Rob,
Are you saying that there is no difference between the anabaptists that Calvin spoke against and the reformed baptists of today? I do not think the anabaptists would have spoken about Hebrews 10 as Dr.White did in this past debate.
You were non responsive to my comments about the Mt. passage:
You wrote:
Quote:
It is very clear that either he did not hear the debate,or he did and is not following the point made.It is not "obviously a false citation". It was spoken in context of someone who comes to faith,and get's much resistance from members of His own household. Are you saying that if a roman catholic gets saved today, and speaks to family members about the truth of Christ and the errors of Rome that there will be no resistance!
It will be just smooth sailing? That is not the pattern I have seen either in my own family, or many friends whom the Lord has called. What happened by God's mercy in Acts is not necessarily a pattern that is taught at all.
The error that Dr. White is making is referencing this passage with "household baptisms." It is clear from the Scriptures that one cannot make a correlation between Matt. 10 and the household baptisms in the Book of Acts. I have heard Dr. White use Matthew 10 as a means of denying Covenant Theology:Quote:
Rob, you have posted several times using 1cor 7:14 [as does calvin in volume 2 which you are so keen on using] and I do not believe baptism is the context for that verse either. When Dr.White uses a non baptism section of scripture to get at a point at issue, I do not have trouble with it.
As far as the promise we do not miss it. We understand it different from you.
Because you visited a reformed baptist church does not mean you necessarily understood the position of it.
I have not seen any real indication in your posts that you really understand the position and just do not agree.
Interestingly enough, you are not the only one who has a copy of Calvin's institutes.
If you re-read pages 1312-1330 I am not sure you would want to defend all of brother Calvin's ideas[then again,maybe you would!]
like here:
12. Paul's inner struggle (Romans ch. 7)
Here we say nothing more than the apostle Paul expounds most clearly in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. He had discoursed of free justification, but as some wicked men thence inferred that they were to live as they listed, because their acceptance with God was not procured by the merit of works (Rom. 6:1,15), he adds, that all who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, and that we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism (Rom. 6:3f). Hence he exhorts believers not to allow sin to reign in their members (Rom. 6:12).
I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism. I would only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God works by external means. But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.
In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers. This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body," (1 Cor. 12: 13.)
or here: 17. Baptism not invalidated by the delay of repentance
Then, again, when they ask us what faith for several years followed our baptism, that they may thereby prove that our baptism was in vain, since it is not sanctified unless the word of the promise is received with faith, our answer is, that being blind and unbelieving, we for a long time did not hold the promise which was given us in baptism, but that still the promise, as it was of God, always remained fixed, and firm, and true. Although all men should be false and perfidious, yet God ceases not to be true, (Rom. 3: 3, 4
though all were lost, Christ remains safe. We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected. Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it.
or here
n page 1320- Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.
Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us
or yet again on page 1329-
Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us.
I can read Calvin or any other theologian,but all must be tested by the word of God. I am thankful for how God used him and other's to stand for truth against the evil of his day. Nevertheless he was not an infallible apostle.
There are times I can agree with his statements about the anabaptists. There are times that I might be understanding what he wrote. There are times I see what he wrote and think that he was sounding a bit prideful .
Also I do not think it matters in this discussion whether or not a pastor was a detective.
I simply wanted you to know that I am most familiar with your church, and that I am sympathetic to your position.
