Arminian Dispenationalists may be in error but

[Ivan]

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.

Same here.

 

[Herald]

Same here.

Ivan - glad to hear it. Perhaps there are more Baptist churches in agreement with us then we are lead to believe. I'm not referring to the churches that fail to protect the purity of the sacrament but the ones that volitionally choose to allow paedos to participate.

 

[etexas]

The Anglican Communion is "open" to all who are Baptised.

 

[Ivan]

Ivan - glad to hear it. Perhaps there are more Baptist churches in agreement with us then we are lead to believe. I'm not referring to the churches that fail to protect the purity of the sacrament but the ones that volitionally choose to allow paedos to participate.

Protect the purity we do. It has been my position for over 15 years now to invite all who trust Christ as LORD and Savior regardless as to when or how they have been baptized . Sproul and Piper are both welcome to our table, as are our brethren at PB.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Amen!

 

[Herald]

Protect the purity we do. It has been my position for over 15 years now to invite all who trust Christ as LORD and Savior regardless as to when or how they have been baptized . Sproul and Piper are both welcome to our table, as are our brethren at PB.

Do you require that participants in the Lord's Supper be baptized (whether credo or paedo)?

 

[Ivan]

Do you require that participants in the Lord's Supper be baptized (whether credo or paedo)?

Yes.

 

[turmeric]

Ok, so if I continue to study and pray and cannot be swayed to paedobaptism I'll will be able to freely admit that here without retribution or damaging my reputation? I am pretty close to making such a stance and have been for some time. I've prayed and studied this issue since my arrival to the PB and I cannot be swayed in my mind, spirit, or conscience the way I almost immediately was in my eschatology that I had held to for over 20 years!

My understanding of the PCA is that members can take exceptions to the WCF. It seems like you could do the same. You certainly wouldn't be the only credo on the board!

I almost never come into this forum unless I have a specific question, simply because it becomes such a mosh pit! I'm not up to it most of the time. It can be fun to watch sometimes!

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Protect the purity we do. It has been my position for over 15 years now to invite all who trust Christ as LORD and Savior regardless as to when or how they have been baptized . Sproul and Piper are both welcome to our table, as are our brethren at PB.

That is the postion of our church as well.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Adam,

Again, if CH had simply continually posted "Repent!" your argument might have more force. I think you're being very unfair to him by repeating this accusation. He laid out several lengthy arguments. "Repent" was at the end of the "Why".

Whenever we teach something against Scripture it is a sin. Yet we tell each other all the time on this board that somebody's view of Scripture is faulty and not merely on the Baptism forum. Such misunderstandings need to be repented of and when I hear I am teaching or holding something that is against the Word of God, I don't view it with any less gravity than being told I need to repent.

I mean, seriously, you have Presbyterians on one side saying: "The Scriptures teach this..." and every time a Baptist says the Scriptures teach otherwise the implied understanding is: You're teaching error. It's implied. It's understood. If I agreed with them then I would repent.

We'd have to close every forum on this board if we couldn't challenge people with things they might need to repent of.

Hey:

Thank you Rich. But Houseparent has not given you the whole story. He did not tell you that he sent a warning to me as a moderator of the puritanboard:

"You have received a warning from the Puritanboard."

He also did not point out that though my first post (#38) on that thread was to "susita," but the other posts were in response to MeanieCalvinist (#'s56, etc...).

My overall impression of houseparent's behaviour on this matter is rather low. It seems to me that he has acted in a rash and infantile manner. Certainly, I do not believe that the disingenuousness he has exhibited is worthy of a moderator in this forum.

I had sent houseparent a private message that explained something similar to what you state above. Houseparent decided to ignore my message and continue his tirade against me.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[Barnpreacher]

My overall impression of houseparent's behaviour on this matter is rather low. It seems to me that he has acted in a rash and infantile manner. Certainly, I do not believe that the disingenuousness he has exhibited is worthy of a moderator in this forum.

I had sent houseparent a private message that explained something similar to what you state above. Houseparent decided to ignore my message and continue his tirade against me.

I would hardly call what Adam said a "tirade" against you. He was simply giving a warning that he thought was best while acting as a moderator. Was the warning merited? Well, Rich obviously didn't think it was and so he settled the issue. So, if the issue about how Adam handled the situation has been settled then it should be dropped in my opinion before it becomes a matter of contention between two brothers.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

We will always and forever continue to call people to renounce anything that is not in accordance with the Scriptures.

Why wouold we do anything else?

If someone has confessed something wrong, and they write it down wrong, like in a confession, then we should still call them to un-confess what they erroneously confessed. THey have sinned against God.

I would hope that everyone feels that way and everyone would do that accordingly.

 

[Ivan]

I would hardly call what Adam said a "tirade" against you. He was simply giving a warning that he thought was best while acting as a moderator. Was the warning merited? Well, Rich obviously didn't think it was and so he settled the issue. So, if the issue about how Adam handled the situation has been settled then it should be dropped in my opinion before it becomes a matter of contention between two brothers.

 

[Chris]

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.

Adam,

Take heart in this:

The suggestion that Baptists need to repent, in the context it was offered in, probably was a great help to Susita, as it almost certainly pushed her away from the paedo position.

 

[Ravens]

To me this is a rather simple issue.

Either Baptists or Presbyterians err and sin in their sacramentology; both, by definition, can't be right.

Neither side should get their feather's ruffled over that. We'll fight to our dying breath against Wesleyan Perfectionism and quote Romans 7, and yet when someone insinuates that we might have remaining sin, we are aghast and shocked. So I see (and agree with) C&H's and Semper's point.

However, I also see Adam's point, in that ultimately, if the "repent ye" language is loosed on the board (because all theological error is, in some sense, sin), then we might start seeing "Repent!" or even "Repent!" in Textus Receptus, E.P., Sabbath (which hour does it start...), etc. threads.

Taking this logic, every argument on those issues, since they are theological and Biblical issues, could come with a call to repent at the end. This board generates enough heat on its own, without personal rebukes attached to every post.

in my opinion, this board often states that its not a church, and not a substitute for church. And practically, I think it should take its own advice in this instance, and not have members rebuking other brothers and sisters that they do not attend church with, have no authority over, and have never even met face to face.

I mean, logically, someone could follow RSC around telling him to repent because the Framework is unconfessional, or they could tell Rev. Buchanan to repent because he doesn't adhere to E.P. I picked those two, not to pick on them, but on the contrary, because I greatly respect both of them. I just don't want this board to have a respect for persons... if calls to repentance are fair game, then let's let it apply to everyone, on any theological issue, whenever someone feels the need to.

I mean that's fine, but I think the board would generate so much heat that it would melt hard-drives all across the country.

 

[KMK]

To me this is a rather simple issue.

Either Baptists or Presbyterians err and sin in their sacramentology; both, by definition, can't be right.

Just to clarify, since Rich posted the same, there is a third possiblility...

Maybe they both err and sin in their sacramentology.

 

[Ivan]

Just to clarify, since Rich posted the same, there is a third possiblility...

Maybe they both err and sin in their sacramentology.

Something to think about.

 

[Ravens]

Possibly, if Catholics, Lutherans, or Orthodox are right (they're not).

The key issue is, however, that even if 8 options are available, we are still recognizing that deficient views and practices of the sacraments are sins.

How could they not be? Sin also attaches to unmandated worship, Sabbath breaking, and everything else. Why anyone on this board who is aware of the severity and exactness of God's law would get their feathers ruffled because someone pointed out remaining sin bewilders me.

We aren't perfectionists. We'll have the remnants of sin until death. Don't get bent out of shape when someone points out the theological implications thereof.

 

[toddpedlar]

So did John Bunyan. As a Presbyterian I can't allow unbaptised persons to partake of communion -- decency and order. If I were Baptist I would have to regard a person baptised in infancy as unbaptised. Hence if I were a Baptist I could not allow a person baptised in infancy to partake of communion until they were baptised upon profession of faith. All praise and thanks to the Lord that I am not a Baptist! I am also thankful when I see Baptists disowning their own unbiblical tenets.

I thought it was fairly common practice for Baptists (not reformed baptists) to allow even children to partake without having been baptized - at least this is how it was in my own church growing up for several years prior to our family's leaving the church. I had never been baptized, but was allowed to take communion. I know of several instances today of baptistic churches that allow the same.

 

[Ivan]

I thought it was fairly common practice for Baptists (not reformed baptists) to allow even children to partake without having been baptized - at least this is how it was in my own church growing up for several years prior to our family's leaving the church. I had never been baptized, but was allowed to take communion. I know of several instances today of baptistic churches that allow the same.

It is not a common practice in the Southern Baptist churches that I know, at least it wasn't.

Things change and not for the better.

 

[Augusta]

I thought it was fairly common practice for Baptists (not reformed baptists) to allow even children to partake without having been baptized - at least this is how it was in my own church growing up for several years prior to our family's leaving the church. I had never been baptized, but was allowed to take communion. I know of several instances today of baptistic churches that allow the same.

This is how it was in my church growing up. A Foursquare church which if you aren't familiar is a charismatic/arminian church. I wasn't baptized until I was 13 and I still didn't know the significance of what I was doing. I was by all accounts still a infant in the knowledge of the Lord. I might as well have been baptized as an infant.

All those years of partaking unworthily.

 

[Arch2k]

We will always and forever continue to call people to renounce anything that is not in accordance with the Scriptures.

Why wouold we do anything else?

If someone has confessed something wrong, and they write it down wrong, like in a confession, then we should still call them to un-confess what they erroneously confessed. THey have sinned against God.

I would hope that everyone feels that way and everyone would do that accordingly.

Amen. That is what needs to be admitted on both sides, is that one is right, and the other wrong, and therefore sinful on the part of one side. In fact, this is so obvious that I assumed that it was a presupposition on the part of all going into the debate.

That being said, this is the case with all doctrine. Why the added importance to the sacraments? Well, it should be the fact that they are an appointed means of grace, an element of worship to be continued until the return of our Lord. Eschetology (the orthodox forms at least) and the like, while important, do not have the same weightiness for the church in the already/not yet.

 

[etexas]

The Church used to put more into the issue....there was an infant Baptism, the child was raised in the church then took confimation classes (to assure they understood and accpted the basics of the Christian faith) after which was a public personal statement by those who finished confirmation. And in my case laying on of hand by a Bishop. For many Confirmation was considered "part and parcel" as part of and fufilment of the Baptism.

 

[ReformedWretch]

However, I also see Adam's point, in that ultimately, if the "repent ye" language is loosed on the board (because all theological error is, in some sense, sin), then we might start seeing "Repent!" or even "Repent!" in Textus Receptus, E.P., Sabbath (which hour does it start...), etc. threads.

Taking this logic, every argument on those issues, since they are theological and Biblical issues, could come with a call to repent at the end. This board generates enough heat on its own, without personal rebukes attached to every post.

YES!!!!

So few here seem to realize this was and still is my point.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Adam,

I agree (as I would hope most here would as well) that it will not be very helpful to constantly be emphasizing the need of people on the other side to repent. Acknowledging such, however, is a far cry from claiming that there is no ultimate need to repent at the heart of the issue, or that the Church should not call people to such. Do you agree that either side, in order to be consistent, must logically view the other side as biblically being in sin, even if they properly refrain from constantly emphasizing that in a personal way during discussions?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Sure I agree with a side, and I will agree that the other side sins, but that's simply (as many have said) a presupposition going into these kind of discussions. As such, neither side need toss that demand at one another, especially NUMEROUS times in the same thread, again especially after being asked nicely to stop...more than ONCE!

-The poster should have stopped

-If any other mod/owner/admin disagreed with me they should have contacted me privately and told me so.

Neither of these things happened.

 

[etexas]

Sure I agree with a side, and I will agree that the other side sins, but that's simply (as many have said) a presupposition going into these kind of discussions. As such, neither side need toss that demand at one another, especially NUMEROUS times in the same thread, again especially after being asked nicely to stop...more than ONCE!

-The poster should have stopped

-If any other mod/owner/admin disagreed with me they should have contacted me privately and told me so.

Neither of these things happened.

Did you guys ever get that dog?

 

[ReformedWretch]

lol...no, not until July 1st.

 

[etexas]

lol...no, not until July 1st.

COOL! What breed did "y'all" decide on?

 

[ReformedWretch]

We didn't yet.