Baptists don't presume, but...

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:cd92f15acb="Augusta"]I am tilting heavily toward the Paedobaptist position. My line of reasoning is this...Thanks for listening to me nearly convince myself of it.[/quote:cd92f15acb]
Your line of reasoning makes sense.

The only thing I personally would take issue with is this:
[quote:cd92f15acb="Augusta"]Thus thinking that people must believe before they are baptized is dangerously close to a belief in works playing a part in salvation.[/quote:cd92f15acb]
As one who is still on the baptist side of the fence and looking over at the paedo's nice front lawn, I've never thought of baptism as being a work that plays a part in salvation. Its just a testimony of what God has done in your heart. I think of obeying the command to be baptized as no more of a work than any other thing the Bible tells us to do as a Christian - study your Bible, pray, go to church, die to self, etc.

[quote:cd92f15acb="Augusta"]Your prayers would be appreciated. [/quote:cd92f15acb]
:pray2:
 
Mr. McMahon,

Thanks for the links. I do understand that you and Scott mean something [i:ab0932c420]historically[/i:ab0932c420] speaking when you say Covenant Theology. Let me ask you a question, as you are much more studied on this point than me. Are you saying that Iranaeus, Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, THE WCF, Witsius and others were all in total agreement as to every detail of their theology, even as it deals with the continunity and discontinuity aspects of the covenants, and how and why the covenants were administered? This is a sincere question because that seems to be what you are implying.

And if they were not, how do we decide who was a true Covenant Theologian and who just leaned Covenantally?

Grace & Peace,

Russ
 
[quote:4b69bed05f]Thus thinking that people must believe before they are baptized is dangerously close to a belief in works playing a part in salvation.[/quote:4b69bed05f]

This is nonsense. None of us are preaching baptismal regeneration or works salvation.

Also - why do Presbyterians REQUIRE a profession of faith BEFORE baptizing an adult convert? Have they changed their theology of salvation to a works based system for adults but adhered to a grace based theology for kids? Of course not. Paedo and Credo [b:4b69bed05f]all[/b:4b69bed05f] practise believers baptism, it is just that Credo's practise believers [i:4b69bed05f]only[/i:4b69bed05f] baptism. Works have nothing to do with it.

Phillip
 
Russ,

The basic structure of CT in the early father is found in Calvin. The basic structure of Calvin's CT is found in Turretin, and improved in Turretin to be more specific. The Westminster divines then summarized the findings of Turretin (a la Calvin) in the Westminster standards. Those standards on CT include the Sum of Saving Knowledge, and the Confession and Catechisms on the subject. Coeccius at this time also did work on CT and in his writings you can see Calvin, and the early fathers as well. Witsius finally put all this, a summation of everything, including a further structuring of Westminster, into a very solidly systematic theological form. It is like those little wooden, Russian dolls that fit one inside of the other. As we progress through history, CT takes a more defined shape until the WCF. Witsius simply structured their information more succinctly. There was NO DETRACTION from what the previous had said. We never "remove" aspects of theology in order to further reform it. That winds up deforming that theological system not improving it.

William Wall's work on Infant Baptism through the early fathers and early church demonstrate their consistency in the manner in which they viewed baptism, and the terms they used for regeneration, sanctification, etc. in a more broad scope. Some of their writings would almost even sound foreign to us and different in our thinking because they meant one thing by "baptism" and "regeneration" and we mean something more defined.

Calvin improved all of that, Turretin defined it more precisely, Westminster structured it, and Witsius wrote it all down systematically.

They agree as you move through history in that way.

Reformed Theology, through that time period, specifically follows the theology of Calvin, Turretin, the WCF and CT is epitomized in Witsius.

If someone wants to RE-define CT and say it means "covenantal" combined with "I believe in the doctrines of grace", well, that simply, is not the case at all. That is simply remedied by reading a good church history book (like Latourette, Schaff or D'Aubigne).

The paper on what it means to be reformed covers thjis history and the progression of that theology through the reformers.

I would very much press you to read the paper on Turretin I quoted because that demosntrates how the WCF followed Turretin and why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top