simply continually posted "Repent!" your argument might have more force. I think you're being very unfair to him by repeating this accusation. He laid out several lengthy arguments. "Repent" was at the end of the "Why".
> 
> ...



Hey:

Thank you Rich. But Houseparent has not given you the whole story. He did not tell you that he sent a warning to me as a moderator of the puritanboard:

"You have received a warning from the Puritanboard."

He also did not point out that though my first post (#38) on that thread was to "susita," but the other posts were in response to MeanieCalvinist (#'s56, etc...).

My overall impression of houseparent's behaviour on this matter is rather low. It seems to me that he has acted in a rash and infantile manner. Certainly, I do not believe that the disingenuousness he has exhibited is worthy of a moderator in this forum.

I had sent houseparent a private message that explained something similar to what you state above. Houseparent decided to ignore my message and continue his tirade against me.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 28, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> My overall impression of houseparent's behaviour on this matter is rather low. It seems to me that he has acted in a rash and infantile manner. Certainly, I do not believe that the disingenuousness he has exhibited is worthy of a moderator in this forum.
> 
> I had sent houseparent a private message that explained something similar to what you state above. Houseparent decided to ignore my message and continue his tirade against me.



I would hardly call what Adam said a "tirade" against you. He was simply giving a warning that he thought was best while acting as a moderator. Was the warning merited? Well, Rich obviously didn't think it was and so he settled the issue. So, if the issue about how Adam handled the situation has been settled then it should be dropped in my opinion before it becomes a matter of contention between two brothers.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 28, 2007)

We will always and forever continue to call people to renounce anything that is not in accordance with the Scriptures.

Why wouold we do anything else?

If someone has confessed something wrong, and they write it down wrong, like in a confession, then we should still call them to un-confess what they erroneously confessed. THey have sinned against God.

I would hope that everyone feels that way and everyone would do that accordingly.


----------



## Ivan (May 28, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> I would hardly call what Adam said a "tirade" against you. He was simply giving a warning that he thought was best while acting as a moderator. Was the warning merited? Well, Rich obviously didn't think it was and so he settled the issue. So, if the issue about how Adam handled the situation has been settled then it should be dropped in my opinion before it becomes a matter of contention between two brothers.


----------



## Chris (May 28, 2007)

> Take Susita for example, she comes in and asks a simple question and suddenly ,many of those who are supposed to be more "Spiritually mature" than she lash out at one another and make bold claims about repentance, truth, etc. Do you honestly think that's attractive to her and others who may be searching for what they believe to be true? I don't imagine it is, it certainly isn't to me.



Adam,

Take heart in this: 

The suggestion that Baptists need to repent, in the context it was offered in, probably was a great help to Susita, as it almost certainly pushed her _away_ from the paedo position.


----------



## Ravens (May 28, 2007)

To me this is a rather simple issue.

Either Baptists or Presbyterians err and sin in their sacramentology; both, by definition, can't be right.

Neither side should get their feather's ruffled over that. We'll fight to our dying breath against Wesleyan Perfectionism and quote Romans 7, and yet when someone insinuates that we might have remaining sin, we are aghast and shocked. So I see (and agree with) C&H's and Semper's point.

However, I also see Adam's point, in that ultimately, if the "repent ye" language is loosed on the board (because all theological error is, in some sense, sin), then we might start seeing "Repent!" or even "*Repent!*" in Textus Receptus, E.P., Sabbath (which hour does it start...), etc. threads.

Taking this logic, every argument on those issues, since they are theological and Biblical issues, could come with a call to repent at the end. This board generates enough heat on its own, without personal rebukes attached to every post.

in my opinion, this board often states that its not a church, and not a substitute for church. And practically, I think it should take its own advice in this instance, and not have members rebuking other brothers and sisters that they do not attend church with, have no authority over, and have never even met face to face.

I mean, logically, someone could follow RSC around telling him to repent because the Framework is unconfessional, or they could tell Rev. Buchanan to repent because he doesn't adhere to E.P. I picked those two, not to pick on them, but on the contrary, because I greatly respect both of them. I just don't want this board to have a respect for persons... if calls to repentance are fair game, then let's let it apply to everyone, on any theological issue, whenever someone feels the need to. 

I mean that's fine, but I think the board would generate so much heat that it would melt hard-drives all across the country.


----------



## KMK (May 28, 2007)

JDWiseman said:


> To me this is a rather simple issue.
> 
> Either Baptists or Presbyterians err and sin in their sacramentology; both, by definition, can't be right.



Just to clarify, since Rich posted the same, there is a third possiblility...

Maybe they both err and sin in their sacramentology.


----------



## Ivan (May 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> Just to clarify, since Rich posted the same, there is a third possiblility...
> 
> Maybe they both err and sin in their sacramentology.



Something to think about.


----------



## Ravens (May 28, 2007)

Possibly, if Catholics, Lutherans, or Orthodox are right (they're not).

The key issue is, however, that even if 8 options are available, we are still recognizing that deficient views and practices of the sacraments are sins.

How could they not be? Sin also attaches to unmandated worship, Sabbath breaking, and everything else. Why anyone on this board who is aware of the severity and exactness of God's law would get their feathers ruffled because someone pointed out remaining sin bewilders me.

We aren't perfectionists. We'll have the remnants of sin until death. Don't get bent out of shape when someone points out the theological implications thereof.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> So did John Bunyan. As a Presbyterian I can't allow unbaptised persons to partake of communion -- decency and order. If I were Baptist I would have to regard a person baptised in infancy as unbaptised. Hence if I were a Baptist I could not allow a person baptised in infancy to partake of communion until they were baptised upon profession of faith. All praise and thanks to the Lord that I am not a Baptist! I am also thankful when I see Baptists disowning their own unbiblical tenets.



I thought it was fairly common practice for Baptists (not reformed baptists) to allow even children to partake without having been baptized - at least this is how it was in my own church growing up for several years prior to our family's leaving the church. I had never been baptized, but was allowed to take communion. I know of several instances today of baptistic churches that allow the same.


----------



## Ivan (May 28, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> I thought it was fairly common practice for Baptists (not reformed baptists) to allow even children to partake without having been baptized - at least this is how it was in my own church growing up for several years prior to our family's leaving the church. I had never been baptized, but was allowed to take communion. I know of several instances today of baptistic churches that allow the same.



It is not a common practice in the Southern Baptist churches that I know, at least it wasn't. 

Things change and not for the better.


----------



## Augusta (May 28, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> I thought it was fairly common practice for Baptists (not reformed baptists) to allow even children to partake without having been baptized - at least this is how it was in my own church growing up for several years prior to our family's leaving the church. I had never been baptized, but was allowed to take communion. I know of several instances today of baptistic churches that allow the same.



This is how it was in my church growing up. A Foursquare church which if you aren't familiar is a charismatic/arminian church. I wasn't baptized until I was 13 and I still didn't know the significance of what I was doing. I was by all accounts still a infant in the knowledge of the Lord. I might as well have been baptized as an infant.

All those years of partaking unworthily.


----------



## Arch2k (May 28, 2007)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> We will always and forever continue to call people to renounce anything that is not in accordance with the Scriptures.
> 
> Why wouold we do anything else?
> 
> ...


 
Amen. That is what needs to be admitted on both sides, is that one is right, and the other wrong, and therefore sinful on the part of one side. In fact, this is so obvious that I assumed that it was a presupposition on the part of all going into the debate.

That being said, this is the case with all doctrine. Why the added importance to the sacraments? Well, it should be the fact that they are an appointed means of grace, an element of worship to be continued until the return of our Lord. Eschetology (the orthodox forms at least) and the like, while important, do not have the same weightiness for the church in the already/not yet.


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

The Church used to put more into the issue....there was an infant Baptism, the child was raised in the church then took confimation classes (to assure they understood and accpted the basics of the Christian faith) after which was a public personal statement by those who finished confirmation. And in my case laying on of hand by a Bishop. For many Confirmation was considered "part and parcel" as part of and fufilment of the Baptism.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

> However, I also see Adam's point, in that ultimately, if the "repent ye" language is loosed on the board (because all theological error is, in some sense, sin), then we might start seeing "Repent!" or even "Repent!" in Textus Receptus, E.P., Sabbath (which hour does it start...), etc. threads.
> 
> Taking this logic, every argument on those issues, since they are theological and Biblical issues, could come with a call to repent at the end. This board generates enough heat on its own, without personal rebukes attached to every post.



YES!!!!

So few here seem to realize this was and still is my point.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 28, 2007)

Adam,

I agree (as I would hope most here would as well) that it will not be very helpful to constantly be _emphasizing_ the need of people on the other side to repent. Acknowledging such, however, is a far cry from claiming that there is no ultimate need to repent at the heart of the issue, or that the _Church_ should not call people to such. Do you agree that either side, in order to be consistent, must logically view the other side as biblically being in sin, even if they properly refrain from constantly emphasizing that in a personal way during discussions?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

Sure I agree with a side, and I will agree that the other side sins, but that's simply (as many have said) a presupposition going into these kind of discussions. As such, neither side need toss that demand at one another, especially NUMEROUS times in the same thread, again especially after being asked nicely to stop...more than ONCE!

-The poster should have stopped

-If any other mod/owner/admin disagreed with me they should have contacted me privately and told me so.

Neither of these things happened.


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Sure I agree with a side, and I will agree that the other side sins, but that's simply (as many have said) a presupposition going into these kind of discussions. As such, neither side need toss that demand at one another, especially NUMEROUS times in the same thread, again especially after being asked nicely to stop...more than ONCE!
> 
> -The poster should have stopped
> 
> ...


Did you guys ever get that dog?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

lol...no, not until July 1st.


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

houseparent said:


> lol...no, not until July 1st.


COOL! What breed did "y'all" decide on?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

We didn't yet.


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

houseparent said:


> We didn't yet.


Megan and I love our little Bichon..........hint........hint.


----------



## KMK (May 28, 2007)

JDWiseman said:


> Possibly, if Catholics, Lutherans, or Orthodox are right (they're not).
> 
> The key issue is, however, that even if 8 options are available, we are still recognizing that deficient views and practices of the sacraments are sins.
> 
> ...



And I would assume that anyone who dares to enter PB would have that mindset. However, PB is not an accurate cross-section of the church. Those in the church are the purchased possessions of Lord Jesus Christ and should be treated as such. If you are going to disagree, it should be done with lowliness, meekness, longsuffering and forbearance in love.

Sometimes we forget that being 'right' and proving so is not regarded in the Bible as the most important thing. I am remided of Naaman coming to Elisha after he had been healed and after confessing the Lord as the true God asks, "In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing." Now, Elisha could have ripped him a new one, trying to argue that this would be a sin that needed to be repented of, but Elisha merely says, "Go in peace." Elisha did not feel the need in that situation to be right and prove that he was right. Sometimes it is OK just to tell a weeker brother, "Go in peace." (See also Rom 14)


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

Excellent point Ken!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

Ken,

I wish this issue was so simple from its generation to its current form.

I was running this AM and thinking of this thread. I thought of the way I sometimes discuss things with people who don't keep track of the things they say. Human nature is such that a dialogue is started, people start to move away from their original premises, and before you know it, they are saying: "I never implied that...."

What I find terribly uncharitable in all of this is that I never found CH to be over-stepping and simply saying: "Repent all you Baptists!" over and over and over. He made arguments. Both sides were saying the other was un-Scriptural. CH was not mean-spirited about it. He was not un-humble. To claim otherwise is to impugn his motivation. I never saw him resort to _ad hominem_ attacks.

Then, the real irony began.

Members started getting upset and insisting that we should not call something else sin. The irony is that the insistence over being dogmatic about the Sacraments is being condemned with more vehemence and fervor than CH ever levied against any Baptist on this board. Thus, the very people that want people to "get along" are themselves the least willing to accept the expression of another's Confessionalism - starting threads preferring Arminian Dispensationalists for their humility and then your post, Ken, again claiming this is all a matter of humility.

I've tried very hard to remain focused in this post and keep people's minds fixed on why Truth matters. We cannot rend Truth from humility, although I grant that their can be Truth without humility.

I also think, that in this dialogue, people ought to read for themselves what CH wrote because the repeated charge that "...I just don't want people to keep saying repent, repent, repent..." is simply uncharitable. A man ought to be condemned for the spirit and manner in which he did something and not be charged repeatedly for something because it struck an emotional chord.

I'm not ending this debate but I am going to put my foot down. If people want to discuss the merits/demerits of being certain of what we believe and whether we should ever say another man is sinning then let's do that. BUT, I refuse to continue to allow CH to be drug through the mud in this thread as if the genesis of this whole dialogue was his uncharitableness. It was not and it is clear to anyone who reads both his words and the beginning of this thread.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

If this wasn't so sad I would be laughing, seriously. I think much is getting lost in the translation of posts here. I will try and be as simple about it as I can.

1) It was never about uncharitableness, it was about me making a *simple* request of CH (and truthfully of anyone involved in the discussion) to not start calling for repentance simply because it *COULD* lead to that happening over and over. I didn't say it did lead to that, simply that it could. I didn't say what side was right and what side was wrong (or in sin or not in sin)

2) CH decided to repeat this charge after I asked him not to do so. At that point it shouldn't matter who agreed with me and who didn't because I didn't get an e-mail or private message telling me I was wrong in asking him not to do so. For anyone with more authority than me to make such a statement in the thread was inappropriate and unprofessional. Even at this point in time no one has contacted me to "officially" tell me that I was "wrong". It's all been done publicly.

3) I made the mistake of bringing my personal struggle with baptism into the thread. It was a mistake because a few people jumped all over it and decided to turn my simple request into a discussion on confessions based on their knowledge of my struggle.

4) I've been told that as a member of the PCA I am "permitted" to question parts of our confession as I study it. If this is indeed true, my struggle with paedobaptism should not be brought into the request that I made for CH to stop calling for repentance in order to "understand".

5)


> A man ought to be condemned for the spirit and manner in which he did something and not be charged repeatedly for something because it struck an emotional chord.



Hog wash

It's not about striking an "emotional chord'. This is what a few people here need to learn, when you say things like "If you repent of what you believe you will then come to understand the truth" that's not confessionalism that's arrogance and pride, even if it's true! I work with kids for a living and much of what they believe and feel is foolishness, but I can promise you that I am not going to get them to the truth by simply stating that. Neither are any of you going to do so with brothers and sisters in Christ. A lost soul bound by sin...sure they may need to hear that! But a brother or sister who is admittedly struggling certainly does not need to be told this. I don't care how many letters you have after your name, if you don't realize this you are in error and need to re-evaluate.

Now, that said, it is especially true amongst RABID Presbyterian and Baptists in a BAPTISM forum! We need to remain truthful but charitable in our discussions and it doesn't matter what your "intent" is, telling one another to repent in order to see the truth comes across in a short, agitated way as if you are scolding those who are merely seeking truth on a matter.

I am soooooo thankful for the few of you who can see this point. But I'm done. You can remove my moderator status. Go on and call one another to repentance all day long every single say. I won't have a part of condoning it in the name of "truth telling". I will never venture into the baptism forum again either as it is a dwelling place of pride.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

houseparent said:


> ...I find it arrogant and flat out wrong for anyone....





houseparent said:


> They sure aren't as arrogant and proud as many Reformed Calvinists tend to be from my experience...
> 
> ...We pridefully beat our chests...



Is arrogance a sin? Is pride a sin? Is lack of humility a sin? Is to call people arrogant, a number of times, repeatedly calling them sinners?


houseparent said:


> Sure I agree with a side, and I will agree that the other side sins, but that's simply (as many have said) a presupposition going into these kind of discussions. As such, neither side need toss that demand at one another, especially NUMEROUS times in the same thread, again especially after being asked nicely to stop...more than ONCE!
> 
> -The poster should have stopped


Stopped what? Calling people to repent of something? Did he call them arrogant? Did he call them proud?




houseparent said:


> 1) It was never about uncharitableness, it was about me making a *simple* request of CH (and truthfully of anyone involved in the discussion) to not start calling for repentance simply because it *COULD* lead to that happening over and over. I didn't say it did lead to that, simply that it could. I didn't say what side was right and what side was wrong (or in sin or not in sin)


Simple? He started asking you "Adam, why is this bad?"

You started a thread calling him arrogant.



> 2) CH decided to repeat this charge after I asked him not to do so. At that point it shouldn't matter who agreed with me and who didn't because I didn't get an e-mail or private message telling me I was wrong in asking him not to do so. For anyone with more authority than me to make such a statement in the thread was inappropriate and unprofessional. Even at this point in time no one has contacted me to "officially" tell me that I was "wrong". It's all been done publicly.


Yes, it's been done publicly because you, PUBLICLY, keep calling people prideful and arrogant. I gave you ample opportunity to tone it down and to see what you were doing. People can read this thread for what it is Adam. They will see how patient I've been throughout. I was not angry with you. I was simply pointing out Confessionalism. I'm also pointing out to you how, contrary to your injunction to CH NOT to do so, you are calling people sinners left and right in this thread.



> It's not about striking an "emotional chord'. This is what a few people here need to learn, when you say things like "If you repent of what you believe you will then come to understand the truth" that's not confessionalism that's arrogance and pride, even if it's true!


Again, people are sinners according to you Adam. They are arrogant and pride. You are calling people sinners in contrast to your call that we not do so.

Also, I would like to see, precisely, where anyone said: "If you merely repented you would see this...." Where Adam? You may levy accusations all you want. This was not done in an alley. All of these posts are in the open.



> I work with kids for a living and much of what they believe and feel is foolishness, but I can promise you that I am not going to get them to the truth by simply stating that. Neither are any of you going to do so with brothers and sisters in Christ. A lost soul bound by sin...sure they may need to hear that! But a brother or sister who is admittedly struggling certainly does not need to be told this. I don't care how many letters you have after your name, if you don't realize this you are in error and need to re-evaluate.


Like telling people, repeatedly, that they are arrogant, prideful, not humble? Are those the kinds of things you wouldn't want to do with your kids?



> Now, that said, it is especially true amongst RABID Presbyterian and Baptists in a BAPTISM forum! We need to remain truthful but charitable in our discussions and it doesn't matter what your "intent" is, telling one another to repent in order to see the truth comes across in a short, agitated way as if you are scolding those who are merely seeking truth on a matter.


Now we're RABID too. We're uncharitable as opposed to the charitableness of your posts in this thread. One man made the horrible mistake of stating to another that "...you should repent of this..." and this warrants all of this vitriol?

I suggest you cool down and read this in a few days and see how you feel about all of this afterward.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

I simply have stated time and again how saying things the way they can be said here from time to time "comes across" as arrogant. I don't think I am alone in this opinion as I've seen others say very similar things; funny thing is those people have been thanked for reminding us to examine ourselves. I've been questioned and maligned, but NOT until my position on baptism came out, I don't think that's a coincidence.

Yes, I have blatantly said that the baptism forum is full of pride, but I've said that in the past, more than once. I'll go further; I think it's so full of it we sin by allowing its existence on this board. It's not the least bit profitable and in fact has been the cause of MUCH division since I've been here.

As for patience, I've been patient since my first post here in regard to the haughty attitude some posts contain and I thought I had earned (and deserved) enough respect to be able to say that now, maybe I'm wrong in that thought. Then again, maybe it's only a select few who cannot handle that from me because I'm "ignorant"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Yes, I have blatantly said that the baptism forum is full of pride, but I've said that in the past, more than once. I'll go further; I think it's so full of it we sin by allowing its existence on this board. It's not the least bit profitable and in fact has been the cause of MUCH division since I've been here.


Yet again Adam, you accuse others of sin. I'm amazed that this thread started with you being angry that another brother is arrogant by calling another brother to repent of sin in the Baptism forum. What do you do? You export that attitude, in a far more violent form, into the theological forum. You accuse the Admins and Mods now of sin for merely allowing the Baptism forum to exist.



> As for patience, I've been patient since my first post here in regard to the haughty attitude some posts contain and I thought I had earned (and deserved) enough respect to be able to say that now, maybe I'm wrong in that thought. Then again, maybe it's only a select few who cannot handle that from me because I'm "ignorant"?


Haughty...
Cannot handle it...

Who is haughty? Who is prideful Adam?

You like to label people as sinners. Would you like to back up the charge so that some of us can repent of some sins that you're aware of and you are not?

I admit to sin in the Baptism forum. I've sinned repeatedly in that forum and have always repented, in open forum, to any brothers who have asked me to. It is a consequential issue and deserves attention.

Who, specifically, needs to repent of pride and for what statement Adam?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

Yes, I think we ALL sin in the baptism forum and we ALL sin allowing it to exist. I can't make it any simpler than that. Here's the thing though, no one made a post here saying "Ahhh Baptism thread drives me crazy!" and then went on to tell us how they struggled with this forum and wanted advice on how to handle it, to then have me tell them they were being driven crazy because they needed to repent! If they would only repent then they could get on the road to understanding why it was they felt the way that they did.

Rich, are you baiting me to tell you that I think you are being haughty and arrogant? Fine, I think you are. It's plainly evident that you cannot handle anything I've said in regard to any of this, no matter how patient you claim to have been, and your constant need to remind me of what I am saying (I know what I am saying), label me as unable to understand (in several instances), and refusing to take a moderators side on an issue (at least in public) tells me you're prideful, at least in this instance with me.

In total honesty (since you seem to be begging me for it) I think you've always had a slight issue with me going back to the Ann Coulter threads. I don't know what the issue is really, but I suspect you think I'm an idiot, at least that's how it seems to me and always has. I’ve gotten some “advice” from others in this thread and private messages yet it is only you who have actually attacked me in this fashion, that says a lot to me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Rich, are you baiting me to tell you that I think you are being haughty and arrogant? Fine, I think you are. It's plainly evident that you cannot handle anything I've said in regard to any of this, no matter how patient you claim to have been, and your constant need to remind me of what I am saying (I know what I am saying), label me as unable to understand (in several instances), and refusing to take a moderators side on an issue (at least in public) tells me you're prideful, at least in this instance with me.


Well, I'm sorry Adam if I'm come across as haughty and arrogant to you in this thread Adam. I wasn't baiting you. I'm simply amazed that you are so quick to label people as sinners.

I never, once, not a single time, labelled you as being unable to understand a thing. Not once. I asked you if you had studied the WCF and the Heidelberg. I think you have a chip on your shoulder for some reason. I was shocked at your response. If I had known it was going to be construed in the manner it was I would have never typed it. You asked questions about Apostasy and I was trying to make them plain. I asked if you had studied the Confession because I thought the Confession was plain - it says the same thing I typed but in better language. and thought it would help you.



> In total honesty (since you seem to be begging me for it) I think you've always had a slight issue with me going back to the Ann Coulter threads. I don't know what the issue is really, but I suspect you think I'm an idiot, at least that's how it seems to me and always has. I’ve gotten some “advice” from others in this thread and private messages yet it is only you who have actually attacked me in this fashion, that says a lot to me.


On the Coulter thing, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't think you're an idiot. Since you said that publicly, I'm telling you publicly that I don't think you're an idiot.

Adam, I'm not doing this in private because your repeated insistence that CH was arrogant was done very publicly. CH even tried to PM you and you re-buffed his attempts.

I'm sorry if you don't like that I'm pointing out that you have been very mean on this thread. I'm a man with much pride yet to mortify. I've left all my prideful statements in the Baptism forums and elsewhere for all to see so they can see a sinner still in need of sanctification. They can also see a sinner who has repented to the men and women that he has been arrogant and uncharitable to.

Has my method been up front here. Yes. I've thought about the fact that I'm probably making you more angry but I've laid out clearly and dispassionately where you have been mean-spirited. I believe, as a man who likewise says arrogant things at times, that I have some warrant to demand out of you no less than I demand of myself. If you are going to continually and publicly upbraid men on this forum to quit being arrogant and uncharitable then you ought to have your feet held to the fire, publicly, to do no less.

Forgive me for ruining whatever friendship we had in this process because I consider you a friend and I do respect you, which is why I haven't pulled your Mod privileges and will let others do so if they desire. It's also the reason I've never been afraid to share things in the Mod forums that I won't share anywhere else because I trust you. I started out gently, Adam, but every gentle nudge has been met with increasing antipathy toward me. God forgive me if this is all my fault but my intent has been to merely have you acknowledge what I think has been fairly obvious.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (May 28, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Amen. That is what needs to be admitted on both sides, is that one is right, and the other wrong, and therefore sinful on the part of one side. In fact, this is so obvious that I assumed that it was a presupposition on the part of all going into the debate.
> 
> That being said, this is the case with all doctrine. Why the added importance to the sacraments? Well, it should be the fact that they are an appointed means of grace, an element of worship to be continued until the return of our Lord. Eschetology (the orthodox forms at least) and the like, while important, do not have the same weightiness for the church in the already/not yet.



Greetings:

I think you both have pointed out the way of the Kingdom of God. I have always been quick to point out when I am wrong on a matter:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=20221&page=2

post #95. Changed my position, and moved on. Peter, for example, was not too proud to accept rebuke from Paul.

Basic Eschatological postions that are enunciated in the Creeds such as: The Resurrection of the body, of the just and unjust, and the Final Judgment day can be found in the Apostle's, the Nicene, the Athanasian, and in the Westminister Confession of Faith. The only Eschatological position that I know of that denies these future events is Full Preterism. Thus, to call a Full Preterist to repentance on these matters is not inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

Rich, before my launching into my personal baptism beliefs/struggles, was what you think is "obvious" now as "obvious" then?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

What I thought was "obvious" (again, maybe a bad choice of words) was not the Baptism thing but the fact that you were actually the party that was pretty spun up and needed to tone it down. Every post has been with the attempt to try and get you to see that things aren't so "us v. them".

Frank admission to all here: I don't normally backchannel PM people. I know a lot of you do it when you're discussing threads. It's just never been my style. That can be a good thing because I don't believe in saying things behind people's backs that I won't say to their face. It can be a bad thing too because sometimes a PM will calm a person down. I need to get better at it but I'm not in the habit of it.

This has been a sanctifying experience for me. I sometimes am impatient but in this thread and the apostasy thread I was _trying_ to be gentle. I knew you were hitting back at me when I wasn't trying to fight you but I kept trying to be patient. It wasn't until today that I finally broke out a bit and let my frustration about your name-calling get to me.

The only PM I've written in this whole thing was to Bruce and Matt sincerely apologizing for gooning this whole thing up. I was trying to help in this Adam. I was trying to be nice. I was trying to get you to see how you were calling people about the worst sins imaginable: prideful and arrogant. The very sins that led to the Fall of Mankind.

I wish I had done a better job and I feel miserable for it. Forgive me for not being wiser in my method.


----------



## KMK (May 28, 2007)

Never mind...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

Ken,

I read what you wrote until you edited it. I didn't intend to call you simple (or anyone else here). I'm also very emotional even though I appreciate you believe I can analyze things well. Because I'm very emotional, I understand why other people get emotional about things. It's also the reason I _attempt_ to anticipate the emotional response to something because it's a response that I'll make.

I know I _try_ to write clearly but often fail as witnessed by what you interpreted from my response. Some of it was to be read by you, some of it was by Adam but I don't always address people directly. I respond to certain posts and then speak generally without switching audiences. In that sense, I'm like Paul I suppose, except he was an Apostle and allowed to do such things while I need to work on being clearer.

At the very least, this thread has stiffened my resolve to be more charitable in the Baptism forum. I know I help sometimes there but I also hinder with my impatience. Please continue to pray that God will mortify the latter.


----------



## Gloria (May 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Adam,
> 
> I actually agree with CH on this one. Calling somebody to repent for refusing to baptize their child in obedience to the Scriptures is as Confessionally consistent as Baptists who consider our practice a sin.
> 
> ...



Whoa.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 28, 2007)

But Rich, the baptism forum is 100% "Us vs Them", it's the entire premise of the forum. In fact, I think it may be seen as a "tool" to win those fooled into the credo position by Satan. If I had known that from the start, I think I could have accepted it. I believed it was a place for friendly brother to brother (or sister) debate and discussion, not a place to win converts for the "real" truth. 

As for the "worst sins" I've never seen those sins in that way. I thought the only sin the bible seems to say something particular about (in regard to other sins) were sexual sins.

Here's where I am right now, not just here at PB but in my walk completely.

I used to be a wacky dispensational Arminian. I meant well, but I didn't know much about anything besides Christ Crucified. I was a teacher of "easy believism" because I wanted that to be true or else I was a failure as a witness. As I came to understand the doctrines of grace I became so vigilant in teaching it that Scott Bushy actually had to personally call me to help me calm down and stop alienating people in my life (outside the PB). 

Now that I've matured (maybe not fully) I've come to see "reformed theologies" issues, those being pride and arrogance. I'm sorry, but it's just how I see it. The desire for deeper and deeper education leads to a position of "we've got it ALL figured out". Well, it may not "actually" lead to that, but it definitely comes across that way. I know members who will not post here because they feel "too stupid". I think this should alarm us. I have held back often thinking someone who roll their spiritual eyes at me and "tsk tsk" over the stupid childcare workers remarks, and honestly I've never felt that way in my life! I am shocked I am even admitting to feeling that way on occasion.

Now, I don't think anyone should get upset at that observation because many here have made it in the past to no uproar. That's why I believed you thought I was an idiot Rich, because if Trevor makes a similar statement, or Josh, it's ok, it's a call to vigilance! If Adam makes it, whoa baby, Katie bar the doors!

I have been annoyed through all this but not real angry. In fact if I can sum up my emotion it would be hurt and disappointed. I thought I had more respect here than I seem to have (if not respect, what ever word would better fit). 

After all of this, I still feel asking CH to stop saying what he was saying because it COULD (notice I said COULD) lead to that call going back and forth is a good and right request that should have been respected by him and backed up by other mods and admins. 

It is by that statement that you (or whomever) should determine my moderator status.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 29, 2007)

houseparent said:


> After all of this, I still feel asking CH to stop saying what he was saying because it COULD (notice I said COULD) lead to that call going back and forth is a good and right request that should have been respected by him and backed up by other mods and admins.



I think a lot of people saw where you were coming from when you did this, Adam. You thought you were acting in the best interests of the Puritan Board, which is your job as moderator.

You've always struck me as humble and willing to learn. I hope this doesn't change your relationship to this board because I think you're an asset to it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 29, 2007)

Adam,

That I ever make people feel stupid, I want to repent to any or all who have ever felt that way and never said so.

That I find this board incredibly useful and incredibly frustrating is without question. Regarding "respect", we've all gotten punched in the stomach now and again. I've been admonished repeatedly. I just don't see it as a respect issue. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. That was not my intent. I do wish you would see that your use of language and accusations of pride and arrogance as being more serious but I won't continue to press that.

I have two personas: the one that fights for truth among people when I'm trying to do my best to let others help me figure out what the Scriptures say and then the other that has to reach out and teach the members of my Church.

I'll be honest with you Adam, I wouldn't recommend just anyone read or participate in every forum.

I bounce between frustration at the peculiarities of certain doctrines but then thankfulness for some as well.

I'm not trying to plug my own teaching but if you doubt my passion for other Brothers then please listen to the end of my Romans 6 and Romans 7 teachings when other brothers are asking me questions. I don't know if you can hear them when they talk about how powerful the message is and how liberating the knowledge of God's salvation is.

I said goodbye to a couple that is going back to VA soon. They'll be going back to a 10,000 member Church in Northern VA. I cried over them when I was saying goodbye to them because, for 2 years, I've been investing knowledge of the Scriptures in them. The young man said something that made all of it worth it: "One thing that Rich helped me to understand is that I focus on my own works when Satan is assaulting me. He taught me to look to Christ and believe the Gospel."

I'm violent about the Truth in dialogues here because I believe I'm fighting for something that is worth fighting for. I was the front man at our Church to put out of our midst the man who was preaching for us because he refused to pay his rent. I feared I had rent the Church asunder at the time but I went in, lovingly, with the deacons and told them what the issue was and we all embraced and prayed. I even went in front of the entire Church and told them that I was sorry if it appeared anything other than intended. I got tearful hugs from all. People respect Truth because nobody fights for people anymore on the basis of Truth.

So, I just don't really want to be a part of a forum that is all over the map and has a bunch of members saying: "Well you have Truth but we love Jesus...." I don't want to be a part of a forum that is filled with Pastors of Churches who are preaching about self-fulfilment and other inconsequential things just so long as they don't have to deal with Truth that divides.

So, I'm thankful for some of the fights. It's refreshing to be bloodied against another man that loves Truth as much as you are and wants to fight for it because he's in the habit of fighting for it amongst others who won't fight for themselves anymore. It's refreshing to find men who stand up and say: Here is what I confess. I believe it because God wrote it! It's refreshing to be a part of a board where no theological subject is "too divisive": you know, messy things like election.

I count Baptists on this boards as some of my best friends. I love Ivan, Bill, Trevor, Ryan, Joshua, Vic, you, and countless others. I don't dislike them because they're passionate about Baptism. I respect them. I respect them because they take their convictions into a world that tells them: you can't be convicted about anything! and they say: "Watch me!"

And I love them because, after we're done opening the Word together and sharpening our minds against one another, we're able to repent when our arguments were really not arguments but sinful assertaions. We're able to say: I repent. We're able to say: I forgive you. And all our pride is turned to dust at the feet of our common Savior.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 29, 2007)

If you were looking for a post to make me stop posting, this was it. Well, except for this post. I have something minor yet to discuss with you but I'll U2U it.


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Ken,
> 
> I read what you wrote until you edited it.



How did you do that? Do you have some super power? That kind of puts me at a disadvantage.



SemperFideles said:


> I didn't intend to call you simple (or anyone else here).



For the record, since other folks cannot see my edited post, I never thought you called me simple. I was explaining to you that *I am* simple and that there may be subtleties in the above arguments that fly right over my head. 



SemperFideles said:


> At the very least, this thread has stiffened my resolve to be more charitable in the Baptism forum. I know I help sometimes there but I also hinder with my impatience. Please continue to pray that God will mortify the latter.



You have to know Rich that your presence is intimidating in a thread because of your position as 'big kahuna' around here and also because of your rhetorical abilities.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 29, 2007)

KMK said:


> You have to know Rich that your presence is intimidating in a thread because of your position as 'big kahuna' around here and also because of your rhetorical abilities.



OK, Ken, because you said that, I love you too!


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 29, 2007)

Ok, now it's just getting too sappy in here!


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2007)

Good night Rich, good night Adam...good night John-Boy...


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

Good night Mary Ellen.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 29, 2007)

I almost threw my back out laughing so hard about that!


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2007)

Okay all. Looks like the room is full of love again. Big group hug for everyone!


----------

