# Does baptism replace circumcision? (explain it to me like I am 8 years old)



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Does baptism replace circumcision?

What is the Presbyterian answer?
What is the baptist answer?

Can we say it is analogous to circumcision but doesn't replace it? 

Also, why does a physical sacrament replace a physical type? Isn't the fulfillment or spiritual reality circumcision is pointing to actually circumcision of the heart (the new birth)?

Can you lead me simply through the proof-texts? And be fair to the other side.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

p.s. I know this topic has been done to death. But let's do it again. Be patient.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

Waldron says...

The reformed Baptist response admits that in the unity of God's covenantal dealings, there is a certain *parallel* or *analogy* between circumcision and baptism (Rom 4:11; Col 2:11-12). Both were rites or symbols of induction into the covenant people of God. Waldron; _A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession_, 5th ed., pg 411

I think the word 'replace' is dangerously simplistic in this case.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 16, 2017)

In fairly simple terms, the Presbyterian answer is, "Yes, the latter sign-of-initiation replaces the former sign, having the same fundamental purpose and signification relative to the Covenant of Grace (which we say was in full operation for Abraham); being the same covenant, whether before or after Christ."

I would add, there are secondary, dispensation-specific qualities to each that are suitable to the one, or the other; but these are few and minor compared to the overwhelming overlap.

Obviously, as a paedobaptist, I'm not drawn to the language of "analogy." The signs have the same basic duties, and teach the same essential truths; the one is anticipatory, the other is retrospective, with Christ at the center.



Pergamum said:


> Also, why does a physical sacrament replace a physical type? Isn't the fulfillment or spiritual reality circumcision is pointing to actually circumcision of the heart (the new birth)?


When do you believe "heart-circumcision" was the true and proper analog of physical circumcision? Only in A.D. 33? or prior to that in 33 B.C.? How about 1433 B.C. (around the time of Moses)? How about as far back as Abraham? Weren't OT saints "born again?"

Since Moses is the first literal, human author of Scripture who writes in non-physical terms about circumcision, even if you don't believe Abraham had this kind of thinking (why not?), why wouldn't we think Moses was teaching the Israelites to get the inward and outward in alignment? Aren't we concerned (whether we're Baptists or Presbyterians) to call members of the church to align the state of their heart with their outward affiliation/profession?

If you want to do Bible study, PM me. I get nervous when my friends start pulling them up by their baptism.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> In fairly simple terms, the Presbyterian answer is, "Yes, the latter sign-of-initiation replaces the former sign, having the same fundamental purpose and signification relative to the Covenant of Grace (which we say was in full operation for Abraham); being the same covenant, whether before or after Christ."
> 
> I would add, there are secondary, dispensation-specific qualities to each that are suitable to the one, or the other; but these are few and minor compared to the overwhelming overlap.
> 
> ...


Yes, I believe the Church is comprised of all believers through all ages, and that all believers had the Spirit. I don't understand why some baptists insist that the Church only came into being at Pentecost because the OT people were called a "church in the wilderness" right?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 17, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I believe the Church is comprised of all believers through all ages, and that all believers had the Spirit. I don't understand why some baptists insist that the Church only came into being at Pentecost because the OT people were called a "church in the wilderness" right?



It depends on how you define church and what aspect of it is in view. If one affirms that the "church in the wilderness" is substantially the same as the NT church, (in other words, in a visible institutional sense, and not in the sense of the universal church) I don't see how he can remain a Baptist. I think you'd have a hard time finding Baptists who'd affirm that. 

All of the "1689 Federalists" believe that the Church is comprised of all believers through all ages and that all believers had the Spirit.


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jul 17, 2017)

Yes. Your homework is to read Romans chapter 4 and Galatians chapter 3

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> It depends on how you define church and what aspect of it is in view. If one affirms that the "church in the wilderness" is substantially the same as the NT church, (in other words, in a visible institutional sense, and not in the sense of the universal church) I don't see how he can remain a Baptist. I think you'd have a hard time finding Baptists who'd affirm that.
> 
> All of the "1689 Federalists" believe that the Church is comprised of all believers through all ages and that all believers had the Spirit.


I had one tell me last week that the Church did not exist in the OT. Period.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I had one tell me last week that the Church did not exist in the OT. Period.


He is *not* a Reformed Baptist


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I believe the Church is comprised of all believers through all ages, and that all believers had the Spirit. I don't understand why some baptists insist that the Church only came into being at Pentecost because the OT people were called a "church in the wilderness" right?


We view it in this fashion due to us seeing more of a discontinuity between the Old and new Covenants of God, and that the Church came after the Messiah came and instituted the New One by His death on the Cross.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

David,

So you do not believe the Church existed in the OT?

What do we call OT believers? Even the 1689 says the following:

"26.1 The universal church (brought into being by the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called the invisible church. It consists of the complete number of the elect who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ its Head. The church is the bride, the body, the fullness of Christ who fills all in all."

So it seems Reformed Baptist must believe that the Church has existed in the OT. Right?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 19, 2017)

Of course the church existed in the Old Testament! A child is not a man, but the man that is is the child that once was: same person, different time, different responsibilities, different privileges. OT Israel was the infant church, NT Israel is all grown up, as it were.

Perg, I said in another thread that Baptism answers to circumcision the way the Lord's Supper answers to Passover--they speak to the same things, but with the types and shadows fulfilled, they are administered differently and have better, clearer, deeper meanings.


----------



## Pun-Daddy (Jul 19, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Obviously, as a paedobaptist, I'm not drawn to the language of "analogy." The signs have the same basic duties, and teach the same essential truths; the one is anticipatory, the other is retrospective, with Christ at the center.



I like this language but wouldn't we say that the NT signs are also anticipatory?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 19, 2017)

Pun-Daddy said:


> I like this language but wouldn't we say that the NT signs are also anticipatory?


I'm using the terms "anticipatory" and "retrospective" in terms of Christ and the inauguration of his kingdom. The OT sacraments pointed forward, in the gospel sense; the NT sacraments point backward, in the gospel sense. The cross is the focus of it all.

Is there any more "anticipation" in the sacraments for us? Yes, "until he come."


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> David,
> 
> So you do not believe the Church existed in the OT?
> 
> ...


I believe that while the saved persons under the OC will be part of the assembled saints in the real Church of Christ with us in Heaven, the Church as instituted by Jesus Himself came into existence at Day of Pentecost.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I believe that while the saved persons under the OC will be part of the assembled saints in the real Church of Christ with us in Heaven, the Church as instituted by Jesus Himself came into existence at Day of Pentecost.


Do you believe that the bride of Christ is made up of OT saints as well? Was not the Day of Pentecost simply a change of administration, (albeit a glorious one), since the types and shadows of the OT church had been fulfilled and the resurrected Christ had ascended to his throne to rule until God should put all enemies beneath his feet? Were the OT saints anticipating and longing for something so absolutely new and different that is had no parallel to their experience?
What would be the point of types and shadows if the people who lived among them didn't get to share in their ultimate glory? If I said: "I'm going through a lot of trouble and saving a lot of money so that someday someone completely unrelated to me can enjoy great benefits from which I'm ultimately excluded" then where is the hope for me?

You say you believe OT saints will be in Heaven, but will they be there as the bride of Christ, which is his church, or do you see them as some sort of bridesmaids, just along for the ride but not sharing in the ultimate privileges?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 20, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> Do you believe that the bride of Christ is made up of OT saints as well? Was not the Day of Pentecost simply a change of administration, (albeit a glorious one), since the types and shadows of the OT church had been fulfilled and the resurrected Christ had ascended to his throne to rule until God should put all enemies beneath his feet? Were the OT saints anticipating and longing for something so absolutely new and different that is had no parallel to their experience?
> What would be the point of types and shadows if the people who lived among them didn't get to share in their ultimate glory? If I said: "I'm going through a lot of trouble and saving a lot of money so that someday someone completely unrelated to me can enjoy great benefits from which I'm ultimately excluded" then where is the hope for me?
> 
> You say you believe OT saints will be in Heaven, but will they be there as the bride of Christ, which is his church, or do you see them as some sort of bridesmaids, just along for the ride but not sharing in the ultimate privileges?


They will be raised up in the first Resurrection and glorified with the Church, as there will be the saved from Israel and the saved in the Church.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They will be raised up in the first Resurrection and glorified with the Church, as there will be the saved from Israel and the saved in the Church.


Are you saying they'll be added to the church after their resurrection, though they were not part of the church while living on this earth?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 21, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> Are you saying they'll be added to the church after their resurrection, though they were not part of the church while living on this earth?


They will be part of that Firstborn Church in Heaven, made up of all of the saved since Adam forward. Hebrews 12:23


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They will be part of that Firstborn Church in Heaven, made up of all of the saved since Adam forward. Hebrews 12:23


So why do you say they were not part of His church on earth?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 21, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> So why do you say they were not part of His church on earth?


The Church here on earth were made up of just the saved at time of Christ forward, for that is what the 1689 Confession itself seems to be saying, as I understand it.


----------



## Cymro (Jul 21, 2017)

There is one God, one faith, one baptism,one covenant of grace and one church of Christ. And was always, and is and ever shall be, the focus of the eternal purpose of God. Loved with an everlasting love from eternity. Though she existed for a time in a state of minority or childhood, she then blossomed into maturity. "But after faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster, for we are All the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." There is no Interruption between the church of the OT and of the New, only a Development into the full privileges of adoption through the completed work of Christ in redemption. It is Rev4:4 that depicts the whole church as one, under the figure of the 12 patriarchs and twelve Apostles seated , representing the church of the redemed congregated together. I believe that the church in the NT is the lawfull successor of all the promises made to the church in the OT, Spiritually Understood.(i.e. Canaan,the land flowing with milk and honey is the entrance into the kingdom of Christ and the heavenly abode,etc)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Church here on earth were made up of just the saved at time of Christ forward, for that is what the 1689 Confession itself seems to be saying, as I understand it.


David, the 1689 calls the church the "Whole number of the elect" (26:1). While Sam Waldron in his commentary highlights the distinction between the OT and NT church, (I think he focuses too much on the word 'church' as we use it today to mean a particular local assembly), he is careful to state that the church writ large, the bride of Christ, is comprised of the saved of all ages. He goes on to contrast that with Dispensationalism, which involves a denial that OT saints are part of the church. (A Modern Exposition of the 1689, pg 313, pp 2)


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 22, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> David, the 1689 calls the church the "Whole number of the elect" (26:1). While Sam Waldron in his commentary highlights the distinction between the OT and NT church, (I think he focuses too much on the word 'church' as we use it today to mean a particular local assembly), he is careful to state that the church writ large, the bride of Christ, is comprised of the saved of all ages. He goes on to contrast that with Dispensationalism, which involves a denial that OT saints are part of the church. (A Modern Exposition of the 1689, pg 313, pp 2)


My understanding of what the 1689 Confession states is that while the OT saints were to be included in the Church in the Heavens, the church itself as the bride/body of Christ here upon the earth was at Pentecost.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 22, 2017)

> The Church here on earth were made up of just the saved at time of Christ forward, for that is what the 1689 Confession itself seems to be saying, as I understand it.



As I have said before, if one does a word study of both old and new testaments, the same words are used often to describe the church, i.e. assembly, synagogue, church, gathering, called out, etc. In fact, in the NT, the 'above synagogue' is one prime example of using OT language:

"to gather together' or 'a gathering of God's people'.

*1996*. *ἐπισυνάγω* *episunagō*; from _1909_ and _4863; to gather together_:—gather … together(2), gather together(2), gathered(2), gathered together(1), gathers(1).

Robert L. Thomas, _New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition_ (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).



Mat 23:37

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, _thou_ that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered G1996 thy children together, G1996 even as a hen gathereth G1996 her chickens under _her_ wings, and ye would not!

Mat 24:31

And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together G1996 his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mar 1:33

And all the city was gathered together G1996 at the door.

Mar 13:27

And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together G1996 his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Luk 12:1

In the mean time, when there were gathered together G1996 an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Luk 13:34

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered G1996 thy children together, G1996as a hen _doth gather_ her brood under _her_wings, and ye would not!


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> My understanding of what the 1689 Confession states is that while the OT saints were to be included in the Church in the Heavens, the church itself as the bride/body of Christ here upon the earth was at Pentecost.


Could you cite where the 1689 says that? Perhaps we are reading different 1689s. At Pentecost, the administration of the church changed, as the New Covenant was fully ushered in by the arrival of the Holy Spirit. But it was not a different church--the OT saints were as much a part of the bride of Christ as we are. Does the Song of Solomon not speak of this very thing to you?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 25, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> Could you cite where the 1689 says that? Perhaps we are reading different 1689s. At Pentecost, the administration of the church changed, as the New Covenant was fully ushered in by the arrival of the Holy Spirit. But it was not a different church--the OT saints were as much a part of the bride of Christ as we are. Does the Song of Solomon not speak of this very thing to you?


The 1689 Confessions describes the church as being those whom Jesus ushered into salvation through His atoning death, and that its members are those who were saved by him and water Baptized as believers in Him now. That is my understanding of how it is reading unto us. The saved OT believers are included into that Body, but the Church itself was instituted when Jesus was born/died, and was raised again is How I see it being written to us.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 25, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> David,
> 
> So you do not believe the Church existed in the OT?
> 
> ...



Consider also the language of BCF 21.1: _"but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of a ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected."_

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 25, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The 1689 Confessions describes the church as being those whom Jesus ushered into salvation through His atoning death, and that its members are those who were saved by him and water Baptized as believers in Him now. That is my understanding of how it is reading unto us. The saved OT believers are included into that Body, but the Church itself was instituted when Jesus was born/died, and was raised again is How I see it being written to us.


But don't you see that the truly saved in the OT were saved by the same blood of Christ that we are saved by today? The church, the bride of Christ is, I repeat: the saved of all ages. The saints of the OT looked forward to the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of God who would die for their sins, the NT saints look back to that same Messiah, who died ONCE FOR ALL, who came to redeem to Himself ONE people. The church. Hallelujah.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 25, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The 1689 Confessions describes the church as being those whom Jesus ushered into salvation through His atoning death, and that its members are those who were saved by him and water Baptized as believers in Him now. That is my understanding of how it is reading unto us. The saved OT believers are included into that Body, but the Church itself was instituted when Jesus was born/died, and was raised again is How I see it being written to us.



Would you care to cite the Confession in support of your claims? I would not say your statement accurately represents the teaching of the Confession.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> But don't you see that the truly saved in the OT were saved by the same blood of Christ that we are saved by today? The church, the bride of Christ is, I repeat: the saved of all ages. The saints of the OT looked forward to the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of God who would die for their sins, the NT saints look back to that same Messiah, who died ONCE FOR ALL, who came to redeem to Himself ONE people. The church. Hallelujah.


I agree with you that the OT saints were saved just as we are now, all saved by the Cross of Christ on our behalf, and the saved of Israel were part of the NT Church, but the NT church was not in the OC, as that group was not here until the promised Messiah came and died and rose again, and the coming of the Holy Spirit in a new way at Pentecost..


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2017)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Would you care to cite the Confession in support of your claims? I would not say your statement accurately represents the teaching of the Confession.


The LBC 1689 in Chapter 26 described the church of Christ, and the terms to me do indeed seem to indicate that the church mentioned there would be the NT one.


----------



## KMK (Jul 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The LBC 1689 in Chapter 26 described the church of Christ, and the terms to me do indeed seem to indicate that the church mentioned there would be the NT one.



Are you referring to Paragraph 1?

"Paragraph 1. 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 fills all in all."


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2017)

KMK said:


> Are you referring to Paragraph 1?
> 
> "Paragraph 1. 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 fills all in all."


Yes, but really, all of the points seem to address the church as being here on earth at time of Christ forward.


----------



## KMK (Jul 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, but really, all of the points seem to address the church as being here on earth at time of Christ forward.



Maybe you are referring to Paragraph 2?

"Paragraph 2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called *visible saints*; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted."


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2017)

Yes, as again, that to me seems to be stating that the church would be now seen as being baptized believers into Yeshua.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2017)

Was the Saviour and the Gospel preached in the Old Testament and were those people who believed such as Abraham, Moses, or Isaiah considered to be in the Everlasting Covenant (or Covenant of Grace) that was established with Abraham(question mark)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2017)

Back to the original question.... I believe it does as it relates to fulfillment and the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Was the Saviour and the Gospel preached in the Old Testament and were those people who believed such as Abraham, Moses, or Isaiah considered to be in the Everlasting Covenant (or Covenant of Grace) that was established with Abraham(question mark)


The Promised Messiah was taught to them, and all who were saved were part of the redeemed of the Lord, and would be part of the NT Church Body, but the Church itself was in the NT NC, in my way of understanding the Baptist view on this issue.
There was something new God did in the person, work, and ministry of the Lord Jesus and now in the NC. NOT as Dispensational would hold to it, as those in the OT saved by Grace same way we now are, but the church itself came in NT.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2017)

The Covenant was established as effective with Abraham, correct(question mark).


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 26, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> (question mark)



Randy, is your question mark key broken?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Promised Messiah was taught to them, and all who were saved were part of the redeemed of the Lord, and would be part of the NT Church Body, but the Church itself was in the NT NC, in my way of understanding the Baptist view on this issue.
> There was something new God did in the person, work, and ministry of the Lord Jesus and now in the NC. NOT as Dispensational would hold to it, as those in the OT saved by Grace same way we now are, but the church itself came in NT.


We understand what you are saying, but please understand that that is NOT what the Reformed Baptist view is on this issue. Without further laboring the dead horse, I and others have told you what the position is, and have shown it from the LBCF. Your view may be well be held by many (though I know no one who does), but it's not the standard confessional viewpoint.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 27, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Randy, is your question mark key broken?


Yes. Sorry. My computer is old. I am still using Windows 7. A few of the keys are not working.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 27, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes. Sorry. My computer is old. I am still using Windows 7. A few of the keys are not working.


Oh, I can relate - I am reading these threads on a screen that was severely cracked when I dropped it a while back! (Like trying to drive with a busted windshield.) I was just wondering if that was some form of emphasis with which I was unfamiliar...

By the way, I miss Windows 7. This one has 8 - so frustrating at times (maybe that's why I dropped it!).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> We understand what you are saying, but please understand that that is NOT what the Reformed Baptist view is on this issue. Without further laboring the dead horse, I and others have told you what the position is, and have shown it from the LBCF. Your view may be well be held by many (though I know no one who does), but it's not the standard confessional viewpoint.


The LBC 1689 Confession seems to be stating that the church was founded by Jesus , as the result of His death and resurrection, and that it was instituted in the NT times. That is my understanding of it, as are there not confessing Baptists who hold to the church starting up in NT times, and that the OT saints were included in that Body after the fact?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 27, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Does baptism replace circumcision?
> 
> What is the Presbyterian answer?
> What is the baptist answer?
> ...


Like you're 8 years old? Hmm....

My aren't you a precocious child. Who taught you such big words like analagous?

Well, it's like this. In the Old Testament God told people that they needed to have their hearts circumcised. He told them the same thing in the New Testament.

Circumcision is God giving us a new heart.

In the Old Covenant, he used a visible sign of circumcision to represent the aim that we would be circumcised of the heart. Some were circumcised who were not born from above but it was the purpose of the people of God that they would be taught His Word and learn to rely upon Him and His Promises. He gave them Priests and Prophets and Kings and gave them strict rules and regulations to teach them to rely not upon what good kids they were but upon Him. Do you remember how your daddy used tohold your hand when you crossed the street?

In the New Covenant, He gave us Christ and now all the things that the Priests, Prophets, and Kings represented were mere pictures of what Jesus would do for us. We learned that to be circumcised of the heart was a sign that we truly belong to Christ as the Holy Spirit gives us a new heart. It is now pictured to us in our baptism.

Daddies and Mommies circumcised their babies in the Old Covenant because they were bringing their kids up to fear the Lord and trust that God might circumcise the heart as they were taught about the mighty Promises and Acts of God.

Daddies and Mommies baptize their babies today in the NewCovenant because they are bringing their kids up to fear the Lord and trust in Christ. They trust that the Spirit might circumcise the heart as they are taught about the mighty Promises fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Now, quit asking me questions. Your Mom has asked you several times to clean your room. Get to it before you get a spanking. Also, when's the last time you took a shower?

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The LBC 1689 Confession seems to be stating that the church was founded by Jesus , as the result of His death and resurrection, and that it was instituted in the NT times. That is my understanding of it, as are there not confessing Baptists who hold to the church starting up in NT times, and that the OT saints were included in that Body after the fact?


None that I've ever encountered.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2017)

Federalism who see it that way.


Ben Zartman said:


> None that I've ever encountered.


There seems to some holding to the 1689 Federalist views though who would see it the same way I do at this time.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Federalism who see it that way.
> 
> There seems to some holding to the 1689 Federalist views though who would see it the same way I do at this time.


Perhaps you are a Federalist. You may want to read their material carefully and see whether you agree. To me it is a strange novelty, and even the little of it I know from recent weeks on this forum makes me not want to jump on their wagon. But to his own master each must stand or fall...


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 29, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> Perhaps you are a Federalist. You may want to read their material carefully and see whether you agree. To me it is a strange novelty, and even the little of it I know from recent weeks on this forum makes me not want to jump on their wagon. But to his own master each must stand or fall...


This viewpoint was started in the 17th century,so not really that new or novel, and their understanding of the church as it fits within Covenant theology of the scriptures to me fits the traditional Baptist understanding of it.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 29, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This viewpoint was started in the century, not really that new or novel, and their understanding of the church as it fits within Covenant theology of the scriptures to me fits the traditional Baptist understanding of it.


I meant it was new to me--my first encounter with Federalism was only when Pergamum began asking about it. I know nothing of the "Traditional Baptist understanding of CT;" I only know what I have read in the Confession, a few commentators, and the Bible. If my view is completely out of whack with baptists in the past, so be it--there's a whole crowd of us over here thinking the same un-traditional stuff.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 29, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> I meant it was new to me--my first encounter with Federalism was only when Pergamum began asking about it. I know nothing of the "Traditional Baptist understanding of CT;" I only know what I have read in the Confession, a few commentators, and the Bible. If my view is completely out of whack with baptists in the past, so be it--there's a whole crowd of us over here thinking the same un-traditional stuff.


Which is fine, as the traditional Baptist approach is to allow for latitude into what one holds with on the teachings of scriptures, just as long within the bounds of orthodoxy.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Which is fine, as the traditional Baptist approach is to allow for latitude into what one holds with on the teachings of scriptures, just as long within the bounds of orthodoxy.



This is a rather curious statement.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2017)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> This is a rather curious statement.


There are reformed Baptists who adhere to the 1689 Confession, and there are many more who would be seen as traditional/non Confessing baptists, who would allow for a greater latitude in how one views the truths and doctrines of the scriptures.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> There are reformed Baptists who adhere to the 1689 Confession, and there are many more who would be seen as traditional/non Confessing baptists, who would allow for a greater latitude in how one views the truths and doctrines of the scriptures.


We would say that the non-confessing baptists are not traditional, and that they are not really baptists at all--in fact, it is because so many people of kooky beliefs (arminianism, dispensationalism, fundamentalism, etc, which are contrary to the confessions) took to themselves the name "baptist", that confessional baptists added the "Reformed" handle.
It is in an effort to show DIS-unity with the non-confessing that we do this today. The last thing we want (at least myself as an RB) is to be lumped in with every weirdo who has the effrontery to think he's a baptist without even knowing of the historical confessions that define us as a group.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 2, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> We would say that the non-confessing baptists are not traditional, and that they are not really baptists at all--in fact, it is because so many people of kooky beliefs (arminianism, dispensationalism, fundamentalism, etc, which are contrary to the confessions) took to themselves the name "baptist", that confessional baptists added the "Reformed" handle.
> It is in an effort to show DIS-unity with the non-confessing that we do this today. The last thing we want (at least myself as an RB) is to be lumped in with every weirdo who has the effrontery to think he's a baptist without even knowing of the historical confessions that define us as a group.


The problem with that thinking though would be that for better or worse, there are indeed Baptists who are not reformed as in Confession the 1689 , but they would see Baptists as being those who uphold the "Baptist distinctives", such as freedom between state and church, each local assembly is fully autonomous, and each christian can come to their own theology for example.


----------



## KMK (Aug 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The problem with that thinking though would be that for better or worse, there are indeed Baptists who are not reformed as in Confession the 1689 , but they would see Baptists as being those who uphold the "Baptist distinctives", such as freedom between state and church, each local assembly is fully autonomous, and each christian can come to their own theology for example.



There is a difference between being Baptist and being baptistic.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 2, 2017)

KMK said:


> There is a difference between being Baptist and being baptistic.


True, but there are Calvinistic Baptists, and those holding to free will salvation also, for example.


----------



## Joseph Noah Gagliardi (Aug 2, 2017)

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 

While we presently call the bride of Christ, the Church, all believers, in every age rested on "that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." I believe this should suffice as answer. Sometimes terminology gets in the natural way of thinking, and confuses us. 

We are the bride of Christ, as the elect Jews were. However, due to the difference in Christ's work being finished, we are no longer, as a body politic, a chose people, rather the Church in its maturity, under Christ, her true King, with no need for a Samuel or David or Solomon. Israel had all the physical types of Christ, now those types are fulfilled in Christ, whom the Old Testament Jews looked toward, making them members in the same body of believers as we, which, at present, is now called the Church, yet we are still Israel, God's people. 

There is that continuity form the Old Covenant, as they looked forward to the future coming of the Messiah, we now look back upon the completed work of Christ. It is, simply, the maturity of the church. Under the Old Covenant, the body of believers were as a tempestuous youthful girl. Now, as a maturing young woman, being grown and led to that Marriage Super of the Lamb, when we the bride have been beautified for the bridegroom, and the consummation of that marriage, when we as clothed royally, the daughter of the King, are presented spotless to our saviour and heavenly husband Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Aug 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> True, but there are Calvinistic Baptists, and those holding to free will salvation also, for example.



Yes. But, when you say, "they would see Baptists as being those who uphold the "Baptist distinctives", such as freedom between state and church, each local assembly is fully autonomous, and *each christian can come to their own theology*," I think you are drawing the circle a little to wide. I don't get around much, but it seems to me that this is a distinctive of more liberal/post modern evangelism.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> True, but there are Calvinistic Baptists, and those holding to free will salvation also, for example.


But we Reformed Baptists deplore that they should call themselves baptists, and say that they have no idea what being a baptist means. An arminian is NOT a valid baptist, and no one has the freedom to "come to his own theology," find that it disagrees with the historic baptist confessions, and continue to think he's a baptist. If you "come to your own theology," you have just invented your own denomination, like MacArthur has, and you are not a baptist in the historical sense.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 3, 2017)

KMK said:


> Yes. But, when you say, "they would see Baptists as being those who uphold the "Baptist distinctives", such as freedom between state and church, each local assembly is fully autonomous, and *each christian can come to their own theology*," I think you are drawing the circle a little to wide. I don't get around much, but it seems to me that this is a distinctive of more liberal/post modern evangelism.


I am having a hrd time wording this correctly, but one if the Baptist distinctness is that each Christian is able to form their own understanding of what the scriptures teach, under the Illumination of the Holy Spirit, as long as their understanding is within Christian Orthodoxy.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 3, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> But we Reformed Baptists deplore that they should call themselves baptists, and say that they have no idea what being a baptist means. An arminian is NOT a valid baptist, and no one has the freedom to "come to his own theology," find that it disagrees with the historic baptist confessions, and continue to think he's a baptist. If you "come to your own theology," you have just invented your own denomination, like MacArthur has, and you are not a baptist in the historical sense.


There would be Reformed Baptists, holding to the 1689 LBCF, and there would be many more Baptists who would claim to be holding to "scriptures only", but they really do hold to the Bible and one of the Baptist statement of Faith also.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Which is fine, as the traditional Baptist approach is to allow for latitude into what one holds with on the teachings of scriptures, just as long within the bounds of orthodoxy.



Questions arising from your statement:

On what authority do you establish the "traditional Baptist approach"?
How much latitude is allowed? And who decides? 
What are "the bounds of orthodoxy"? And who decides? 
Are not the teachings of Scriptures themselves the "bounds of orthodoxy"? 
Is it the "traditional Baptist" approach to allow latitude in what teachings of Scripture we must adhere to and what ones we may dispense with? 
I feel confident this is not what you are saying, but such are the inferences that could be drawn. Ultimately, it is the historic Baptist confessions—especially the Confession of 1689—that determine the "traditional Baptist approach." It is our confession that delineates what the "bounds of orthodoxy" are, as revealed in Scripture, and what "latitude" may exist in relation to any particular doctrine. What diversity of doctrinal views may exist among those calling themselves Baptist is of no consequence to the questions relating to the "traditional Baptist approach."


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 4, 2017)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Questions arising from your statement:
> 
> On what authority do you establish the "traditional Baptist approach"?
> How much latitude is allowed? And who decides?
> ...


Great questions, and I will do my best to answer them, as my term "traditional Baptist" would refer to those who do not ascribe to a Confession of the faith such as the 1689 LBCF, but they would see it as "scriptures alone".

Those type of Baptists would see that we must agree on the so called _essentials_ of the faith, but can and do differ on certain viewpoints in those agreed upon areas. An example would be that one must hold to the Second Coming, but one can be pre/mid/post trib, A Mil/Post Mil, but no full preterism. Similarly we must agree that Jesus death is the only and full atonement for sins, but there are some who hold to unlimited, others limited, atonement.

I came out from that kind of Baptist circles, and do see the 1689 LBCF as being one to affirm, but there are many Baptists who tend to see things as I described here.


----------

