# Baptists: I might be a Jerk at Times but I'm not Petty...



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2007)

I got a PM from a Baptist brother who wanted to post on a Baptist thread. He feared responding to my post not because I'm a trained, steely-eyed killer but because "...he heard..." that if he responded to my posts that I would delete his posts and potentially ban him.

Huh?

First, I have never made the call to ban a single individual on the board so let's dispense with that nonsense. Those decisions are made by consensus.

Second, I don't know of a single Baptist who's been banned for being a Baptist or for arguing aggressively. I've seen a number leave because they accuse the board of denying the Gospel but I don't know of a single Baptist banned.

Third, I don't delete posts unless they are way off-topic. In some cases they're moved. Recently the only posts I've deleted in Baptism threads were from paedobaptists who were posting in violation of the intent of the thread. I don't know of any Baptist posts I've deleted on the subject of Baptism but I'm open to anybody pointing those out.

Fourth, if I have deleted any posts by Baptists then I can tell you, for a fact, that I have _never_ deleted a post simply because it challenged my beliefs.

OK, that's done.

Break, break.

I admit I can be mean sometimes on some threads. I have a quick temper. I find myself having to go back and edit my remarks sometimes because I was attacking the man and not the position. Those who have followed my posts for some time know that I try and maintain peace with folks in spite of it. I know for a fact that I've caused Trevor Johnson's blood to boil in the past but he and I get along just fine. I think I actually get along a bit better with almost every Baptist on this board than I do with some of the Presbyterians here. I'm not happy with the fact that I don't get along with everybody but, this side of glory, we're all being sanctified. I do try to live in peace with all men if it's in my power.

Some of the baptists who might find my tone arrogant or frustrating on the board in the Baptism thread need to keep a few things in mind. First, some of that perception is reality. I'm a sinner. Second, some of you need thicker skin. Third, these issues are consequential: If you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen.

I don't really like milquetoasts. I expect men to have a backbone. They better have one if they come into the Baptism forum.

As nice as many of you are here, there are hardly any Reformed Baptists bodies who would recognize the baptism of my children as legitimate. There are many Baptist bodies who wouldn't even allow them to join their Church. Baptists can complain all they want that their feelings might have been a bit bruised here but at least I'm not barring you from the Table of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is true of Presbyterians in general. You might believe yourself a picked on minority but, in the real world, you've got great company for your sacramentology. You can be comfortable in a Presbyterian body and enjoy full fellowship. I cannot say the same for myself in all Baptist fellowships. 

Part of the reason the message irked me is how honest I've been with so many Baptists in laboring to answer their questions and trying to understand their position better. I can honestly say that I've tried to be impeccable in criticizing actual beliefs and asking for answers while answering critics of my beliefs without obfuscation. You may not like my answers but I don't demand anything out of you that I don't deman of myself. Marines call this Ductus Exemplo.

Perhaps this is an isolated case of one person who heard something about me and repeated it to another Baptist brother. BUT, if the perception is that I'm a Grumpy Old Troll that is just plain mean to Baptists well it just ain't true. Even if I am mean to them, I don't delete their posts and I don't ban them unless they become Presbyterians and become FV. For my part, I promise to keep trying to be a kinder man when my words can be just as effective without barbs. BUT, I will not enter a debate and allow Baptists to get away with sloppy thinking and patronize them like kindergatens that hold graduation ceremonies. It might be uncomfortable for some of you but it's for your own good!

Grace and Peace,

Rich
p.s. Look at that nice smile in that picture above. Could a mean guy make a cutie pie like Sophia smile?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 18, 2007)

We're all jerks from time to time brother. We discuss things here that are very touchy and this is a good place to learn patience, self control and charitable behaviour toward all our brethren. I myself have leaned much here about controlling my temper. The bad thing about a computer is there is no tone or voice inflection so sometimes you misunderstand what a person is trying to communicate to you. Hope you and your family have a great Lord's Day! 

Now check my spelling jarhead!


----------



## Ivan (Mar 18, 2007)

Rich, you certainly have been kind and helpful to me. I think this is an isolated situation, but I'm glad you got it off your chest.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 18, 2007)

Rich,

I’m glad you posted this. Modern American pietism simply wants to “nice” things away when faced up with an issue or throw the “you are just being mean” cold water on it. I’m like you, I’m a sinner and I cannot prevent sin mingling everything I do. But the Cross of Christ is hidden MORE often among the claim of “be nice” than under any other way I know in this country. Men ought to have thicker skin than that. Unfortunately today in American society boys are not raised that way in fact any man that is that way will most certainly be beat down for it eventually as a “bad guy”. 

This is why today when many read Luther or Calvin they are shocked at the strength of their language. Well, when my soul is the issue and the souls of others, I really don’t care. I don’t need a sassy hair pulling sissy battling for me, I need a sword wielding Gospel warrior.

On other topics among family and local friends I use to get beat up by the “your being mean” or similar response. It always came out when discussing something and it challenged them and they found themselves backed into a corner, especially Gospel. Back then, new in the faith and into that pietistic rubbish, I’d back down thinking, “yea Larry you are just being mean again”.

For me the issue over baptism is always similar to what you said. It’s an issue of fellowship, especially for my children since my wife and I were baptized “the Baptist way”. But it’s also an issue of witness. I’ve to steel my children’s minds into the faith so that later on when dad is gone they will not doubt the grace of Christ upon them and be drawn into the trap of Gospel-less rebaptism, truly false baptism, and blindly think they need experience this “conversion experience” when challenged in the future. I don’t want them to think THAT is what the faith is but Christ outside of us for us. That type of faith is folly and will NEVER survive the second death. And when they, my children, witness to the faith they are always pointing to Christ and not themselves. 

Ever listen to pietistic testimonies? Who are they pointing to? It’s always themselves, “I use to be, blah blah blah, then the Lord took that away from me…ad nausem”. It’s nothing but spiritual pride guised in false humility. No Christ at all. That’s ultimately driven by seeing “conversion” as of necessity at some adult experience later in life and this is stacked upon the necessity of “believers only”. The system constructs itself in the conscience automatically. After all you have to persuade yourself and others - and sustain it forever for strong sin later in life will drive you back to doubt your conversion experience - that you ‘got baptized at the right moment’. Otherwise it’s back to the pool for another dip, because after all you are really working your way to heaven no matter what you say you affirm. This leads to a deluded view of sanctification that is in opposition to Scripture. So, you fabricate this embellished story of a ‘life changing experience’ and convince yourself, “you drastically got better and are now getting better”. And so you religiously work for heaven. But Sinclair Ferguson correctly observes, "from the New Testament's point of view, those who have almost forgotten about their own spirituality because their focus is so exclusively on their union with Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished are those who are growing and exhibiting fruitfulness. Historically speaking, whenever the piety of a particular group is focused on OUR spirituality that piety will eventually exhaust itself on its own resources. Only where our piety forgets about itself and focuses on Jesus Christ will our piety nourished by the ongoing resources the Spirit brings to us from the source of all true piety, our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Under the legal strain of the sacraments at length as it logically plays itself out, nobody is interested in telling about Christ crucified but how their lives changed. The testimony becomes ME and not “behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. They MUST or doubt they are saved by the necessity it sets up in the conscience. Challenge people like that to give their testimony but don’t use the pronouns “I” or “me”. Frighteningly the testimony disappears.

L


----------



## Herald (Mar 18, 2007)

Rich - you're one cool Presbyterian dude. Don't change your ways.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> He feared responding to my post not because *I'm a trained, steely-eyed killer *



Yup, that's you alright.  



SemperFideles said:


> p.s. Look at that nice smile in that picture above. Could a mean guy make a cutie pie like Sophia smile?



Nice? Yeah right, I bet you photoshopped that smile. 


Rich, honestly, I find myself PMing you, telling you sorry for crossing the line. You have been a teacher to me brother. I really do appreciate our discussions( even though I'm right  .... ).


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 18, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - you're one cool Presbyterian dude. Don't change your ways.



I second that! I've seen nothing but solid, biblical theology from you. Sometimes a bit like Luther, and I mean that as a compliment. 

You've got my support and prayers!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 18, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> Rich,
> 
> I’m glad you posted this. Modern American pietism simply wants to “nice” things away when faced up with an issue or throw the “you are just being mean” cold water on it. I’m like you, I’m a sinner and I cannot prevent sin mingling everything I do. But the Cross of Christ is hidden MORE often among the claim of “be nice” than under any other way I know in this country. Men ought to have thicker skin than that. Unfortunately today in American society boys are not raised that way in fact any man that is that way will most certainly be beat down for it eventually as a “bad guy”.
> 
> ...




Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Ah Rich....I'd never admit it even if you did cause my blood to boil once or twice!


No need to admit it...


> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson a long time ago_
> I am watching from the side lines and am appreciating the very, very good points made by both sides...but I have withdrawn myself from this discussion because, quite frankly, *I find myself getting ticked off.*





> Limp-wristed theology is for the episcopalians..literally!




Thanks everyone. You like me! You really like me!


----------



## BJClark (Mar 18, 2007)

SemperFideles;

Personally, as a woman, I love to read the posts on this board, seeing men calling others out on the truth and faith no matter the topic. It is a far cry from other forums I have posted on where the men came across as 'limp wristed' and lacked a backbone to stand for truth. It truly made me ill.

So a hearty  and a  for all the men who stand firm in the truth of the Gospel!! 

May God raise up more of you!!!


----------



## Herald (Mar 18, 2007)

It does help if you have thick skin. The PB isn't for wusses.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> No need to admit it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you really look like a sun burnt Sally Field? Did you not hear what General Pace said Colonel?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 18, 2007)

Ehhh, you think this board is tuff...it's pretty tame as far as debate goes. You ought to go visit some of the Lutheran boards. I do like their style, they don't mince words and thin skin simply won't survive. Thin skin is welcome but it's thinness won't be able to stand the heat.

I think it was Katie Luther in Luthe's old age told him that he was being rude once. True to Luther he responded, "They teach me to be that way." 

One of my favorite Spurgeon stories was when some woman in the congregation spoke up saying something like, 'the Lord gave me a message to give to you', to which Spurgeon replied, "And the Lord gave me a message for you and he said to sit down and shut up".

Another time a prime woman approached Spurgeon saying, "Mr. Spurgeon you are the rudest most arrogant man I've ever heard." Spurgeon replied turning to her and the awaiting crowd to see what he would say, "And she doesn't know the half of it." 

I think Luther and Spurgeon where cut from the same cloth, gotta love their resolve.

L


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 18, 2007)

Not totally true.... I go to a Presbyterian church though I am a Reformed Baptist.... But because I do not believe in Paedo baptism I can not join the church and so I am barred from the Table of the Lord.

I do not disagree with their policies on the Lord's Supper (Session Controlled), in fact I accept them full heartly, I just kinda wished they would make exception for us Reformed Baptist there since we came out of church split... We do believe everything they do, 99.9%, just not infant baptism...

But it does go both ways.... Lord's Supper or baptism.. Baptist churches or Presbyterian churches....

Michael




SemperFideles said:


> As nice as many of you are here, there are hardly any Reformed Baptists bodies who would recognize the baptism of my children as legitimate. There are many Baptist bodies who wouldn't even allow them to join their Church. Baptists can complain all they want that their feelings might have been a bit bruised here but at least I'm not barring you from the Table of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is true of Presbyterians in general. You might believe yourself a picked on minority but, in the real world, you've got great company for your sacramentology. You can be comfortable in a Presbyterian body and enjoy full fellowship. I cannot say the same for myself in all Baptist fellowships.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Not totally true.... I go to a Presbyterian church though I am a Reformed Baptist.... But because I do not believe in Paedo baptism I can not join the church and so I am barred from the Table of the Lord.
> 
> I do not disagree with their policies on the Lord's Supper (Session Controlled), in fact I accept them full heartly, I just kinda wished they would make exception for us Reformed Baptist there since we came out of church split... We do believe everything they do, 99.9%, just not infant baptism...
> 
> ...



Point taken Michael although the Presbyterian Churches that have such policies barring membership to credo-baptists are few and far between. Most allow full membership and table priviliges.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 18, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> It does help if you have thick skin. The PB isn't for wusses.



One of my favorite parts about this place!


----------



## matt01 (Mar 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Point taken Michael although the Presbyterian Churches that have such policies barring membership to credo-baptists are few and far between. Most allow full membership and table priviliges.



We are in a similar position. We have attended a PCA church for over two years now. While the church would allow us to join, the pastor has stated that we would face disciple for not baptizing our daughter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2007)

matthew said:


> We are in a similar position. We have attended a PCA church for over two years now. While the church would allow us to join, the pastor has stated that we would face disciple for not baptizing our daughter.



I'm going to have Pastor Greco weigh in on this. Standby...


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 18, 2007)

Hi Matthew,

The church mentioned that we attend is a RPCNA...
Our exile was over a church split, us and many other families left....
Not to pry, and you dont have to answer if you do not want to.. Why are you exiled?


We have a 2 year old daugther also, who we would have to baptize in order to join partake of the Lord's Table....
Michael



matthew said:


> We are in a similar position. We have attended a PCA church for over two years now. While the church would allow us to join, the pastor has stated that we would face disciple for not baptizing our daughter.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2007)

> > It does help if you have thick skin. The PB isn't for wusses.
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite parts about this place!



I'm so glad that it was a "hey, you'd better have thick skin to hang in this kitchen" attitude. If it had been "I might be a Jerk at Times but I'm not petty.... however, some of you are stepping on the toes of my inner child and have really hurt my feelings", I think it would have been a major blow to my faith!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Hi Matthew,
> 
> The church mentioned that we attend is a RPCNA...
> Our exile was over a church split, us and many other families left....
> ...



OK guys. This is not a "Hi I'm a Baptist exiled to a Presbyterian Church..." thread. Maybe you guys could start one. "Hi, my name's Rich and it's been 3 years since I've heard a pastor give an altar call...."

Unfortunately for Baptists (actually fortunately), the Reformed faith is historically and predominantly paedobaptist. That's why you peculiar people have such a hard time finding enough others like you in an area to start a Church with.

Oops, look at me, I'm being direct again! 

Seriously, I would love to worship with more Reformed Baptists out here (there are a few couples here that are). I don't disdain those that I'm laboring in love to reform but, man, it is rough dealing with heterodoxy sometimes and the SBC has a good dose of it in its members.

I really do want Pastor Greco to weigh in on Matthew's post because I've never heard of a PCA Church doing that to a Baptist before.

By the way Michael, what's the thunaer handle? I keep wanting to call you Thundarr!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 18, 2007)

> We are in a similar position. We have attended a PCA church for over two years now. While the church would allow us to join, the pastor has stated that we would face disciple for not baptizing our daughter



We have many at our PCA that don’t baptize their children that are reformed/Calvinistic leaning Baptist looking for a home, but they don’t face church discipline for it. I Have ponderings on the situation, nothing dogmatic, I admit. I tend to like to make a “mental” distinction between the rise of “believers only” in the 1500s and today. So much confusion has occurred since then and the various teachings defended it’s much tougher to “ferret” out the truth so many centuries removed and takes time to teach folks. Personally, I would lean toward teaching and not church discipline, but maybe I’m being soft there, maybe not. Like I said, it’s one I have a tough time with. Even when you intellectually and spiritually understand why babies are baptized of believers families and come to it yourself, it’s a tough move. It’s hard, having been Baptist for so many years myself, to emotionally make that move EVEN after you’ve mentally made it. Your mind says one thing but the old believers only emotions are still there, and you can’t discount the devil’s operation too because it’s a blow to him, the spiritual warfare component if you will, this adds to the apprehension and fear. It was kind of like my conversion from atheism, there was a certain oddness of now entering into that which I warred so long against.

It would be one thing if an entire “nation” of Baptist came to understand and baptize their children or even an entire group that together arrived at it (it has happened, I once read of an entire Baptist congregation requesting entry into the LCMS) and you moved along with them. There’s a certain strength in numbers and fellow “arrivers”. Quite another when it’s just you, your spouse and family doing it and leaving behind, so to speak, many you formerly fellowshipped with…knowing they don’t understand it and won’t understand you and think you’ve drastically erred. So, it’s not easy even once you’ve arrived at it affirmatively…make no mistake about it. That’s why I lean more toward teaching.

Ldh


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 18, 2007)

I have tuff skin... Lets go.....     

Just kidding.... I should have PMed that message to matthew... sorry...

Well, I deny your charge about historically and predominantly the reformed faith has been paedobaptist.....

I can think of the large pre reformation Baptistic Waldensians who where Calvinistic and Covenantal, in substance Reformed, and they are Ancient.
and Particular Baptist have been more numerous in the 1700 and 1800s..
We might be in decline today, but we have had our numbers in the past and we are growing again....

Do not forgot my favorite, Tertullian in 200 A.D. in his works on De Baptizo, calling Infant and Child baptism New in his day. and he preached to hold off until Adulthood...

Anyway, I still respect all my paedo baptist brethren....

Coram Deo
Michael



SemperFideles said:


> OK guys. This is not a "Hi I'm a Baptist exiled to a Presbyterian Church..." thread. Maybe you guys could start one. "Hi, my name's Rich and it's been 3 years since I've heard a pastor give an altar call...."
> 
> Unfortunately for Baptists (actually fortunately), the Reformed faith is historically and predominantly paedobaptist. That's why you peculiar people have such a hard time finding enough others like you in an area to start a Church with.
> 
> ...


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 18, 2007)

LOL, close enough.... It is an ancient german name... I have trouble thinking of internet names that are not used, and since I am a history major I took a page from my ancestory.... It does mean thunder I think.....

Michael





SemperFideles said:


> By the way Michael, what's the thunaer handle? I keep wanting to call you Thundarr!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2007)

Regarding thick skin - don't we only call it thick skin because most people have become accustomed to having such thin skin? Isn't it just normal skin?

I'm teaching on the Proverbs in a week and the Proverbs does not mince words: Consider the Ant you sluggard!

What about Paul calling lazy people deniers of the faith? Sin is ugly and cruel and the Scriptures warn against it in the harshest of language.

The Proverbs, for instance, says that a father hates his son if he refuses to correct him. Dude, that hits you in the solar plexes. Better to have bruised feelings than weeping for a child that's dead or, worse yet, repudiated the faith because you never drove folly from his heart.

I love Scripture because it is so real. The characters express real sorrow and real pain but, out of the whirlwind God says that He's in control. That's a solid platform from which we can be real men and fight against all the darkness in a rebellious world.

I don't know about you guys but modern culture turns my stomach in the way they treat kids. I remember making fun of a friend years ago because his Catholic School had a graduation ceremony for the 8th Graders who were going off to High School. This was around 1982. Now the culture has graduation ceremonies for pre-schools. Give me a break!

The movie _Meet the Fockers_ has a funny scene where DiNiro is in Gaylord's room looking at the wall of trophies that his father (Dustin Hoffman) has saved.

"I didn't realize they gave out trophies for fifth place," quips DiNiro.

The culture laughs at itself because that idea is worthy of derision.

I love listening to the White Horse Inn. Rod Rosenbladt actually has quite a few telling things to say about the kids he runs into regularly. Just today, in fact, they were talking about how it used to be that people were trained to think less of themselves. Today we are trained to think more of ourselves. Even our "testimonies" today are not about what Christ has done on the Cross but how we "feel" about what Christ has done or how great my life is. People are shocked that you would tell them that their feelings are suspect.

I'm actually glad I'm older. It's hard enough reforming the sin in my life without the hyper-narcissism that exists today. I have to admit that, even in my flesh, today's culture is completely foreign to what I grew up with. I received corporal punishment as a teenager in Texas one day just to give some of you youngsters a shocking point of reference. It hurt like you wouldn't believe but, man, am I glad the Vice Principal didn't call my parents to tell them I was acting up in class.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm going to have Pastor Greco weigh in on this. Standby...



Rich,

It is possible that a PCA church could have this kind of policy. Very few PCA churches would not allow a Baptist to join, and the same time practice closed communion so that only members of the church could commune. Most PCA churches allow anyone who is a member in good standing of an evangelical church to participate in the Lord's supper. The same is true of OPC churches. I don't know about RPCNA polity as well, so it could be the norm to have closed communion, or it could be the exception. Either way, the vast majority of Presbyterian churches practice _close _communion (you must be a member of an evangelical church) not _closed _communion (you must be a member of the particular congregation or interviewed by the Session even as a visitor). So obviously the position that Michael is describing is one that is few and far between (I personally only know of a few such PCA churches).

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.

But I will say that is within the rights of a PCA church to make the statement that Michael quoted. It would certainly seem to be within the rights of an RPCNA church as well. I hope it has been some help.

Now I'm going to get in touch with you for some more website help.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


>



That reminds me of this:








THUNDER CATS!!! HOOOOO!!!!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 18, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Rich,
> But I will say that is within the rights of a PCA church to make the statement that Michael quoted. I hope it has been some help.
> 
> Now I'm going to get in touch with you for some more website help.



Great post Pastor Greco. You've earned more chits for website work!


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 18, 2007)

One problem... I Michael am not attending the PCA, Matthew is... I am attending a RPCNA...

Just wanted to clerify....

Michael



fredtgreco said:


> Rich,
> 
> It is possible that a PCA church could have this kind of policy. Very few PCA churches would not allow a Baptist to join, and the same time practice closed communion so that only members of the church could commune. Most PCA churches allow anyone who is a member in good standing of an evangelical church to participate in the Lord's supper. So obviously the position that Michael is describing is one that is few and far between (I personally only know of a few such PCA churches).
> 
> ...


----------



## Herald (Mar 19, 2007)

Trevor, wise words. I've never known an unbeliever who cares a lick about supralapsarianism or EP. They care about themselves and need to see themselves against God's law. Only then can we share with them the gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Just a note about the general flow of this thread:
> 
> 
> While this PB is the place for hard discussion, don't take all of your attitudes out of doors when dealing with some unsaved folks.
> ...



Trevor,

What?! That's crazy!!

Yes, I agree. Lessons are all about what you're trying to teach at the time you're teaching them. What I'm talking about is our _aim_ to be tough-minded and not be afraid to stand for things simply because it offends. There are hard things in the Scriptures and they're there whether or not we're trying to be winsome.

I honestly can be pretty nice to people that are milqetoast themselves. It's the difference between being a protector and being protected. The protected don't always have to be able to pick up a sword but the defenders on the wall better know how to carry one when they're needed. I've managed to teach some pretty hard truths for some time to an SBC congregation. 

Being loving, convicted and winsome are actually complementary. Why? Because when people know you have deep convictions and you have consistent integrity in those convictions AND they know that you love them and that you want what's best for them, then they will accept some pretty hard things from you and know that you're not doing something or saying something because it's mean.

On the contrary, you can be really nice to people all the time and they know that you love them but if you have no backbone and let others walk all over them, it's very frustrating for them that nobody is looking out for them.

Let me offer an example.

I've shared about the Franklin Graham "missionary" who was filling the pulpit for some time in our Church. He was also living in the parsonage and had made a contract with us to pay the rent every month. He failed to pay rent for several months and the deacons were letting the Church secretary and the treasurer (both women) keep reminding him that he needed to pay but he was taking no action. I finally got wind of it months into the problem as the head of the treasury committee. I immediately demanded that we take specific steps so that there was no doubt that this man was dodging his commitments. It became obvious that he was and we literally had to go over his head to his boss to make him pay.

In the meantime, the women that knew of this whole affair were so distraught over this lack of integrity that they would leave the Church during his "sermons" (by the way, they were ALL horrible). A couple of us asked that he be removed from the pulpit for this breech. The deacons met and decided to allow him to preach. I sent them a private e-mail expressing my displeasure and telling them, in no uncertain terms, that they were failing to lead. Big mistake on my part. The mistake was not my rebuke of their behavior but the means (NEVER use e-mail). One of the deacon's wives forwarded it to a bunch of people inside and out of the Church (including the interim preacher) saying that the Church needed to pray about this and that she couldn't believe that this was being brought up by me. I found out about it from another.

Well, the good news was that the man, based on my e-mail, decided to stop preaching but not until he preached on last message in which he took Scripture out of context one last time as was his habit to show that the _only_ important thing was spreading the Gospel and that, in essence, this other business was superfluous. One of the deacons was emotionally broken up that he was leaving but I asked to speak with all 3 men in the Church Office.

I took them through the Scriptures in 30 minutes and showed them how a leader had to care for the sheep and had to be men above reproach. I showed them why God gave us Pastors and Teachers. The lead deacon told me that he never really wanted the leadership but that the Church had no other choice. I told him that it didn't matter. He _had_ leadership whether he wanted it or not and that he had to step up to the plate.

Do you know how that meeting ended? They were all GLAD that the man was now gone and wanted to know if we should contact the Franklin Graham assocation about his breech of integrity. What happened afterwards is interesting but not important here. The important thing is that I not only maintained fellowship with all three men but our fellowship was strengthened incredibly over that. It was exhilirating for me because I had started that day depressed that I was going to have to leave that Church.

We eventually had a congregational meeting and I got up and told everybody to please forgive me for using the wrong means but I explained my reasons and that I could not simply allow others to continue to be harmed by the man. They knew I loved them and they didn't understand all the reasons but they knew that I had done what I thought was right for them.

This is all a long way of saying that I agree with you Trevor. I don't go out of my way to offend people. I do that quite naturally just because I say stupid things and often. I do try to be all things to all people and be able to have compassion on the lost but there is backbone in that compassion. Men without backbone can have compassion on people but they lack the resolve to actually protect others from harm. We need to do both: I hug my daughter and tell her I love her all the time but woe to the man that tries to break into my house. They'll have to walk over my corpse to get to her!


----------



## CDM (Mar 19, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Not totally true.... I go to a Presbyterian church though I am a Reformed Baptist.... But because I do not believe in Paedo baptism I can not join the church and so I am barred from the Table of the Lord.
> 
> I do not disagree with their policies on the Lord's Supper (Session Controlled), in fact I accept them full heartly, I just kinda wished they would make exception for us Reformed Baptist there since we came out of church split... We do believe everything they do, 99.9%, just not infant baptism...
> 
> ...



The sacrament of Baptism is hardly .01% of the matter.

This is the position of any Presbyterian church that actually holds to the WCF.
Chapter XXVIII (Of Baptism):



> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
> 
> II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
> 
> ...



So, if would-be members are continuing in "great sin" how could they rightly be admitted as members? 

A body that holds to the WCF, to be consistent with its beliefs, could not "make exception" for members who were engaged in "great sin".


----------



## py3ak (Mar 19, 2007)

That is a great story, Trevor. 

I did have one question: did you understand that they had rules before you enrolled?


----------



## py3ak (Mar 19, 2007)

I'm glad to hear it, Trevor. While their rules are indeed *insane*, if you had joined up knowing what they were they would have had a point about a lack of submission. But as it stands, "common sense" would seem to equal "pointless legalism".


----------



## Scott (Mar 19, 2007)

> 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 *sitting *by baptizing my children.


Pastor Way is sinnning by withholding baptism and you are sitting by baptizing your children . . . I think you got the better end of that deal.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 19, 2007)

Scott said:


> Pastor Way is sinnning by withholding baptism and you are sitting by baptizing your children . . . I think you got the better end of that deal.



Yikes! I blame Dragon Naturally Speaking!

Fixed now.


----------

