# I am no longer Baptist.



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 14, 2005)

Giving praise to God for you! 

You are now on a road where when you read through the Scriptures, they will seem very different, (richer in many ways) than they did before. I felt like a kid in a candy shop.

Blessings to you...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

So what about school and church?

By the way, congrats. I guess I went about this the hard way - having a kid!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2005)

Gabriel,
In the past our conversations were vigorous, but surely appreciated. I praise God for His truths and that which He has brought to light for you and yours. I had a feeling you were working these things out.


----------



## john_Mark (Jan 14, 2005)

Why are congratulations and praise in order? Is Gabriel now "a better" or "more of" a Christian than before?

Would it be acceptable as a baptist to say the opposite such as, "I grieve upon your decision and pray God bring you back to credo-baptism?"

I ask this with slight tongue in cheek while also wondering about your responses.

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by john_Mark]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> Why are congratulations and praise in order? Is Gabriel now "a better" or "more of" a Christian than before?
> 
> Would it be acceptable as a baptist to say the opposite such as, "I grieve upon your decision and pray God bring you back to credo-baptism?"
> ...



Congratulations are in order because Gabriel now sees teh Scriptures in a better light. A baptist certainly could (and probably should) respond as you said. Would you respond to a man who said he had just come to accept Calvinism from Arminianism as "sorry you left Arminianism" or a man who left dispensationalism with grief for that?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> So what about school and church?



I will finish my B.A. in Biblical and Theological Studies here at Southern and then go somewhere else for my M.Div. and other important initials. 

As for Church, I'll probably stay the same, as there aren't any good Presbyterian Churches here, really, in my opinion (There's only ONE PCA church here, and it is pretty... 'modern', if you will), being the headquarters of the PC(USA) (Louisville).

Right now, I'd really like to go to RPTS in Pittsburgh, but we'll see - I have about 2 years to first get married and figure out what we'll do after I'm done here.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 14, 2005)

Best wishes to you, Gabriel. I pray that Christ will always be "the blazing center of God's glory" to you.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 14, 2005)

Gabriel,
Thanks for sharing some of your reasons for changing camps. Its always good for the rest of us, especially those who are on the fence, to consider why others switch (from/to either camp).


----------



## john_Mark (Jan 14, 2005)

I figured someone would bring up the Calvinism to Arminianism situation. The situtations are mutually exclusive, although, there may be similiarities in how we may approach each. 

On these boards there are Baptists and Presbyterians who share very similar statements of faith(SoF) so the above is not an issue here. It seems that a bit more respect towards the Baptists here would be expressed since we are here on common and specific grounds i.e. particular SoF. 

Just wondering so I can then respond with - Gabriel, I grieve upon your decision and pray God bring you back to credo-baptism.


----------



## john_Mark (Jan 14, 2005)

PS:


> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Congratulations are in order because Gabriel now sees the Scriptures in a better light.



Rather, congratulations are not in order because Gabriel now sees Scriptures in a worse light.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 14, 2005)

Gabriel,

Have you changed your views regarding ecclesiology as well as the Lord's Supper? There is a lot more to Reformed/Covenant Theology than baptizing babies! Lutherans baptize babies too.

[Edited on 1/14/2005 by wsw201]


----------



## govols (Jan 14, 2005)

Actually  ing john_Mark. Slow to hit the Enter key.

SOME of us are actually trying to work ! 



[Edited on 14-1-2005 by govols]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 14, 2005)

What Wayne said is very much an interesting part to the whole scope of the move. Now you have to deal with polity (ecclesiology). That can be a bear in and of itself. 

BUT - if you embrace Covenant Theology, polity will be easier based on continuity.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 14, 2005)

I've always believed the Presbyterian form of Church government is the best and most Biblical application, even while being Baptist.

I'm not sure what you are speaking of in regards to the Lord's Supper, however. Can you explain? I might already know what you're talking about but i'd like to be sure.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2005)

The Presbyterian view of the sacraments is a higher view. The LBC omits teh section on the sacraments.

Chapter XXVII
Of the Sacraments
I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, 10 immediately instituted by God, 11 to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: 12 as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; 13 and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. 14

II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. 15

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: 16 but upon the work of the Spirit, 17 and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. 18

IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. 19

V. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new. 20


[Edited on 1-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 14, 2005)

Oh, yeah I've always agreed with that since I first heard it about a year or so ago. I think I read Calvin's view on them, and I knew most Baptists disagreed, but I thought what he said was correct in that they "separate us from the world" through participation in them, and everything else the WCF mentions.


----------



## sosipater (Jan 14, 2005)

*Questions*

Gabriel,

Since you chose to make a public declaration, I have a few questions for you. I apologize if you have addressed this as I am a occasional lurker and may have missed it.

1. Have you spoken in-depth to your elder(s) at your church about this massive shift in your theology?
1a. If so, would you mind sharing their thoughts?

2. What prompted you studying out this issue, or what first brought you under conviction that your credo baptist beliefs were incorrect?

3. Have you studied both sides of the issue fairly? I ask this because of this statement




> Even Reformed Baptist arguments are cornered when you find that the entire basis for believing the NC is "believers only" is based on Jeremiah 31,



This statement seems incorrect as Jeremiah 31 is not "the entire" basis for Baptist's belief in the nature of the New Covenant, but an important and vital one. 

Also, prior to most opinions expressed here, being a Baptist is not mutually exclusive with holding to covenant theology, but that issue gets  
It is my view that Baptist CT is more consistent that the Paedobaptist. Have you discussed this with your elders also? 



> I will finish my B.A. in Biblical and Theological Studies here at Southern and then go somewhere else for my M.Div. and other important initials.



Why? Isn't SBTS a respected Seminary, even among Presbyterians?

Finally, I share johnMark's deep disappointment at your decision but am not surprised at the response by my paedobaptist brothers, as sometimes our zeal can drown out our humility. I look forward to hearing your answers to my questions.

Grace & Peace,
Russ


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2005)

Russ,
Please click on the link in my post for sig requirements.
Thanks.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 14, 2005)

Grieving for you, dear brother. May God expose the darkness of your error. I echo those who encourage you to look at Scripture with your elders.  Bruce Ware attends your church, right? I'd go over this with him. Your statement that the "entire basis" for believer's baptism is Jer 31 is incorrect. Without turning this thread into another credo/paedo debate, let me remind you briefly of the Scriptural basis for credobaptism quite apart from Jer 31. While Colossians 2:11-12 certainly speaks of circumcision of the heart and Spirit baptism together, no text in all of Scripture brings together physical circumcision and water baptism; this is because they are very different things. Physical circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen.17:11). Infant-baptists mistake in saying that water baptism is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace or New Covenant. It is not. Scripture never says or implies that. The cup is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25) and according to Eph 1:13 the Holy Spirit is the seal. Water baptism is "the response of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet 3:21). It is never called a "sign" or a "seal," but the one thing Scripture does call water baptism is "the response of a good conscience toward God." An infant cannot make a respose or answer or request or pledge. It is not the replacement for circumcision. In keeping in mind that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but *faith*" and likewise that "neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcison, but a *new creation*" (Gal 5:6; 6:15), it seems clear to me at least, that those dear brethren preaching that circumcision continues on in infant baptism are guilty of "preaching circumcision." 

http://www.founders.org/FJ35/article2_fr.html


----------



## govols (Jan 14, 2005)

And by the way, Don't mess with Texas. 

 Gregory.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 14, 2005)

> 1. Have you spoken in-depth to your elder(s) at your church about this massive shift in your theology?
> 1a. If so, would you mind sharing their thoughts?



No. I'm not a member of Clifton Baptist Church. My membership remains at my 'home church' where I grew up (SBC), as they are the body that recommended and approved me going to SBTS, as per the requirements of admission to SBTS. My theological perspective does not affect my right to attend SBTS and get a degree there, nor is anything I believe against any policy there. There are people of many different denominations attending the college. Also, my theological beliefs are not an issue at my home church, as they are largely pluralistic and require only that church members profess faith in Christ and be baptized to join the church (both of which I did at that church). There are no specifics that the church adheres to theologically, as it is (like most SBC churches) quite post-modern and program-driven.





> 2. What prompted you studying out this issue, or what first brought you under conviction that your credo baptist beliefs were incorrect?



Nothing that I know of, really. I just read and study God's Word on a regular basis and read a lot of books by dead guys. The conviction came from simple readings of Scripture as a whole.





> 3. Have you studied both sides of the issue fairly?



I studied the Baptist side for 21 years, and after a year or so of reading the Bible in a "redemptive-historical" mindset, I have discovered a large part of Baptist belief is inconsistent at the very least.





> Why? Isn't SBTS a respected Seminary, even among Presbyterians?



Yes, it is respected, but I find myself uncomfortable there. If nothing else, because of the SBC mindset and philosophy that I largely disagree with. Not to mention that only 25% of the professors at the school are even 4 or 5-point calvinists apparently. It is hard enough sitting through a class for a semester being taught by a staunch Arminian, so why would I want to do through that longer than I have to? I will finish my undergraduate degree here, but after that, who knows? My goal in schooling is not to just get degrees, but to learn as much as I possibly can about God's truth so that I can be a responsible servant in training congregations I may pastor with sound doctrine. I see little point in paying money to go to a school that teaches a lot of things you disagree with (or, more importantly, you believe Scripture disagrees with), simply because it is a well-respected school. I want to be pushed to my limits and gain as much knowledge and wisdom in the next few years as I can, so that I am not an unprepared elder who, like Martha, cares more about serving God than listening to His Word and commandments.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 14, 2005)

Congratulations Gabriel,
I echo the sentiments of my Presbyterian brethren, but I would also encourage you to do what Greg and Russ are telling you to do. Every time I made any major Theological shift, I sought out the advice of those in authority over me. I always stuck by my convictions, but I would allow them to speak into my life, and help me firm up my views.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Grieving for you, dear brother. May God expose the darkness of your error. I echo those who encourage you to look at Scripture with your elders.  Bruce Ware attends your church, right? I'd go over this with him.



Yes, Bruce Ware is an elder at the church I attend. He is a nice man and I have a lot of respect for him. However, he is also a Premillennial Progressive-Dispensationalist Amyraldian, so why would I want to have a Theological discussion with him about something related to Covenant Theology? (Especially when I am Preterist/Postmillennial and Supralapsarianal)


Edited in error.........

[Edited on 1-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> Congratulations Gabriel,
> I echo the sentiments of my Presbyterian brethren, but I would also encourage you to do what Greg and Russ are telling you to do. Every time I made any major Theological shift, I sought out the advice of those in authority over me. I always stuck by my convictions, but I would allow them to speak into my life, and help me firm up my views.



 Congrats!


----------



## govols (Jan 14, 2005)

These Congrats, Way to go, You don't know what you're talking about, You're still wrong, You're a monkey's uncle, etc. is getting pretty childish and sophomoric In my humble opinion. Send a U2U to the person if you have to.

I ain't talking about anyone in particular but how is it edifying to the brothers / sisters in Christ who don't hold this same view as the paedos, which is the incorrect one BTW. Just Kidding!

In the words of the prophet and saint Rodney, "Can't we all just get along (as reformed believers, edifying one another)

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by govols]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 14, 2005)

> Physical circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen.17:11). Infant-baptists mistake in saying that water baptism is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace or New Covenant.



The Abrahamic Covenant was just one of the appearances of the Covenant of Grace, as the New Covenant is. It is not a "brand new" Covenant, but a "fresh" or "renewed" one, as the Hebrew word used for it indicates. God continued to renew His gracious covenant with His chosen people throughout redemptive history, until its final culmination in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.




> It is not. Scripture never says or implies that. The cup is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25)



The same cup that Jesus Christ gave to Judas Iscariot?




> and according to Eph 1:13 the Holy Spirit is the seal.



Agreed. We cannot fulfill the _spiritual_ requirements of the New Covenant without a new heart, granted to us by God.




> Water baptism is "the response of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet 3:21). It is never called a "sign" or a "seal," but the one thing Scripture does call water baptism is "the response of a good conscience toward God." An infant cannot make a respose or answer or request or pledge. It is not the replacement for circumcision.



The ESV and NASB don't agree with what you are claiming here. The NASB reads: *"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"* Baptism is an appeal FOR a good conscience, _from_ God. This verse is not man-centered, but God-centered. Baptism shows our hope for the promise of forgiveness of sins. Justification. This forgiveness of sins clears our conscience as having been set free by the blood of Christ, and is accomplished "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" not because we have been Baptized. This shows nothing but applying a sign of the covenant to us with the faith and hope that God will work in us to grant us faith and repentance, give us a new heart, and cause us to persevere till the end - proving our calling and election and that we are true members of the New Covenant, both visibly/externally and spiritually (and not covenant breakers or apostates who may apply the signs of the covenant and partake in its visible/external blessings, but never have the regeneration of the Holy Spirit that comes to God's elect alone). The fact that infants cannot make a request for a clear conscience means nothing, as it is clear in the passage that the act of Baptism makes the appeal to God.



> In keeping in mind that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith" and likewise that "neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcison, but a new creation" (Gal 5:6; 6:15), it seems clear to me at least, that those dear brethren preaching that circumcision continues on in infant baptism are guilty of "preaching circumcision."



The issue here in Galatians is Judaizing, and to make it about Paedo/Credo-Baptism is quite a stretch, considering the context. The primary concern is that some believers in the Church think that faith in Christ PLUS keeping ALL of the Law of Moses saves you, whereas we all know that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, based on Christ's perfection (and not our adherance to the Law of Moses). To bring the issue of Christian Baptism as related to Mosaic circumcision into this letter makes little if no sense to me at all.

Grace and Peace, brother in Christ.


----------



## sosipater (Jan 14, 2005)

> Russ, Please click on the link in my post for sig requirements.



Scott,

Sorry, I had a sig but I moved it to bio. Should be back below. 

Gabriel,

Thanks for responding to my questions.



> My theological perspective does not affect my right to attend SBTS and get a degree there, nor is anything I believe against any policy there. There are people of many different denominations attending the college. Also, my theological beliefs are not an issue at my home church, as they are largely pluralistic and require only that church members profess faith in Christ and be baptized to join the church (both of which I did at that church). There are no specifics that the church adheres to theologically, as it is (like most SBC churches) quite post-modern and program-driven.



I was not implying that your views were against any policy, merely that you submit yourself to whomever your spiritual authority is, for guidance and wisdom. That is what they are there for, and it is for your benefit.



> The conviction came from simple readings of Scripture as a whole.



I will have to take your word for it. In my experience it has always been the case that a shift like yours is not preceded by conviction by scripture per se, but by outside influences on that reading of scripture and the emotional security that comes from agreeing with, as you put it, a bunch of "dead guys". This is not inherently bad, just enlightening from my point of view, and my desire is *not* to judge anyone's motives. I am sure yours are pure.

I was just curious about SBTS because I will be visiting in April and am trying to gather as much information as possible. Implied in my use of the word "respected" was conservative and solid, Biblically speaking. 

I still believe you are seroiously wrong on this, but wish you well in your studies and pray for God's grace in your life.

Grace & Peace,
Russ


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sosipater_
> I will have to take your word for it. In my experience it has always been the case that a shift like yours is not preceded by conviction by scripture per se, but by outside influences on that reading of scripture and the emotional security that comes from agreeing with, as you put it, a bunch of "dead guys". This is not inherently bad, just enlightening from my point of view, and my desire is *not* to judge anyone's motives. I am sure yours are pure.



If anything, my change in beliefs over the last few years has caused me a _lack_ of emotional security, as most people I know don't agree with these issues, but also never really look into them or care much about them. I am outside of the beliefs of my entire family (Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists), and have very few friends that agree with me (maybe 3 at the _most_). Thankfully, God-willing, I will have a wonderful soon-to-be-fiance-soon-to-be-wife that is always a strong encouragement to me in the Lord, who is always willing to challenge me and help me think about issues over and over as related to Scripture and who God is in relation to mankind. My family will still love me, but I doubt they will ever really be "supportive and understanding" of my ministry, unless there is a major God-centered revival in our country in the future. Most people say they like things to be God-centered, but when it comes down to it, they usually end up bored with all the focus being on Him. May Christ's kingdom triumph over our culture and all of his enemies be made a footstool beneath His feet!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 14, 2005)

> In my experience it has always been the case that a shift like yours is not preceded by conviction by scripture per se, but by outside influences on that reading of scripture and the emotional security that comes from agreeing with, as you put it, a bunch of "dead guys".



This is the exact opposite of my experience, which happened with the books of Hebrews and Jeremiah. Also, this seems to be the testimony of those we know of who switched that are on this board thus far in the past 2 years, based not only on thier struggles that we have seen through texts, but also from their testimony after.

It would be wrong for anyone to change thier position based on what a "man" in any era said. That would overthrow _Sola Scriptura._


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 14, 2005)

Peace, Love, and Jesus. I hate sappiness. Why can't we all just get along? Why should we? I think that is a good question? I believe we all get along pretty good here. We do have different struggles and arguments. Either way God should be Glorified and Enjoyed. Let's have a good old debate and keep the lines drawn. But let's remember who we belong to and that we will have to give an account for how we treat each other also. God wants us to enjoy each other also. So be Edified you idiots. ha ha ha 

BE Encouraged, Randy

Gabriel,

I would encourage you to read Mike Renihans book on John Tombe and his Antipeadobaptism. He was definitely not an anabaptist. He remained and Episcopal even though he ended up being called a Presbyterian at the end of his life. He always maintained his antipaedobaptist view. The section on Historical Theology is very compelling. He quotes some of the Church fathers and shows that they were not baptized as infants even though they were raised in the faith. According to Mike Renihan and John Tombe they didn't baptise children except out of necessity. Sickness etc. They held to a form of baptismal regeneration. If a child wasn't baptized it was considered lost and doomed to hell. They didn't baptize based upon the doctrine of CT. They baptized children for national purposes and even baptized children whose parents were not even church attenders. It wasn't based upon CT. It mentions the Latin Church Fathers such as Augustine, Tertillian, Fidus, Cyprian, and Jerome. And some of the Greek Church Fathers, Irenaeus (whom John Owen seems to refute John Tombe in vol. 16 p. 339). Irenaeus is shown by Tombe to be in conflict with the Gnostics. He was trying to identify Christ's ability to sanctify all from infancy to otherwise. He then moves on to Origen, then Gregory of Nazianzus. It is some very interesting reading. They didn't baptize children based upon CT. It was a rather new Practice and it was done out of so called necessity.(sickness or fear of death) Some pretty interesting Reading. Of course the book also covers the scriptural battles for understanding. Give it a good read.. http://store.yahoo.com/trinitybookservice/99104.html


[Edited on 1-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]

[Edited on 1-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 14, 2005)

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a learned Presbyterian, and the other an illiterate Baptist.

The Presbyterian stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, credo-baptists, scorners of theonomy, those who sing from strange hymn books, or even as this Baptist.

I recite the Confession twice a week, I loathe those who offer strange fire.

And the Baptist, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


Remember, we are all arminians by nature and then we are enlightened and we lust for perfection until gradually, without realizing it, we are lost among jots and tittles and looking down our sanctified noses on the unwashed. We fence the fences that fence the laws and lay such burdens on the pilgrims in their journey that they end up paralyzed for fear of violating the Regulative Principle.

Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on our enlightened backs.

Thanks for letting me protest a bit. Love you all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2005)

and congratulations. The consistency in Bible reading was a big argument for me as well. Be strong in the days ahead


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 14, 2005)

Gabriel, thank you for sharing your journey with us. I will pray that the Spirit will continue to further illumine God's Word to you for His glory and your benefit.



> _Originally posted by sosipater_
> Finally, I share johnMark's deep disappointment at your decision but am not surprised at the response by my paedobaptist brothers, as sometimes our zeal can drown out our humility. I look forward to hearing your answers to my questions.



Nothing in this thread has reflected a lack of humility. Pride has no place in such a change in doctrine, as it is solely the Spirit who amazingly illumines our sinful minds to the Word throughout our lives. Furthermore, when a brother in Christ comes to what one believes to be a fuller understanding of His peacious Word, how could one _not_ mutually rejoice in such? I would see the lack of such a reaction by those who are like-minded as apathy toward the truth, not really believing one's view to be truly God-glorifying. And like Fred noted, I would fully expect a consistent credobaptist to rightly have the same reaction to one coming to their understanding.


----------



## voided user1 (Jan 14, 2005)

I too find Baptist CT more consistent than Paedo. Embracing Covenant Theology and seeing Scripture in that way is not the same as no longer being a Baptist.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Nothing in this thread has reflected a lack of humility.


I agree. It's a good thread.



> And like Fred noted, I would fully expect a consistent credobaptist to rightly have the same reaction to one coming to their understanding.


You got that right!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 14, 2005)




----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 14, 2005)

I am happy for you, because, as Matt said, it really is a wonderful thing to see the freshness this brings to your Bible study. Enjoy the feast!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 14, 2005)

> This is the exact opposite of my experience...



I must agree whole heartedly and could not agree more, though my journey is still in progress. My baptistic friends and family though well meaning (I realize not all baptistic believers would do this) whenever I began asking questions would always cut me off short (almost innocently, because I don't think they realized they were doing so) and incorrectly presume that I had picked the idea up from Calvin or some other man. I hadn't even read Calvin back then, that's the irony. Or "I was listening to a man's teaching", but again that was a wrong assumption on their part, and as I was actually listening to them I was by default listening to a man's teaching.

I had no baptistic or reformed background before conversion myself...pretty much a raw atheist/agnost. That's why I became a geologist. I was baptized at age 33 in my mom's church that she attended because I knew nothing or nowhere else to go, I just knew I had to baptized into Christ.

Among personal struggles and in a nut shell I began to see some inconsistencies in the whole "its an ordinance", a sin to disobey the ordinance, timing is essential to the ordinance, 'how do you get the timing right' to obey the ordinance, etc... Furthermore, it was deflecting my sight from Christ alone to "did I get it right" works. 

I knew nothing of covenant theology to say the least. Then, ironically, while in a Saturday morning study of covenants via a dispensationalist leaning source no less with my wife, many years later, it began to strike me like lightening (the Scriptures that is). The study had nothing to do with baptism, that is the structure of the study. The covenants literally stunned me and the Scriptures began to come more alive to my reading. I recall leaning over to my wife during a specific moment in that study and saying, "You know this concept is completely lost in modern America, it is absolutely gone!". I was shell shocked by it. Suddenly the OT was more than a book primarily written for Israel. Without going into details it has been and continues to be the study of the scriptures and the covenants that influences my walk/journey/struggle with baptism, but as I go I see its far more than just baptism. 

It is like having a brighter light than before and when it comes on the covenants/covenantal structure literally leaps out at you - even when your not looking for them and Scripture is suddenly richer than before.

The two brightest lights I've personally experienced have been the Law/Gospel distinction and the covenants.

Blessing always,

Larry


----------



## Bryan (Jan 14, 2005)

Gabriel, it's always good to hear I'm not the only one to make this shift.



> In my experience it has always been the case that a shift like yours is not preceded by conviction by scripture per se, but by outside influences on that reading of scripture and the emotional security that comes from agreeing with, as you put it, a bunch of "dead guys".



I actually did do a lot of reading before switching over to the Reformed Padeobaptist view from the Baptist Credobaptist view. I had never really considered the issue before having spent my 5 years in the Church in a Baptist church. So when I came on here and saw all the discussion on the subject I looked into the writtings of both sides; MacArthur, Piper, Jewett, Gill, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones...Calvin, Wilson, Booth, Henry, Warfield. I also spent a lot of time in scripture, examining the scriptures both sides used. I thought when I began to look at it that it would be an easy win for the Baptists, but after a year of study (no one told me when I began to study it that I would have to first have a basic understanding of Covenant Theology) I found myself in agreement with the Padeo position. 

Some of my freinds have suggested to me that my love for reading "the dead guys" influenced me so I took the easy root on this but I disagree for a couple reasons: 1. I love reading Gill, Spurgeon and Bunyan is my favorite author so not all my "heros" hold to that position and 2. The vast majority of my freinds and church are Baptists it would be a lot easier for me to stay a Baptist. 

In the end I know it came down to Peter's Sermon in Acts for me. I could not ignore how his comments regarding children fit perfectly with what was said all thoughout the OT.



Bryan
SDG


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> I knew nothing of covenant theology to say the least. Then, ironically, while in a Saturday morning study of covenants via a dispensationalist leaning source no less with my wife, many years later, it began to strike me like lightening (the Scriptures that is).



How funny!

My shift toward the paedo position came one Sunday when I had been recruited to teach the 5th and 6th grade Sunday School lesson at my parent's (SBC) church. That official SBC Sunday School literature pointed out things I'm sure the authors never intended, like the fact that the majority of instances of baptism in the Old Testament were household baptisms. (I know Baptists have explanations for this, and I have read them, but in my case, further exploration of the issue led me--correctly or not--to the paedo position.)

Has anyone on the board shifted from paedo to credo?


----------



## pastorway (Jan 14, 2005)

Re: Peter's sermon and Acts 2:39 

The promise (what promise? repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit) THAT promise is to you, your children, and those far off - THAT promise is TO as many as the Lord our God will call.

What promise? Tell your children and those far off that if they repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus (repentance, faith, leading to obedience) for the remission of sins that they will receive the Holy Spirit. And they will only repent if God has called them.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-15-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2005)

Phillip,
Peter is speaking with Israelites. What do you think they thought when he said this?

Act 2:36 Therefore *let all the house of Israel *know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 
Act 2:37 Now when they (the house of Israel) heard this, they(the house of Israel) were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them (the house of Israel), Repent, and be baptized every one of you (the house of Israel) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you (the house of Israel), and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. *my emphasis added*

How is this any different from what they knew as the Abrahamic promise?

[Edited on 1-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 14, 2005)

Gabe,

I've enjoyed are sometimes warm, sometimes heated discussions. And like all beleivers of God's Word I take pleasure when I feel someone has gotten more light on an issue. Hey I feel like I'm learning a lot about CT in our present exchanges. 

My own recent change in positions actually came while in the midst of studying Believers Only Baptism, and my former pastor (and current friend's) Baptist version of Covenant Theology. Keep the lamp oil fresh brother.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 14, 2005)

Ex Nihilo,

That's funny, very similar. 

You know I never ever even thought about reading John Calvin until much later and do you know why? Not because I wanted to be convinced by John Calvin. Not at all. It was shear curosity. I heard so many times about how wrong John Calvin was on this issue, I thought, "I have GOT to read what he said about it that's got everyone so worked up."

Larry


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 14, 2005)

Maybe we should keep this as Gabe's thread


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Maybe we should keep this as Gabe's thread



Nathan,
Is there something that was said that would offend Gabriel?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 14, 2005)

No No I only meant that if you Paul and PW are going to have a seperate discussion then it might be best to start a new thread thats all 

:bigsmile:

blade


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2005)

[email protected]@K; pastorway did just that............


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 14, 2005)

LOL

Hey I was just tryin to help


----------



## ARStager (Jan 14, 2005)

> I think I read Calvin's view on them, and I knew most Baptists disagreed, but I thought what he said was correct in that they "separate us from the world" through participation in them, and everything else the WCF mentions.



There's far more in the sacraments than just "separating us from the world." 

We feed on the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. In so doing, of course we're separated from the world, but the crucial Calvinist doctrine is feeding and the union it brings about.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 14, 2005)

And feeding is not just "believing" as if they were synonymous. We believe that we might feed.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 14, 2005)

Man everyone is ganging up on me I just didnt want to see this get turned into something else that didnt directly relate to the topic at hand which was Gabe's confession or annuncment of his theological transistion. 

Oh well....

Blade


----------



## turmeric (Jan 14, 2005)

Would like to know more about the Lord's Supper. Gabe, still making the shift.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> 
> We feed on the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper.



elaborate please - in a new thread if you like.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Man everyone is ganging up on me I just didnt want to see this get turned into something else that didnt directly relate to the topic at hand which was Gabe's confession or annuncment of his theological transistion.
> 
> Oh well....
> ...



Blade, 

I hear you and I think that is what is happening. I think (to go out on a paison limb) that Paul was kidding you.

Thanks for your sensitivity to Gabriel.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 14, 2005)

75. Q. How does the Lord's Supper signify and seal to you that you share in Christ's one sacrifice on the cross and in all His gifts?

A. In this way: Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup in remembrance of Him. With this command He gave these promises:[1] First, as surely as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given to me, so surely was His body offered for me and His blood poured out for me on the cross. Second, as surely as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and the cup of the Lord as sure signs of Christ's body and blood, so surely does He Himself nourish and refresh my soul to everlasting life with His crucified body and shed blood.

[1] Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20; I Cor. 11:23-25. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


76. Q. What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His shed blood?

A. First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal.[1] Second, to be united more and more to His sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us.[2] Therefore, although Christ is in heaven[3] and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones,[4] and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.[5]

[1] John 6:35, 40, 50-54. [2] John 6:55, 56; I Cor. 12:13. [3] Acts 1:9-11; 3:21; I Cor. 11:26; Col. 3:1. [4] I Cor. 6:15, 17; Eph. 5:29, 30; I John 4:13. [5] John 6:56-58; 15:1-6; Eph. 4:15, 16; I John 3:24.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 14, 2005)

Heidelburg Catechism---sorry.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 14, 2005)

Fred,
thank you I wasnt trying to diss anyone just wanted to make sure or at least try to maintain order of which Im very guilty of not letting happen.

blade


----------



## ARStager (Jan 14, 2005)

79. Q. Why then does Christ call the bread His body and the cup His blood, or the new covenant in His blood, and why does Paul speak of a participation in the body and blood of Christ?

A. Christ speaks in this way for a good reason: He wants to teach us by His supper that as bread and wine sustain us in this temporal life, so His crucified body and shed blood are true food and drink for our souls to eternal life.[1] But, even more important, He wants to assure us by this visible sign and pledge, first, that through the working of the Holy Spirit we share in His true body and blood as surely as we receive with our mouth these holy signs in remembrance of Him,[2] and, second, that all His suffering and obedience are as certainly ours as if we personally had suffered and paid for our sins.[3]

[1] John 6:51, 55. [2] I Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:26. [3] Rom. 6:5-11.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 14, 2005)

I'd really like to see someone respond to my string of quotations/replies I made earlier in this post (near the top of the second page) about baptism/circumcision.

I don't mind the thread being hijacked 

[Edited on 15-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 15, 2005)

"The ESV and NASB don't agree with what you are claiming here. The NASB reads: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" Baptism is an appeal FOR a good conscience, from God. This verse is not man-centered, but God-centered. Baptism shows our hope for the promise of forgiveness of sins. Justification. This forgiveness of sins clears our conscience as having been set free by the blood of Christ, and is accomplished "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" not because we have been Baptized. This shows nothing but applying a sign of the covenant to us with the faith and hope that God will work in us to grant us faith and repentance, give us a new heart, and cause us to persevere till the end - proving our calling and election and that we are true members of the New Covenant, both visibly/externally and spiritually (and not covenant breakers or apostates who may apply the signs of the covenant and partake in its visible/external blessings, but never have the regeneration of the Holy Spirit that comes to God's elect alone). The fact that infants cannot make a request for a clear conscience means nothing, as it is clear in the passage that the act of Baptism makes the appeal to God."

Gabe,

This is a really good point. I've considered the sacraments sermons composed of pure water, bread, and wine. They minister the gospel to the recipient. This text however appears to be dealing with the reception of the gospel itself in the sacrament of baptism where we truly participate in the drama and use the promise embedded sacraments as a prayer.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 15, 2005)

I might want to change my wording a bit on that part. I would rather say:

_"proving our calling and election and that we are true members of the *Covenant of Grace, as administered in the* New Covenant"_


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I might want to change my wording a bit on that part. I would rather say:
> 
> _"proving our calling and election and that we are true members of the *Covenant of Grace, as administered in the* New Covenant"_



Right.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 15, 2005)

Right.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 15, 2005)

...Right.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 15, 2005)

Right??!






[Edited on 15-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 15, 2005)




----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 15, 2005)

Paul,
Whos balde ???

Funny Ive typed that before while posting LOL!!!



Blade


----------



## Craig (Jan 16, 2005)

Just saw this thread today...been quite busy...

And with others, I say "God bless you as you further understand the covenant".

Yes, congrats are in order. Since I've become more covenantal, I've understood my role as husband better...there is so much more to covenant theology than sprinkling our babies. Seems that's usually the hardest to get over as you're mining through it, but the treasure is well worth it.

(I'm not saying Baptists don't understand their roles as husbands, rather, it's been my embrace of covenant theology that allowed me to overthrow certain obstacles in my walk)


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 16, 2005)

Nathan is that you in your Avatar? If it is has anyone told you, that you look like Joel Osteen.:bigsmile:


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Jan 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Just thought I would share about my recent change. I have been so overwhelmed with Scriptural evidence (not in the writings of Reformers) that Covenant Theology is the only way to read the Bible accurately and understand God's gracious covenant with His people. Furthermore, I now see that the Baptist presupposition to Scripture simply falls apart when you start applying it to Scripture as a whole. Even Reformed Baptist arguments are cornered when you find that the entire basis for believing the NC is "believers only" is based on Jeremiah 31, a prophecy that, from what I can tell, is entirely eschatological in reference to the restoration of Israel at the end of time (cf. Romans 11). Not to mention the fact that we are to interpret Scripture as a whole, with clearer passages to interpret less-clear ones (i.e. prophecy), and the clear teaching of Scripture as a whole is that the kingdom of God, the New Covenant in His blood, has both regenerate and unregenerate/apostates within it. All of the parables of the kingdom point to this, and Judas is the best example of it that is so blunt we cannot ignore that our Lord gave Him the cup of the NC, despite knowing his apostasy to come!
> 
> Thoughts?



Thank the Lord. As I become more knowledgable in the Reformed faith everyday. The Bible, and the History of the Christian Church make more sense now to me. 

I hope next Sunday we have an infant baptism.

EDITED FOR CLARITY BY ADMIN

[Edited on 1-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Jan 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> Nathan is that you in your Avatar? If it is has anyone told you, that you look like Joel Osteen.:bigsmile:



That had to hurt.


----------



## nicnap (Jan 18, 2005)

Gabriel,
I haven't read the whole forum through (only the first few posts), but I must say-praise the Lord. I recently completed this same "journey"-it all began with the Scriptures for me as well. Began to study and voila-here I am.

Webmaster,
Congratulations...when did you become oficially Dr. McMahon? 

*As a side note, yes I did read sources from both "camps"-I even found myself "trying to remain a baptist" no matter what- baptist is all I have ever known; my whole family (mine and my wife's) is baptist, but the Lord continued to work in spite of my wants, and I am convinced of Scriptural paedobaptism. (Yes, I embrace the Presbyterian. view of sacrements and ecclesiology-began to embrace those as my study progressed.)

[Edited on 1-18-2005 by nicnap]

[Edited on 1-18-2005 by nicnap]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by nicnap_
> Webmaster,
> Congratulations...when did you become oficially Dr. McMahon?



http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8404


----------



## nicnap (Jan 20, 2005)

Thanks Chris, 
You are a pretty handy guy, for us lazy people who do not wish to do the work of searching...   .


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Jan 21, 2005)

Ok, you guys. You are disobeying Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be BAPTIST every one of you...
CBPV (Canadian Baptist Paraphrased Version)


Actually, major changes in theological perspective are both frightening and exciting times. They drive us to the Word and make us more dependant on Christ as our source for truth. I currently lean to the New Covenant Theology view of the covenants, however in recent days I have been giving the tenets of CT a serious look for the first time. When you think you grasp a system and it makes sense scripturally, it brings comfort yet sometimes stagnation, however when you begin to doubt that system and see the merits of something you don't quite understand, it brings apprehension and fear. May the Spirit of God lead us into all truth!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Darrin


----------

