# Something I found interesting



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

This is the introduction to an article by *W.J. Seaton*. The full article can be found at:

http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church/baptbapt.html

_I thought it was interesting because all along I have been saying that we should get church doctrine from the NT. What do you all think about this?_

There are two main views of baptism held and practiced within the professing 'visible' Churches of Christ: that which involves the sprinkling of infants, and that which involves the immersion of those who confess their sins towards God, and profess their faith in Jesus Christ the Lord.

The first view of baptism rests essentially on the understanding of the 'Covenant of Redemption,' "“ the arrangement and the agreement of redemption "“ that God made with Abraham and his 'seed' after him. The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.

The first view of baptism is that which is usually referred to as Paedo-baptism, that is, the baptism of children; the second view is usually called the Baptistic view.

Both, of course, look to the Scriptures of the Word of God to validate their positions, and both also seek to draw support from the practice of the Churches of Christ following on from the days of the apostles. The paedo-baptists especially, lay great stress on the Old Testament Scriptures; the Baptists, on the New.

It is the Baptistic view of baptism that this booklet will state; and the first foundational remark that we would like to make is this "“ that: There is only one place to begin a study of Christian baptism, and that is in the pages of the New Testament Scriptures of God.

We may not begin a study of baptism with the Old Testament, as though the New Testament was not the final revelation of God. And we ceitainly must not finalise a study of baptism by resting on what may have become an accepted and traditional practice at some point in the Church's History.

Once the true nature of baptism, as revealed in the New Testament, has been settled and established, only then may we look back into the Old Testament to those things that preceeded the Christian ordinance. And only then, also, may we look forward from the New Testament to see the validity of any view of baptism, or anything else that followed.

It is the New Testament that contains God's full revelation concerning baptism and, therefore, all Old Testament references that would be related to the issue of baptism must be related to it in the light of that New Testament revelation. It is the New Testament that contains God's full revelation concerning baptism and, therefore, all the findings and pronouncements of the Church of a later age must be judged in the light of that New Testament revelation.

This rule of interpretation is absolutely basic to a right understanding of Christian baptism, and it is the rule that must be satisfied and applied if we would ever have a conscience "void of offence" on the baptism question.

*P.S. how come if we forget to put a subject before we post our thread, we lose the whole thread???*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2006)

> The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.



Except for Simon. Or those three thousand at Pentecost that likely didn't give lengthy explanations of their conversion to Christ prior to Baptism along with "real" signs of fruit and repentance.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Ok. So I can turn it around. Except for those hundreds of thousands of babies throughout the centuries who couldn't make a profession of faith eh? Don't forget them.

Now, where in the quote that you gave did it say that one had to give a lengthy explanation of show signs of fruit and repentance? I take it that since that passage of Scripture said that 3,000 people believed that day, that there is probably a reason the author knew that? How did those baptizing them know that they believed? Because the people confessed to believing. But I still see nothing about signs/fruit/repentance there. 

I have a question. Why were Roman Catholics and Protestants alike MURDERING anabaptists? THAT is not a good sign of fruit and repentance, wouldn't you agree?

[Edited on 9-3-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Ok. So I can turn it around. Except for those hundreds of thousands of babies throughout the centuries who couldn't make a profession of faith eh? Don't forget them.



All those who were believers in the Lord, and regenerated through the Word of God and their Baptism, professed faith. When this happened, temporally, doesn't matter. Those who rejected their Baptism and the Word of God were damned and cut-off from God's mercy and covenant.



> Now, where in the quote that you gave did it say that one had to give a lengthy explanation of show signs of fruit and repentance? I take it that since that passage of Scripture said that 3,000 people believed that day, that there is probably a reason the author knew that? How did those baptizing them know that they believed? Because the people confessed to believing. But I still see nothing about signs/fruit/repentance there.



Maybe I jumped to a conclusion you do not share. If so, my apologies. I guess my point is that the Baptist view of baptism rests on the fact that it is PART of one's profession of faith and should occur after such a profession. How you define "profession of faith" would then in turn explain whether or not a simple "I believe" is sufficient for baptism, especially on such a large scale as at Pentecost. I would think most evangelicals today would be in an uproar if 3,000 people at a "revival" simply said "i believe" and were considered regenerate, justified, etc. and qualified for baptism. Then again, I forgot about revivalism... 



> I have a question. Why were Roman Catholics and Protestants alike MURDERING anabaptists? THAT is not a good sign of fruit and repentance, wouldn't you agree?



Because they were heretics. This is an attempt, on your part (if I may assume), to poison the well or overturn the validity of infant baptism with an _ad hominem to quoque_, but I'll bite the bullet and say that such murder was justified, when and where it happened. It wouldn't "fly" today, however, nor should it. This is, of course, my opinion though.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...


----------



## BJClark (Sep 3, 2006)

From my understanding when an infant is Baptised, it is ONLY baptising them into the Coventant Family based on their parents faith and really not much different than a Baptist who dedicated their infant without the water.

The baptist churches I've gone to in the past had baby dedications all the time, which was basically saying "we believe this child is a member of the coventant family" and we as the parents will raise our child up in the tenants of our faith.

Pretty much the same thing parents do at our church now, so really how is it much different by the actions, other than one is with water and one without?

Even in the PCA if an infant is Baptisted, when they are older they still need to accept Christ as their own Savior, no longer relying on their parents faith as their own.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.
> ...



I am not precisely certain what you mean: regarding Simon, Acts 8.12-13 says, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

It would seem obvious from this passage that Simon had in fact made a profession of faith in Christ. The fact that this profession ultimately proved to be a false one does not negate the fact that the profession was made, and it was on the basis of this profession that he was baptized.

Regarding the 3,000 at Pentecost, the record in Acts 2 records that "when they heard this [Peter's preaching], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins' . . . Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. " (v.37-38, 41)

It would seem equally obvious in this passage that these 3,000 had confessed repentance and faith in Christ. No one said anything about lengthy explanations, but surely they had made a profession of faith.


More importantly, I am not certain what exactly you would hope to show by establishing that Simon and these 3,000 were baptized without a profession of faith? Because, to my understanding, reformed Credo-baptists and Paedo-baptists would all agree that at least in regards to _non-infant_ baptisms, that is baptism of "adult" converts as opposed to infants of believers, we would require a credible profession of faith in order to administer baptism to an individual. Surely your Presbyterian church would not baptise new adult converts without such a profession of faith?

Given that Simon and many of the 3,000 at Pentecost would have belonged to exactly such a class of adult "converts", why would you hope to show that they were baptised without confession of sin and profession of faith in Christ? Surely you do not actually believe that that is the Biblical teaching _in regards to adult converts_?

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 9-3-2006 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> . . .
> 
> _I thought it was interesting because all along I have been saying that we should get church doctrine from the NT. What do you all think about this?_
> . . .



This view is dispensational. We are to get all our doctrine, including that of the church, from the whole counsel of God. (Acts 20:27. "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.") The church in the OT was the "church in the wilderness." NT believers are one in Christ with OT saints.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2006)

Brian, I don't recall saying you're a covenant breaker. I must have missed something. I'm not sure what the killing of heretics in the 16th/17th century has to do with infant baptism.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 3, 2006)

Gabriel, I simply cannot believe you would say something like that. 

I'm not going to mince words or debate it however.


> For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
> "”2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NKJV)


 Maybe, I should stay away from Presbyterians. More and more of them seem crazy day-by-day, particularly after this F.N. Lee non-sense I heard the other day.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Gabriel, I simply cannot believe you would say something like that.
> 
> I'm not going to mince words or debate it however.
> ...



Was God unjust in commanding the murder of homosexuals in Leviticus? We are so far removed from the culture in which the death of "anabaptists" occurred at the hands of the Roman Church and so forth, that it is kind of hard for us to sit on our computers in North America in the 21st Century and make sweeping judgments about how "unsanctified" so-and-so's behavior was. At that time in our history, the State -- which WAS the Church -- executed heretics. It was justified. Today, things are completely different, and none of us is going to go around executing Mormons or other heretics. Not only is it unlawful, it is not our responsibility or right. Don't read more into my reluctant comments to the aforementioned person's -- in my opinion -- odd remarks, which I found to be completely unrelated to any discussion in this thread.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2006)

Just for the sake of clarification, I hope no Baptists on this board view themselves as "Anabaptists." They denied so many tenets of the faith, it was manifestly clear that they were heretical. Just because modern Baptists share in common a few things with the Anabaptists (like... putting off baptism until later in life -- although for radically different reasons than modern Baptists) does not make them such. I would never make such a deduction, at least.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Just for the sake of clarification, I hope no Baptists on this board view themselves as "Anabaptists."



No, of course not.


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.



This is contradicted by the 16th chapter of the Acts, where we discover the "households" of Lydia and the Philippian jailor were baptised. Profession of faith is not mentioned as a pre-requisite to the baptism of the households. In fact, it is to be doubted if it was pre-requisite even to Lydia and the jailor. We hear of their readiness to attend upon the preached word. "Judged faithful" and "believing" are characteristics which are mentioned after their baptism.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Gabriel, the murdering of anyone by the "Christian" church never has been nor ever will be justified. I already explained my purpose for bringing that up; I'm not going to again.

Also, I am not an Anabaptist. Could I safely presume that you were proposing an ad hominem argument yourself? Because I believe in the Anabaptist teaching regarding baptism doesn't mean I agree with them on everything.

And, in what ways did the Anabaptists drift from the faith? What wrong doctrines were they teaching?

[Edited on 9-4-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



Is dispensational wrong though brother? I have not been convinced that it is. I'm open to learning about covenant theology but as of this time I am not convinced of it. I hope I don't have to be a covenant theologian to be a member of this board.

Declaring the whole counsel of God does not negate the fact that we get church doctrine from the NT. Acts was written before Scripture was complete (during a time of transition). You can't get church doctrine from the OT because the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant and the church was not mentioned anywhere in the OT.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 3, 2006)

The biggest mistake that most make concerning the Anabaptist is to romanticize them as being persecuted for the faith as if "œpersecution" in and of itself proves possession of the real faith. Far too many so far divorced from that time period today defend the Anabaptist by putting this up so as to make their anti-gospel "œuntouchable" by a false shield of mere sentimentality to their plight. Many "œfaiths" are persecuted by others, Buddhist for example in atheist China. And laughably the Evolutionist are starting to cry this out in our country today by the Christians, albeit a more passive version. However, persecution in and of itself does not PROVE possession of the Gospel AT ALL!!! In fact as Luther correctly points out, and we would be stupid to believe otherwise, the devil always has his martyrs too.

It is sheer folly to foist persecution forth as the untouchable proof and defense of a false Gospel and that one is in real position of the true faith just because of its inherent harshness. Do you think the devil so dull and as strategically foolish? It would be more like the devil to propagate a false Gospel by using part of his army (Rome) against another part of his army (the Anabaptist) so as too keep the Gospel out of certain things!

Ldh


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Larry, you are just excited in your speech instead of shouting at me I believe.

That said, uh...but why would the devil persecute a group of people for no reason? He pretty much persecutes Christians doesn't he? If the RC Church (which I don't consider Christian, I'm sorry) persecuted Anabaptists, then it suggests to me that the devil was persecuting the Anabaptists through the RC Church. 

Why would the devil persecute other faiths? I believe it is more just sinful man persecuting other faiths, as the devil won't waste his time with a group that is not Christian. And I believe that Christians wouldn't persecute other Christians.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 4, 2006)

Brian,

Dispensational theology, as articulated by such as Darby, Schofield, L. S. Chafer, Walvoord opposes the historic confessions held by the members of this board, in many points. Surely you have observed people using the term "œdispy" in reference to people who hold to this system of doctrine. I personally hold modern premilennial dispensationalism to be heretical in the light of Scripture. I am sure that there are others on this board who would agree with that assessment and would back me up. 

Check out the ground rules of the forum. See *especially Paragraph 7* and note the last sentence in the paragraph. I think that a chief reason why you´re experiencing negative reactions to your posts is because some of us perceive them as opposing doctrines that are systematically taught in Scripture and expressed by these confessions.

You do not have to be a covenant theologian to be a member of this board. You say that you are open to learning about covenant theology, but you say that you are not convinced. Are you willing to be convinced? Does your assertion that you are not convinced of it constitute an indication that you will contend for doctrine that opposes it? 

There are two ways to ask questions. Some people ask questions because they want to learn something and they show by the way they ask the question that they´re open. Others ask questions that might sound like they want to learn something but they show by the way they ask the question that they really have an agenda or that they already have their mind made up and are not willing to be convinced of the truth. Those in the second category tend to make it very clear in subsequent responses when people attempt to answer their questions. Which of these two models do your questions tend to fit?



> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Declaring the whole counsel of God does not negate the fact that we get church doctrine from the NT. Acts was written before Scripture was complete (during a time of transition). You can't get church doctrine from the OT because the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant and the church was not mentioned anywhere in the OT.



At first, I realized that I may have "œjumped the gun" the way I responded to your post. When I reread the message, I saw that I had mentally inserted the word "œonly" so as to read "œwe get church doctrine _only_ from the NT." Initially your comment does not exactly say this, but when you say "œYou can´t get church doctrine from the OT" you qualify it, rendering my original interpretation correct.

Here again, this last sentence opposes the doctrinal standards represented on this forum, in my opinion, because a review of the 1689 Confession, the Westminster Confession, or the Three Forms of Unity will show that our doctrines are drawn from the whole counsel of God, and that includes both testaments of the Scriptures.

This is why, as I understand it, the moderators of this forum require the burden of proof to be upon those who publicly state such views here.

If you are open to being convinced of the doctrines upheld here and ask your questions in that spirit, I am sure that you will be encouraged. If you continue to contend for ideas that undermine or oppose these doctrines, you will not likely be comfortable very long.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



Please forgive me if I do not understand what you are saying. I understand your view with regard to the "households", as that is the standard paedo-baptist view of those passages.

But what do you mean that it is to be doubted if a profession of faith was pre-requisite "even to Lydia and the jailor"? Are you saying that their "readiness to attend upon the preached word" was not expressed as a confession of faith in that preached word before their baptisms?

This seems to me a strange idea, and beyond what paedo-baptists would normally want to establish with these passages. Even conceding, for the sake of discussion, that other members (perhaps infants, etc.) of the household were baptised without a profession of faith, under the paedo-baptist understanding would that not be because of the faith of the head of the household, the entire family coming into covenant with God? If even that head (the jailor, or Lydia) had not made a profession of faith, on exactly what basis would anyone in the household be baptised?

Is it the case in your church that people are baptised as soon as they begin to show some "readiness to attend upon the preached word" even absent a confession of faith? (And what would such "readiness to attend upon the preached word" mean outside of profession of faith in it?)

Thank you for clarifying,

Jie-Huli


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Jay, I am not convinced of covenant theology. I personally don't believe dispensationalism to be heretical. Though I hold to the LBCF, I put Scripture on a higher authority. If I will not be welcome here for that reason then that's fine. I already know that I can't email someone of a "high" rank on this board and get nothing in response but a spelling correction. 

Also, I have been asked questions in a poor spirit at times too. 

I'm sorry, but I get my belief from the Bible. The church was non-existent in the OT, I'm Baptist (they believe the NT is where church doctrine is). We can learn theology, etc. from the OT but church doctrine specifically comes from the NT. If I'm a heretic for saying that, then I am in good company (at least with Baptists anyways). Please listen to what I'm saying. I'll repeat myself. never, and I "mean" never, have I said the OT was useless. As I "did" say, the OT is profitable for much, it is where we can learn theology, etc. But specifically CHURCH DOCTRINE is found in the NT. You can't get church doctrine from the OT when it never mentions the church. 

Also, do I not have the right to contend for what I believe? If the beliefs of everyone on this board are so strong, they should be able to handle it. Yes, I am open to covenant theology but I'm guaranteeing you it is not going to be a walk in the park for you guys to convince me of it. And there is nothing wrong with me saying that. 

What I "am" uncomfortable with on here is how it can be tolerated when a whole group of people are called such things as "covenant-breaker" and on their way to hell, etc. I am uncomfortable with the "bullying" that goes on here on a regular basis. I fight back against that. If I'm going to have to persist in fighting back due to the bullying then maybe I am going to decide that I don't want to be here, like many other people have decided as well. Which would be a shame. Not that many of you would care...


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

P.S. Maybe it's high time that people start realizing that though Confessions can be good, they are NOT Scripture. Scripture is the final authority. 

"Let God be true and every man a liar."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Jay, I am not convinced of covenant theology. I personally don't believe dispensationalism to be heretical. Though I hold to the LBCF, I put Scripture on a higher authority. If I will not be welcome here for that reason then that's fine. I already know that I can't email someone of a "high" rank on this board and get nothing in response but a spelling correction.
> 
> Also, I have been asked questions in a poor spirit at times too.
> ...



The LBC states in ch 26:



> I. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, *consists of the whole number of the elect*, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.[1]
> 
> 1. Heb. 12:23; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:10, 22-23; 5:23, 27, 32


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Jay, I am not convinced of covenant theology. I personally don't believe dispensationalism to be heretical.


 I don't consider dispensationalism heretical by any means, just in error.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Fair enough Ryan.

Uh...Scott...what was your point? All those books that mention the church that you referenced happen to be in the NT.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2006)

> The church was non-existent in the OT


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

It was non-existent in the OT. I am flabbergasted that you could think that it did. Israel existed in the OT. You proved my point by giving only NT verses that mention the church. Israel is Israel; the Church is the Church. Otherwise, we better go back to animal sacrifices, no?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2006)

Brian, some questions and comments for you...this comes from having been raised baptist, dabbled in anabaptism, and being paedobaptist.

1) bad choice "RCC and R persecuting the poor anabaptists"....consider the incident at Munster that involved 1000's of anabaptists. They murdered ppl. Not all anabaptist groups were pacifistic...there were many that were revolutionaries as well, thus causing all anabaptists to be targeted in heavier proportions.

2) anabaptists deny Christ's humaness

3) what do you think you are doing when you "dedicate" a child and where is that found in scripture?

4) The scriptures mentioned the believer AND his household being baptised. This is key. It was a patriarchial society (and that is the structure God intended and we should follow) and thus scriptures would mention the HEAD of the house and then the structure is for the rest of the household to baptised with him to be shown as a covenanted family.

5) The OT then shouldn't even have been cannonized...we should just set it aside with the history books or children's stories. But that is not what happened...it IS holy script and DOES apply in accordance with the NT.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Brian, some questions and comments for you...this comes from having been raised baptist, dabbled in anabaptism, and being paedobaptist.
> 
> *Fair enough, you know what you're talking about.*
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 4, 2006)

Brian,

Scott's post was conferring something. The confessions of the LBC and the WCF refer to the church as consisting of " the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof"

Ephesians 1:22-23 is one of the proof texts.

Eph 1:22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

If Christ paid the penalty for those in the OT as well as the NT, then Christ is the head of his elect (the church) in the OT as well as the NT.

Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Eph 5:27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

I see Jeff. I agree. 

But I don't believe that that proves that church doctrine is found in the OT. I see theology, history, poetry, and sacrificial system laws in there; but not church doctrine.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > The church was non-existent in the OT



Reference was to the "Jewish Church" as in WCF XX:1. I understood that there is a sense in which the church exists in the OT, though not explicitly named as such in the Scriptures.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Fair enough Jay. But this STILL doesn't prove that church doctrine is in the OT. Like I said, I see theology, history, poetry, and Jewish Law, but I don't see church doctrine. I can't put something there that isn't there.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 4, 2006)

Brian, have you ever read Romans 11:11-24? What does it mean to you when it talks of the olive tree, the natural branches, and the unnatural branches? Does not the whole discussion show that the Jews have been broken off from the church, and the Gentiles have been grafted into the church? What of Matthew 21:33-46? Please especially note verse 43, that the "kingdom" is taken away from them (the Jews), and given to another nation. What does this indicate, if not that the same church exists under both Testaments; and that it formerly consisted primarily of Jews, but now consists primarily of Gentiles? What about Matthew 16:18, that "the church" is built on the rock of faith in Christ; so that, because the Old Testament saints had faith in Christ, they also had the church?

If that doesn't "prove that church doctrine is in the OT," what will?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey Sean, of course I've read Romans. I don't know, I've read that the Church was grafted into Israel (though this doesn't mean they are the same thing). It means that they have become partakers of God's Kingdom, as the Gentiles weren't at first.

I'll go read my Bible but I'm going to comment. If the kingdom is taken away and given to another nation, this does not prove that Israel was the Church. If it were, the kingdom would not have been taken away to begin with. Nobody would have to be grafted into anybody. And this doesn't prove that church doctrine is in the OT. Even if the same church did exist in both testaments, it still doesn't prove that the OT contains church doctrine. Like I said, I see theology, history, poetry, and Jewish Law in the OT, but I can't find church doctrine anywhere. The epistles were specifically written to teach the Church it's "doctrines" and how to conduct themselves, etc. 

But the OT saints didn't have the Church. They had "Israel" and a bunch of laws to keep; the Church was a mystery until the NT.


----------



## beej6 (Sep 4, 2006)

If the church is simply God's people, then OT Israel (as a nation) was certainly a church. One of the questions ('mysteries') that the NT answers is, how would the promises originally made to Israel only be given to Gentiles?

"œWhen you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
(Eph. 3.4-6, ESV)

Sometimes Reformed folks are accused of 'replacement theology' with regards to Israel & the church. It's not replacement, it's expansion

(But now we've really digressed from baptism.)


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey BJ, I totally agree with you. However, that still doesn't prove that the OT contains church doctrine. I don't know how to get that across any more clearer than I have.

If the OT contains church doctrine, then why aren't we following it anymore? Why aren't we sacrificing animals on a daily basis? I know the answer, by the way. But if the OT contains church doctrine then we should be sacrificing animals on a daily basis.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Hey BJ, I totally agree with you. However, that still doesn't prove that the OT contains church doctrine. I don't know how to get that across any more clearer than I have.
> 
> If the OT contains church doctrine, then why aren't we following it anymore? Why aren't we sacrificing animals on a daily basis? I know the answer, by the way. But if the OT contains church doctrine then we should be sacrificing animals on a daily basis.



Brian,

I don't know that most of the "church doctrine" that exists in the old testament is explicit. It is rather *fulfilled* in the N.T. For example, the sacrifices pointed to, and are fulfilled by Christ's once for all sacrifice. The O.T. incense pointed to the believers offering of prayers (Rev. 5:8, 8:3,4). etc., etc. The O.T. in this regards can teach us much in regards to N.T. church doctrine. 

I also believe that Paul's giving church doctrine in the N.T. is derived from the O.T. shadows. For example, why does the N.T. church have elders as overseers? They were simply following the O.T. pattern of elders as ordained in Ex. 18 (and elders are mentioned even before this passage). The singing of Psalms are recorded as church worship. In fact, N.T. worship is patterned after the O.T. synaguage.

There is alot to be said regarding all of the correlation between o.t. and n.t. worship/church, but maybe this is a start.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Jeff, thank you. I see what you are saying. Maybe you are right. Though there is no explicit church doctrine in the OT that I'm aware of, your explanation sounds true to me. There were shadows, etc. and the NT does fulfill the OT. 

I believe as well that the sacrifices were a type of the sacrifice of Christ.
Good points. Thanks brother.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 4, 2006)

Brian,

I assure you I'm quite calm. That being said:



> why would the devil persecute a group of people for no reason?



Very simple to answer. Because his primary goal is not persecution but the burying of the Gospel ANY way he can do it. This is what Paul says that the Devil expends most if not all his energies in doing, to continue to blind those perishing. This he can do openly by the sword, persecuting real Christians to get them to succumb. Or he can foist forward a false doctrine, use another group to persecute them IN ORDER to make it look like it is being true to the faith. Again, persecution is never the infallible marker of the Gospel. The Gospel does bring persecution but it may or may not be by the Sword as Paul states in Galatians.

Again the goal of the devil is not "just persecution". One is very foolish to think that the devil's end goal is the persectuion. No, persecution is a means to an end for the devil, to deny Christ and His Gospel so that men will truly perish. Therein lies his goal. Once you SEE that then you can see how clever are his methods. Many groups, including Mormons and JWs, will point to persecutions, past and present, as "signs" that they are holding to the truth. They are just deceiving themselves on the broad road.

I do not AT ALL hold to the Anabaptist's situation in history as being AT ALL equal with the Christians under Nero and the early church or even those truly persecuted for Christ's GOSPEL today. Because the devil can set up a false gospel and then have persecution arise against that false gospel so as to make men's eyes think, "hey there must be truth and the gospel". In this way he, like with the Mormons and JWs, steel their blindness firmly so that they think, "our cause is just because we are being persecuted". All the while they remain on the broad road AND give an avenue of deception for others to follow sympathetic to their plight.

It is absolutely irrelevant that the devil uses evil men, the sins of men or the weakness of man to work his bidding - even those within the Christian church.

You must always remember and never forget the devil's real end, then you will see his many means.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## MW (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> But what do you mean that it is to be doubted if a profession of faith was pre-requisite "even to Lydia and the jailor"? Are you saying that their "readiness to attend upon the preached word" was not expressed as a confession of faith in that preached word before their baptisms?



The problem with the statement, "profession of faith," is its use in modern times as an expression of professing Christ as one's personal Lord and Saviour. The Bible does not teach this is pre-requisite to baptism. The NT teaches an objective profession of faith, wherein one submits to the Lordship of Christ to be taught (made a disciple), is thereupon baptised, and from subsequent teaching and experience is brought to the point of subjective or personal faith. Of course, the subjective or personal faith might already be there. The point is, that the person administering baptism cannot know that. So yes, their readiness to attend upon the preached word was an expression of a general faith in the preached word and in the Lordship of Christ. To what extent they subjectively understood anything else of Christian faith and life is not expressed in the text, and hence should not be made a condition of baptism. Blessings!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 4, 2006)

Rev. Matthew,

That's exactly the way our pastor, in other words, has said it. Very nicely pulled apart and explained! It was one of those fresh ways of re-hearing.

Yours in Christ,

Larry


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

Larry, thank you for your explanation about the devil/persecution, etc. You have taught me something.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 5, 2006)

*Early Church Baptism*

Hello:

After reading the initial post I would have to ask the question concerning Seaton's statement here:



> There is only one place to begin a study of Christian baptism, and that is in the pages of the New Testament Scriptures of God.



Where is the Scripture proof for this? In every doctrine of Theology we can refer back to the OT, including the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but not the Sacrament of Baptism? I wonder what John the Baptist would say about that? Especially when Jesus says that he is the greatest of all the OT prophets. When considering baptism cutting out the whole of the OT does not seem very God glorifying.

Since the teaching of Believer's Baptism is such a radical departure from Federal Theology, and the rest of Scripture, one would expect an explanation of it in the Early Church Fathers. Yet, they are silent on it. In fact, it can be shown that Infant Baptism is the Universal practice of the Universal Church throughout history.

Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of Christ, is the first man of whom we read in ecclesiastical history, as speaking a word against infant baptism. And he, while he recognises the existence and prevalence of the practice of infant baptism, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if they are not likely to survive the period of infancy; yet advises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism be delayed until a late period in life. The superstitious ideas he used to justify such a teaching was that Baptism wipes away all past sins, and that sins committed after Baptism were especially heinous. Of course, such a view is contrary to the NEW TESTAMENT doctrine and practice of Baptism. Yet, Tertullian is often cited by Credo Baptists to justify their views.

After Tertullian the next time Infant Baptism is questioned, about twelve hundred years after Christ, was during the time of the Waldenses. They maintained that infants ought not to be baptized, because they were incapable of salvation. They taught that none could be saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long course of self-denial and labour. To those of us committed to the doctrines of Grace: the Waldenses view is clearly a doctrine of Works salvation.

Are my Baptist brothers going to stand up and say that "infants are incapable of salvation"? I hope not. Yet, these are the very words of Baptist John Piper as an argument against Infant Baptism. It seems to me that if the deity can be incarnate in an infant, then infants are more than capable of receiving Saving Grace. There seems to be a small thread of Works-Righteousness in the Credo Baptist position. I said, "seems to be."

We hear no more of Antipaedobaptists until the 16th Century, when they arose and for the first time broached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethern. As far as I can discover, the modern views of Baptists were absolutely unknown in the whole Christian world, before that time.

The silence of the Church for over 1600 years concerning Believer's Baptism is counterbalanced by the very vocal affirmation by the Church concerning Infant Baptism. Tertullian, we have already noted, acknowledged the practice of Infant Baptism. Origen, circa 250AD, speaks unequivocally of the baptism of infants:



> According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants; when if there were nothing in infants which needed forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous, Homily VIII on Leviticus ch. 12.



The testimony of Cyprian:



> Cyprian and the rest of the Bishops who were present in the Council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brother, greeting: As to the case of Infants, - whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, that no one should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born; we were all in the Council of a very different opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, no one was of your mind; but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being that is born. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the Council; that we ought not to hinder any person from us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born, Epistle 66.



Here is a synodical decree for the baptism of infants. This was not simply the opinion of one or two pastors, but it was the universal determination of a unanimous synod. Consequently, it represents the universal practice of the Church.

I could go on and quote Chrysostom and Augustine, but I think I have made the point clear. I could imagine that a Credo Baptist reply to this would be that the Reformation brought about a rediscovery of the doctrines of the Bible. The only problem with this is that the Reformation doctrines can also be found in the testimony of godly men prior to the Reformation. Concerning the modern day views of Credo Baptism one cannot find such a testimony.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

[Edited on 5-9-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CalvinandHodges_
> Hello:
> 
> After reading the initial post I would have to ask the question concerning Seaton's statement here:
> ...



Grace and Peace to you as well.
-BP


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by CalvinandHodges_
> ...


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 5, 2006)

I find it almost humorous when Baptists whose theology matches those of the Reformed (Protestant) churches, except on the doctrine of the church, try to claim that their point of origin is John the Baptist, and that they did not in fact spring fully formed from the head of Zeus... I mean, from the Puritan Independents of the seventeenth century.

The early church fathers were not "Roman" Catholic. The "Roman" Catholic Church did not exist, in any form even similar to what we are familiar with, until centuries later. But I prefer to prove my Paedobaptism from the Bible; so I will leave the discussion of ecclesiastical history to others.

I would ask you, Brian, where you get explicit testimony of Scripture (book, chapter, verse) that the church is a purely New Testament thing? Especially when it has been shown you that in Romans 11, the church (the olive plant) is described as having a single root (Abraham), with natural branches (the Jews), which were broken off for unbelief, with unnatural branches (the Gentiles) being grafted in by faith -- but it's still the same tree, the same church! -- and from Matthew 21, that "the kingdom" (i.e. the church) was taken from the unbelieving Jews, and given to the Gentiles. You contend that if they were the church, we would still have to perform sacrifices. But I contend that they, as the church, looked forward to Christ in those sacrifices; and that we, as the church, look back to Christ in the Word and sacraments (the sacrifices being abrogated by His death).


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> I find it almost humorous when Baptists whose theology matches those of the Reformed (Protestant) churches, except on the doctrine of the church, try to claim that their point of origin is John the Baptist, and that they did not in fact spring fully formed from the head of Zeus... I mean, from the Puritan Independents of the seventeenth century.
> 
> *Sarcasm noted. I may return the favour.*
> ...


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> *Although I don't need to provide any proof  I will attempt to. John the Baptist was OT and he baptized people. As for whether baptism is a sacrament, we'll agree to disagree.*
> 
> ...


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

Sorry for completely messing that post up. Is there any way we can update the site so that when you quote someone it only quotes from the last thread, instead of the whole discussion going all the way back. 

I don't want to have to not answer someone due to the headache this causes; I'd prefer to try my best to answer them.


----------



## lwadkins (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> *I would have to totally agree with you I guess...if God intended us to follow that structure. I don't know of any command to follow that structure; I was taught it was a cultural thing. Shouldn't men be having multiple wives then? I think the verse that can convince me the most is Acts 16:31 but then, my household (family) is still not saved.*



Brian,
When God said it was not good for man to be alone he didnt give Adam many to be with him, but only one.


----------



## lwadkins (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> *You would have to prove that meant "infants". Households can be parents and children over 8 years old. *



Brian,
Considering the culture of the time and thus the makeup of households of the time, it would be strange indeed for a household not to contain infants.


----------



## lwadkins (Sep 5, 2006)

Something I would like to state, as I read this thread. One of the trends I see in such discussions is the propensity to make a one to one correlation with proofs stated by those on either side of an issue. In other words I have 5 argumenst in favor you have 5 opposed so we have proven nothing.
Some arguments supported by Scripture carry more weight than others if for no other reason then said Scriptures are more clear than others. We must be careful when finding doctrines implied by Scripture to give clear Scriptures greater weight and test our conclusions against the whole scope of Scripture.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Funny. Most of the early Church fathers seem to be labelled as Roman Catholics. Why would this be?


Because people like you don't know any better, and blindly label every father after the apostolic period as "Roman" Catholic... even though, as your fellow (Reformed) Baptist James White notes, "they did not believe in the very doctrines that define the Roman communion over against others, doctrines such as an infallible Papacy, Marian dogmas such as the Bodily Assumption, the treasury of merit, indulgences, and devotion to reserved, consecrated hosts that would indicate that the patristic belief in "real presence" was in fact a belief in transubstantiation."


> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> You prefer to prove your "doctrine" from the Bible? Then please start to do so...don't forget the New Testament while you're at it. No catechisms or confessions either...since you prefer to only use your Bible. I will be watching for you ever using church history in a debate and point out that you don't do that.


Did you somehow miss my examination of Acts 2:38, 39; or did you just prefer to ignore it?


> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> It could be a concept known by just about everyone. Where do you have chapter and verse for the explicit teaching of a Trinity? (I believe in the Trinity by the way).


Brian, I can demonstrate clear Scripture proof for the doctrine of the Trinity (beginning in the Old Testament, of all places)... can you demonstrate clear Scripture proof for your doctrine of the church existing only in the New Testament?


> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> It wasn't the church. It was Israel. If it were the church, would the church need to later be grafted into itself?


Is that what I said? Or did I say that Gentiles have been grafted into the church? I contend that the promises made to Israel under the Old Testament respected Israel _considered as the church;_ and for that reason, those promises descend to us today, and not to unbelieving Jews.


> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> there are no Jews and Gentiles in Christ.


So is there no one in Christ then (since Jews and Gentiles contitute all humanity)? Galatians 3 does not contradict Romans 11, Brian; in fact, read the entirety of Galatians 3, and I think you will see more evidence against you (regarding the abiding continuity of the Abrahamic covenant).


> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Yes, they looked forward to the coming Messiah. But that does not make them the Church. They were Israel, and they rejected the Messiah.


But the saints under the Old Testament (not the Jews in the New Testament who rejected Christ) had faith in the promised Messiah, and that made them the church, together with their children.


> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Christ then included the Gentiles. In the future, God will deal with Israel again. Unless you believe that God is going to punish the Church during the Great Tribulation for rejecting the Messiah? (confused here).


I'm not going to get into a debate on eschatology with you, Brian... unless you want to start another thread in the proper forum. Suffice it to say that I do not believe in a future, literal, seven-year tribulation period.

Please deal carefully with the Scriptures I cited against you. Look at the entire passage (Rom. 11:1-24; Matt. 21:33-46); examine its scope; examine the pertinent claims; and then render a verdict. I truly believe that if you look at these passages with the care they deserve, you will have to conclude that the Church is something larger than the New Testament.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



This does not prove anything though. People had multiple wives later on and it was allowed. All it proves is that God made Eve. If He were to make multiple women, wouldn't Adam have run out of ribs?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



But...it doesn't specifically state infants.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

Sean, when you start showing a little more respect I will answer your questions. I have a low tolerance for "people like you".


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

By the way, clear Scriptural proof that the Church existed in the NT. 

OT=Israel

NT=Church (both Jews and Gentiles)

The two are completely different. That is scriptural.

The reason you won't get into a theological debate is because you know I'm right. Whether or not you believe in a "Great Tribulation" the Book of Revelation teaches a time of judgment against Israel. If the Church is Israel, you had better get ready for God's judgment against you.

[Edited on 9-5-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## lwadkins (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> But...it doesn't specifically state infants.



Brian,
Yes you are correct. However it also does not say that all in the household except infants were baptized. Household in that time would have been understood by those receiving the teaching as multigenerational familial units headed by a patriarchal figure and would have been assumed to have contained infants and servants. Far different from how we would view a household today.

[Edited on 9-5-2006 by lwadkins]


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Sean, when you start showing a little more respect I will answer your questions. I have a low tolerance for "people like you".


Would you have preferred "people like yourself"? Brian, the fact that you focus upon one phrase in a response that has little to nothing to do with my actual response, reveals rather plainly that you aren't interested in a serious discussion of these things. I apologize if I have offended you, and I meant no disrespect to you; but if you are interested in a serious discussion, maybe you should let perceived insults and slights slide, and just get to the heart of the argument.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> By the way, clear Scriptural proof that the Church existed in the NT.
> 
> OT=Israel
> ...


Brian, are you attempting to "prove" the difference between the two by simply stating or asserting it? That is not a valid proof; I might as well prove my position by quoting the Westminster Confession.


> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> The reason you won't get into a theological debate is because you know I'm right.


Brian, I'm trying to begin a theological debate with you; you continue to ignore and bypass the texts that I want to examine; you continue to furnish no proof for your position; and you have the temerity to claim that *I don't want to get into a theological debate with you because I know you're right?!?* Are you serious?


> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Whether or not you believe in a "Great Tribulation" the Book of Revelation teaches a time of judgment against Israel. If the Church is Israel, you had better get ready for God's judgment against you.


Brian, I am an Amillennial Historicist. I do not understand the Revelation in a literalistic fashion. But, as I said before, that is a discussion for another forum.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



True. Therefore we are both in the same predicament. We have no proof for our belief then. But...wouldn't the burden of proof be upon you to prove that infants were included in the "household", rather than upon me to prove that they weren't?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



I would have preferred that you had been a bit more respectful and said neither. The fact that I focused on that one statement meant I really didn't pay attention to whatever else you said.

You have no basis for accusing me of not being interested in a serious discussion. I am the one who has tried to be respectful in discussion, yet YOU have made smart aleck comments multiple times. 

Yes, let's get to the heart of the argument. That being the Church is not in the OT. because it's not.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 5, 2006)

Here is a link.

http://www.conroechurch.com/Articles/Church/ch_OT.html


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 5, 2006)

There is very little (if any) serious debating going on, much less with discussion with charity. The doctrine of the church is one of great importance, and deserves respect. If by "church" we are NOT talking about a building , but rather God's people (which is moreso the biblical sense of the term), then the church existed in the O.T. Just because the O.T. doesn't _explicitly_ mention the word "church" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

From Strong's:



> G1577
> ÎµÌ“ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏƒÎ¹ÌÎ±
> ekkleÌ„sia
> ek-klay-see'-ah
> From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (*Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members * on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.



Thayer's Greek dictionary:



> G1577
> ÎµÌ“ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏƒÎ¹ÌÎ±
> ekkleÌ„sia
> Thayer Definition:
> ...



To say there was no church in the O.T. is similar to someone saying that there were no Christians in the O.T. There most definately were Christians (maybe not called explicitly that, but for all intents and purposes), and they did gather together to worship God.

The doctrine of the universal/invisible church (those who profess the true religion is a confessional (see most if not ALL of the reformed confessions), reformed doctrine that is derived from the scriptures. 

Your friendly neighborhood Moderator,

Jeff


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> ...



History and culture show the proof FOR infants. If a household was destroyed, that was everyone including infants. If a household moved, that was everyone including infants. No one is ever left out of a household. It includes everyone from the youngest to the oldest as well as servants.


On multiple wives: Adam would not have run out of ribs...the lower hanging rib is the only bone that can completely grow back. The OT examples show the problems of polygamy and for someone to be an elder or minister they are commanded to only have one wife...thus the precedent...



I intentionally used an old dictionary...what better way to understand what is meant by those before us?

Oh, and I don't interact with all the threads here, so I wasn't aware of that thread. Please take into consideration that I limit the threads I'm on due to managing a large household (no easy task).


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 5, 2006)

The church is the community of all true believers for all time. This definition understands the church to be made of all those who are truly saved. Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 2:25). Here the term "the church" is used to apply to all those whom Christ died to redeem, all those who are saved by the death of Christ. But that must include all true believers for all time, both believers in the New Testament age and believers in the Old Testament age as well. (Grudem)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 5, 2006)

All -

Tone down your posts.

They are far too provocative in dealing with "brothers" in the Lord.

The statements of "people like you" and such are uncalled for.

If it continues, I'll close the thread and take priveldges away from those that continue speaking to one another like this.


----------

