Arminian Dispenationalists may be in error but

Status
Not open for further replies.

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
Baptism of Believers Only is not Scriptural. It is an error that needs to be repented of.

As I've said to you several times now, this argument is not "settled" because you have said so (even if you believe your final word has is backed by scripture) and I am getting a little annoyed now.

I would be saying the same thing if a Baptist was in this thread telling all paedo's to repent because they were not following scripture, but so far I've not seen that. I don't see Amill believers telling those who have other eschatological beliefs to repent either and so should it be here so for the LAST time I am asking you to please stop insisting that in this age old debate it is YOU who have discovered the ultimate truth of the matter and have come to us all in order to call many out of their error with your "final words" of wisdom.

Argue and debate what you believe, don't stomp your foot and declare victory crushing others under your boot heel of demanded repentance. Now I am done asking nicely.
 
As I've said to you several times now, this argument is not "settled" because you have said so (even if you believe your final word has is backed by scripture) and I am getting a little annoyed now.

I would be saying the same thing if a Baptist was in this thread telling all paedo's to repent because they were not following scripture, but so far I've not seen that. I don't see Amill believers telling those who have other eschatological beliefs to repent either and so should it be here so for the LAST time I am asking you to please stop insisting that in this age old debate it is YOU who have discovered the ultimate truth of the matter and have come to us all in order to call many out of their error with your "final words" of wisdom.

Argue and debate what you believe, don't stomp your foot and declare victory crushing others under your boot heel of demanded repentance. Now I am done asking nicely.

Dear Sir:

In what way am I stomping my heel? My language is not overly hostile nor is my tone abrasive. To call someone to repentance is not a hostile act - it is one of the most loving acts that one can do for another!

Blessings,

-CH
 
It seems to me after all the baptism discussion here that in the end, both side are pretty much equal. I know few on either side would be willing to admit this, but In my humble opinion that is very much the case. That said, I find it arrogant and flat out wrong for anyone from either side to insist that their position is completely correct and most biblical and anyone who disagrees needs to repent. We can discuss it until Christ returns, that's fine, but no one can point to another and demand their repentance.
 
Dear Sir:

In what way am I stomping my heel? My language is not overly hostile nor is my tone abrasive. To call someone to repentance is not a hostile act - it is one of the most loving acts that one can do for another!

Blessings,

-CH
Until someone above me tells me I'm wrong here I am simply asking you to not do this, is this a problem for you?
 
Dear Sir:

In what way am I stomping my heel? My language is not overly hostile nor is my tone abrasive. To call someone to repentance is not a hostile act - it is one of the most loving acts that one can do for another!

Blessings,

-CH
Until someone above me tells me I'm wrong here I am simply asking you to not do this, is this a problem for you?
 
As I've said to you several times now, this argument is not "settled" because you have said so (even if you believe your final word has is backed by scripture) and I am getting a little annoyed now.

I would be saying the same thing if a Baptist was in this thread telling all paedo's to repent because they were not following scripture, but so far I've not seen that. I don't see Amill believers telling those who have other eschatological beliefs to repent either and so should it be here so for the LAST time I am asking you to please stop insisting that in this age old debate it is YOU who have discovered the ultimate truth of the matter and have come to us all in order to call many out of their error with your "final words" of wisdom.

Argue and debate what you believe, don't stomp your foot and declare victory crushing others under your boot heel of demanded repentance. Now I am done asking nicely.

Dear Sir:

In what way am I stomping my heel? My language is not overly hostile nor is my tone abrasive. To call someone to repentance is not a hostile act - it is one of the most loving acts that one can do for another!

Blessings,

-CH
Adam,

I actually agree with CH on this one. Calling somebody to repent for refusing to baptize their child in obedience to the Scriptures is as Confessionally consistent as Baptists who consider our practice a sin.

CH may be saying this, and it may ruffle feathers, but he's not barring anyone from the table as Baptists do to people who have not been immersed as adult professors. John Piper will share a stage with R.C. Sproul in a theological presentation but his Church will still not open the Table to him, in truest fellowship, when the Lord's Supper is celebrated.

Let's keep everything in perspective here.
 
Then Piper is wrong and the other side should not be given a "broader brush" because of another's arrogant mistake.

Let's keep everything in perspective here.

I think I am, calling someone to repentance is claiming you are 100% correct in what you believe. No one I know can make this claim in regard to this issue.
 
Adam,

ALL Baptists confessionally consider the baptism of infants to be contra-Scriptural and a sin. This is not an issue where their Confession leaves room for liberty of conscience. If it wasn't a core issue for them then they wouldn't call themselves Baptists.

I don't get angry with them for calling me to repentance. I know, from the Word, however, that it is they and not I that will have to answer to Christ for refusing to obey His command. I also believe, however, that Christ's blood covers even that sin.
 
They sure aren't as arrogant and proud as many Reformed Calvinists tend to be from my experience. Maybe in some cases ignorance in bliss?

Look, one thing I've loved about reformed theology, Calvinism, and the like is the pursuit of biblical truth. It has been so refreshing to find a community (real and cyber) where the desire to do as God wishes was the top priority! However, the baptism debate here (amongst other things) so often sickens me. We start making rules about who can partake of the Lords supper based on issues that no man can make a final declaration regarding total biblical truth about. We pridefully beat our chests thanking God that we are not like "the other man" who is a credo, or postmill, or not as educated in the D.o.G., or what ever other terms we are so proud to be.

We want to make sure our shorts aren't too short, and that men attempt to grow beards and never watch a UFC match while chastising one another if we dunk instead of sprinkle or believe Nero is the anti-Christ instead of the Pope all while relieving our parched throats with the best alcohol on the market hoping we aren't pulled over for drunk driving on the way home from the pub.

All I am saying here is that lets keep pursuing biblical truth as we deny ourselves and take up our cross remembering not to stop along the way in order to nail someone else to it. Christ died for us, and while we are called to spread the good news we are not called to cast stones at those who love Christ as well, but may not be as far along the windy path as we (or as far as we THINK we are any way).
 
F.N. Lee cites continued adherence to the doctrine of credo-baptism as evidence of possible reprobation.

That's where BOTH sides will eventually lead just as the extreme insistence on the D.O.G. leads to hyper Calvinism and the extreme insistence upon preterism leads to hyper preterism.
 
Adam,

I copied the posts above so everybody knows exactly who you are calling uptight and arrogant.

Thank you for the label. That was very kind of you. I was calmly dialoging on the matter with you. In that exchange, you were the only party of the three of us that was getting upset.

I don't relish pointing out error but when we're talking about Truth we need not shy away from it when I believe the error is consequential.
 
I clearly was NOT talking about you Rich, sorry. I am talking about the idea of what you wrote about Piper! If you agree with that idea, I am sorry to label you by inference, but it was NOT a personal attack.
 
but when we're talking about Truth we need not shy away from it when I believe the error is consequential.

Do not both sides of this debate believe this? I think you've already told me that they do. So if this is the case, wouldn't ever single baptism thread turn into "Repent!" "No, you repent!" demands? Isn't that silly and immature?
 
Adam,

I'm honestly amazed that you do not know the difference in how the Confessions treat eschatology compared to sacramentology.

Your statement is simply a categorical fallacy.

If people cannot be called to repentance for something as Confessionally core as the Sacraments then they cannot be called to repentance for any issue.
 
I think I am, calling someone to repentance is claiming you are 100% correct in what you believe. No one I know can make this claim in regard to this issue.

??? Our respective confessions show otherwise. I think what Adam is driving at is that the board allows both Confessions, 1647 and 1689, and hence the other side is entitled to a hearing without being called to renounce their confession. That is fair enough.
 
Well, every post could have that as an ending to it. It might lose some force. There is a dialogue going on but the underlying assumption on both parties who are Confessional in their views is that one side is in error.

We simply cannot both be right and the issue is not secondary.

Look, the truth of the matter is that Presbyterians are actually the more ecumenical party in this longstanding debate. They allow communicant membership to Baptists but obviously bar them from leadership and teaching roles. Baptists, by confession, typically bar men baptized as infants from Church and communicant membership. It's something I've understood for a while and accept. It's really not worth getting upset with them over because I understand why they do it. I think the theology is wrong that undergirds it but what is wrong is their views on Baptism and not that they, in conscience, hold somthing to be sin on the basis of their conscience.
 
It's really not worth getting upset with them over because I understand why they do it.

Well, it upsets me, understanding it doesn't make a difference. If I expect too much out of members here to not treat one another in this way or talk to one another in that fashion then maybe I shouldn't moderate, because I don't see myself being able to "just accept it". I think it's wrong. Take Susita for example, she comes in and asks a simple question and suddenly ,many of those who are supposed to be more "Spiritually mature" than she lash out at one another and make bold claims about repentance, truth, etc. Do you honestly think that's attractive to her and others who may be searching for what they believe to be true? I don't imagine it is, it certainly isn't to me.
 
but he's not barring anyone from the table as Baptists do to people who have not been immersed as adult professors.

Rich - my church does not require a believer to be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper, although we do require that they have been baptized.
 
I was Baptised as an infant and in 97 I went to the Holy Land and was Immersed in the River Jordan. I've got all my bases covered!:D:D:D
 
Originally Posted by houseparent
I think I am, calling someone to repentance is claiming you are 100% correct in what you believe. No one I know can make this claim in regard to this issue.
??? Our respective confessions show otherwise. I think what Adam is driving at is that the board allows both Confessions, 1647 and 1689, and hence the other side is entitled to a hearing without being called to renounce their confession. That is fair enough.

{sigh}

OK, Adam, make sure you understand the two things that you thanked Rev. Winzer for.

1. You thanked him for pointing out how strange it is for you to be wondering why somebody would be claiming to be 100% correct in what they CONFESS.

2. You thanked him for pointing out that we shouldn't be calling people to renounce their confession.

I've spent less time dealing with the latter and more dealing with the first issue.

That Confessional people of both paedo- and credo- persuasions are permitted to dialogue on this board is apparently obvious to the casual observer. I am not advocating that every single post be "repent and baptize your children, every one of you" but, in a board that allows Confessional expression the words are permitted now and again. There ought not to be shock and horror that a Presbyterian or Baptist believes the way they do on an issue.
 
I am not advocating that every single post be "repent and baptize your children, every one of you"

A post from a young lady who is confused on the issue is at least ONE post where that cry is not needed. If not for who the post was from and what they were asking about I would have never even entered it.
 
Well, it upsets me, understanding it doesn't make a difference. If I expect too much out of members here to not treat one another in this way or talk to one another in that fashion then maybe I shouldn't moderate, because I don't see myself being able to "just accept it". I think it's wrong. Take Susita for example, she comes in and asks a simple question and suddenly ,many of those who are supposed to be more "Spiritually mature" than she lash out at one another and make bold claims about repentance, truth, etc. Do you honestly think that's attractive to her and others who may be searching for what they believe to be true? I don't imagine it is, it certainly isn't to me.

I would hope Susita would want to be convinced that there IS a position on the issue of Baptism and that it's one or the other and not a third, unrevealed, option. Either one Confession is right and the other Confession is wrong. They are not both correct.

Does the Bible make bold claims about repentance, truth, etc? I really don't get it Adam. I was very gentle with Susita and was trying to help her understand our position. I can only lay out what the Scriptures teach on a subject. If the Scriptures teach that the children of believers are to be baptized then to refuse to baptize and to say that the Scriptures do not teach that children are to be baptized cannot be merely admitted as immaterial. If I believe only professors are to be baptized and admitted to the Table, according to the teaching of the Word, then it is sin to allow someone not so baptized to the Table.

Now, I grant that I can be firm in my convictions without being mean or petty about them but I have in no way been so in this or the other thread. I'm simply stating what I Confess the Scriptures teach. At that point, whether or not anyone is attracted to the teaching is really immaterial. If they ask questions or object then I'll continue to try to persuade.

What I don't understand, Adam, is how uncomfortable you are with Confessional confidence by Baptists and Presbyterians on this issue. What other core doctrines (Trinity, Justification, etc) would you call me to task for affirming?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top