Credobaptist belief in only one baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grace Alone

Puritan Board Senior
Lynnie, I do not believe that paedo-baptist reformed churches require rebaptism for membership if there is a question about whether the parents were really true believers. In fact, when we have joined churches, that question has never come up. They just ask if you have been baptized. I asked this question before and was told that the faith of the parent is not the issue. The baptism is "effective" because it is God's sign that the child is in the covenant community. We know that all who are in the visible church are not true believers. But for those infants who do eventually have faith, they do not have to be rebaptized based on whether the parents were believers or not.

Edited to add: I am not speaking of RCC. I am referring to protestant churches.
 
Last edited:

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
Lynnie, seconding what Janis said, I did not mean to insinuate that Reformed churches would rebaptize. The default practice is strictly no rebaptisms. The question comes in with regard to RC baptisms, regardless of the faith of the parents in those situations.

Here is a link to the Ligon Duncan article I mentioned (actually a sermon, or more properly the Q & A session with the congregation after a sermon). Here is the relevant section:

Question: In my own family, my brother-in-law has recently become a Christian and we had this discussion, I guess about a month ago, and I have had it with several other people as well. So that is why I am seeing this. One of my friends is from the north and so they have come from Catholic families where they now recognize that neither their parents are believers nor probably was the priest who administered baptism to them. How do you respond to that?

Good question, and thank you for raising it. This question was raised last century especially and you need to understand that even under Old School Presbyterians there were two views. In the northern Presbyterian church, Charles Hodge argued that all Roman Catholic baptism ought to be accepted as legitimate Christian baptism. In the southern Presbyterian church, James Henley Thornwell argued that it should not be accepted as Christian baptism. And in the PCA, in order to avoid the controversy, we have left that up to local sessions, so we split the difference as usual. Basically what we said is, that we will leave that up to the local session to determine on a case-by-case basis.

Now what was the rational? - because that is more important. It gets, not only to this issue of what about parental belief, and so forth, but to other issues of Ecclesiology. You need to understand that the view that Roman baptism was illegitimate was tied to the Puritan view that the Roman church was that it was not a church. That by the Declarations of the Counsel of Trent, and the continued public proclamation of those particular declarations which anathematized anyone who believed in justification by grace through faith, that the Roman Church had in fact excommunicated herself from the body of Christ by those declarations, and therefore the Puritans did not recognize any of the rites of the Roman Church. As the Puritans came to America, some Puritans continued to hold that particular view, while other theologians held to different views.

However, there are only two views you can have on that: that it is either baptism or not, and of the need to be rebaptized or not. So in the North, Charles Hodge argued that the Roman Catholic church baptizes in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, so it ought to be recognized as Christian baptism. But in the south, Thornwell argued, A. the Roman Church wasn’t a church, and B. since the Roman Church was not a church, therefore the Roman Priesthood was not ordained clergy. And, in a very colorful debate at General Assembly with Hodge, he said, “Mr. Hodge, you believe that any Tom, Dick, or Harry, can apply water in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and it is baptism.” And he argued against that. So, those are the two views that have been held in the Reformed tradition in America in the last hundred years, mostly focusing on the issue of the status of the Roman Church rather than the more particular question of were the parents true believers? That question, I think, ought to be decided within Protestant boundaries on the basis of professed belief or we really get ourselves into a mess. We have recently had some converted Roman Catholics join at First Pres, who strongly felt that on a theological basis that they had not received Christian baptism and they wanted to receive baptism in the Presbyterian church and on that basis, the session honored that particular request.
 

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
MM, what a fascinating post, thanks so much. That is what I love about the PB; so many people can find pertinent links for so many things. Very helpful. I'll go with Thornwell.

Well, I still think though, that to try and persuade people of paedo baptism based on covenantal theology, and then turn around and say that no faith in the parents isn't an issue, makes no sense, although I guess you can say that in retrospect God knew you would end up saved so he had your heathen parents get you baptized? Too tired to think but interesting subject, thanks.

Janis, this never came up in my PCA. Anybody I know who got rebaptized did it as a Baptist, like my husband who was a Lutheran baby. I never heard of anybody non RCC background in a paedoReformed church who wanted rebaptism. But I know of PCUSA congregations, where the doctrine is so straight from hell itself, that I could picture somebody thinking it was every bit as bad as the RCC. My PCA rebaptized a UPC guy (Pentecostals who deny the trinity). I could even see a Federal vision kid someday deciding that the FV was not a true church. I can see that this could get really complicated.
 

Grace Alone

Puritan Board Senior
MM, what a fascinating post, thanks so much. That is what I love about the PB; so many people can find pertinent links for so many things. Very helpful. I'll go with Thornwell.

Well, I still think though, that to try and persuade people of paedo baptism based on covenantal theology, and then turn around and say that no faith in the parents isn't an issue, makes no sense, although I guess you can say that in retrospect God knew you would end up saved so he had your heathen parents get you baptized? Too tired to think but interesting subject, thanks.

Janis, this never came up in my PCA. Anybody I know who got rebaptized did it as a Baptist, like my husband who was a Lutheran baby. I never heard of anybody non RCC background in a paedoReformed church who wanted rebaptism. But I know of PCUSA congregations, where the doctrine is so straight from hell itself, that I could picture somebody thinking it was every bit as bad as the RCC. My PCA rebaptized a UPC guy (Pentecostals who deny the trinity). I could even see a Federal vision kid someday deciding that the FV was not a true church. I can see that this could get really complicated.

Lol! Yes, it could get complicated! I have been thinking about this the whole time in light of my own experience being baptized in a Methodist church. But it is also true that our first two children were baptized in the PCUSA while we were still spiritually blind. In fact, who knows if there were any Christians present including the ministers?! But no one has suggested that they be rebaptized other than the Calvinist Baptist pastor of our daughter's church. :)
 

PuritanCovenanter

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
One thought here since it has been touched on. I use to say the same thing John MacArthur use to say about Presbyterians not reforming enough. The Reformed Presbyterian view of paedo Baptism is thoroughly reformed in thought and so far away from Roman Catholicism and the early Churches doctrine of necessity that I don't see how it can't be reformed enough. I do think it is unbiblical via who is baptized in scripture and who we are commanded to baptize. I also believe the Credo Only position is the correct one based upon Covenant Theology and who is a member in the Covenant of Grace. And we can discuss this till we are blue in the face. After all, it does say go and baptize making disciples. Just a side note.... It doesn't say make disciples first and baptize them in Matthew 28. Believe me. I know the arguments. At the same time, I am solidly a Credo only Baptist. You can find this out reading my blog.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

I am not sure it is problem of Reforming enough. That is all I am saying. I tend to think it is more of hermeneutically understanding the Bible correctly. Charges of not Reforming Enough just clouds the issue and sounds like ad-hominem. Just my humble opinion.

BTW, I am not a fan of John MacArthur. He gets too many other issues wrong from a Covenantal perspective and our Baptism is based upon our Covenantal understanding of Union in Christ.
 

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
But it is also true that our first two children were baptized in the PCUSA while we were still spiritually blind. In fact, who knows if there were any Christians present including the ministers?! But no one has suggested that they be rebaptized other than the Calvinist Baptist pastor of our daughter's church. :)

I was thinking about all this last night falling asleep- yeah I must be crazy :lol:- and about the discussion above of RCC baptisms. I was thinking about the liberal Anglicans Lloyd-Jones had to deal with, who baptized babies, and also denied the virgin birth, miracles, atonement, and resurrection. At least the RCCs believe in all of that even if they add a whole lot of extras to their gospel. So if you think a RCC baptism is not valid, how can a liberal mainline denomination baptism be valid when they are even less of a true church than the RCC ( if the parents have no faith) ?

I think I'll leave this discussion to better minds than my own, plenty of them out there. Thanks for all the interesting discussion and history though.
 

dudley

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
sprlling

Pastor Tim, I thank you for the post above and agree with you on the post "We have recently had some converted Roman Catholics join at First Pres, who strongly felt that on a theological basis that they had not received Christian baptism and they wanted to receive baptism in the Presbyterian church and on that basis, the session honored that particular request." Pastor Tim, that is exactly why I requested to be Baptised as a Protestant in the Presbyterian church under true covenant theology and faith. I said I think individual circumstances should merit consideration. My request was denied so that is why I was baptsed in the Baptst church on Reformation Sunday last October. As I said above I am a Presbyterian and believe in peado baptism as long as it is performed under true covenant thology.
 
Last edited:

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
Brother Bob,

Interesting point to consider. The only wrinkle in the John 19 example is that that their initial baptism was not trinitarian in nature. Had it been trinitarian I don't think they would have baptized in Acts 19.

On Acts 19, I think it is interesting to bear in mind the comments of John Gill:
Ver. 5. When they heard this, etc.] That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him: they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John’s baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John’s baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle’s name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in (Acts 19:4,5) then what he did, (Acts 19:6) where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles men and de, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle’s speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza’s ancient copy adds, “for the remission of sins”.

In other words, whether you see a rebaptism in Acts 19 or not is dependent on where you close the quotation. And that is not a position dictated by dogmatic presuppositions, for the credo-Baptist Gill does not see a rebaptism.
 

Particular Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
If that is what MacArthur actually said, then he is making a sweeping generalization. All of those groups do not view baptism the same way (e.g., there were multiple groups within the Anglican church historically -- Puritans being one of those groups, and they certainly did not hold to baptismal regeneration; the Anglo-Catholic group was a different matter), and all are not squarely in the "baptismal regeneration" camp. In some cases, if they hold to that today, it is because those groups (at least in their mainline form) have been eaten up with liberalism and will believe anything that gives comfort, no matter if it is false. Furthermore, they are not all "Reformed," which is part of the problem. That is in many ways MacArthur's problem too. He holds to the 5 solas/points and such, but he is not Reformed, and the Reformed Baptists on this board would tell you the same thing. He rejects covenant theology in favor of a dispensational model, and that colors the way he looks at things like the sacraments. It could be that Sproul was "surprised" because MacArthur was so "wrong" in his allegation. It sounds more like a "guilt by association" fallacy than anything else.

If we were to follow MacArthur's line of reasoning, one would have to say that to be "truly Reformed" one would have to be an dispensationalist!

First of all, Tim, you must understand that you’re view of baptism did not find definition until the 1500s. Infant baptism was always practiced with the idea of baptismal regeneration in mind. I think that it is no coincidence that the man that helped to spark the Reformation, St. Augustine, both in the lives of Luther and Calvin, also held to infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. Those who point out the error of Tertullian, who also believed in baptismal regeneration though thought it should be done later in life, fail to point out the fact that Origen, who held to infant baptism, also believed in baptismal regeneration. You’re definition of the effects of infant baptism did not come till Zwingli in the 1500s and later Calvin. So, you are correct that the Puritans didn’t hold to baptismal regeneration, but that doesn’t take away what MacArthur stated and simply seeks to take the argument elsewhere. While we can see how the Puritans viewed infant baptism, we can also see how infant baptism came about and whether those who practiced it earliest believed in baptismal regeneration.
Second of all, you’re utter carelessness in regards to MacArthur’s theology is deplorable. I know that many of you on here disagree with MacArthur on many issues, as do I, but to say that he cannot know what a ‘Reformed’ believer ,as yourself, would believe or in what context your understandings of infant baptism were formed. I get VERY tired of many on this bored who just lambast this man just because he holds a different view of eschatology than us, or because of how he views Israel in relationship to the church. To attack this as something which would bar him from discussing baptism with a ‘Reformed’ paedobaptist brother is simply weak and saddening. MacArthur rejects infant baptism because it is NO WHERE to be found in the Bible. You will NEVER find it in the Bible. He brilliantly states that it’s one thing to have disagreements over things that are found in scripture but quite another to have them over things which are nowhere to be found. He also vividly illustrates that baptism and circumcision do not mean the same thing. Just do a search through the Bible of every time that circumcision is used and you will find that it signifies depravity and a need for cleansing and purity. Baptism signifies a believers union with Christ, repentance, and a washing away of that depravity. They are two totally different signs.
I’m not sure if MacArthur discussed this, but can you tell me why Melchizadek was never circumcised? A man who is probably the closest representation of Christ, both a priest and a King (in Jerusalem) whom Abraham gives a tenth of all he has, isn’t circumcised, does this mean that he is not to be incorporated into the Abrahamic Covenant? If circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of Grace why wasn’t it given to other believers such as Melchizadek, Lot, and Shem, who was still alive at this time?
Also, how can you say that Gen. 17 is the Covenant of Grace with circumcision, then simply change the sign with baptism and change those who receive the sign and the time when the receive the sign. The covenant of circumcision is an everlasting covenant, you cannot change the sign but keep the substance, you cannot pick and choose which you will take from this chapter and which you will insert then paste in and then take out.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
If that is what MacArthur actually said, then he is making a sweeping generalization. All of those groups do not view baptism the same way (e.g., there were multiple groups within the Anglican church historically -- Puritans being one of those groups, and they certainly did not hold to baptismal regeneration; the Anglo-Catholic group was a different matter), and all are not squarely in the "baptismal regeneration" camp. In some cases, if they hold to that today, it is because those groups (at least in their mainline form) have been eaten up with liberalism and will believe anything that gives comfort, no matter if it is false. Furthermore, they are not all "Reformed," which is part of the problem. That is in many ways MacArthur's problem too. He holds to the 5 solas/points and such, but he is not Reformed, and the Reformed Baptists on this board would tell you the same thing. He rejects covenant theology in favor of a dispensational model, and that colors the way he looks at things like the sacraments. It could be that Sproul was "surprised" because MacArthur was so "wrong" in his allegation. It sounds more like a "guilt by association" fallacy than anything else.

If we were to follow MacArthur's line of reasoning, one would have to say that to be "truly Reformed" one would have to be an dispensationalist!

First of all, Tim, you must understand that you’re view of baptism did not find definition until the 1500s. Infant baptism was always practiced with the idea of baptismal regeneration in mind. I think that it is no coincidence that the man that helped to spark the Reformation, St. Augustine, both in the lives of Luther and Calvin, also held to infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. Those who point out the error of Tertullian, who also believed in baptismal regeneration though thought it should be done later in life, fail to point out the fact that Origen, who held to infant baptism, also believed in baptismal regeneration. You’re definition of the effects of infant baptism did not come till Zwingli in the 1500s and later Calvin. So, you are correct that the Puritans didn’t hold to baptismal regeneration, but that doesn’t take away what MacArthur stated and simply seeks to take the argument elsewhere. While we can see how the Puritans viewed infant baptism, we can also see how infant baptism came about and whether those who practiced it earliest believed in baptismal regeneration.
Second of all, you’re utter carelessness in regards to MacArthur’s theology is deplorable. I know that many of you on here disagree with MacArthur on many issues, as do I, but to say that he cannot know what a ‘Reformed’ believer ,as yourself, would believe or in what context your understandings of infant baptism were formed. I get VERY tired of many on this bored who just lambast this man just because he holds a different view of eschatology than us, or because of how he views Israel in relationship to the church. To attack this as something which would bar him from discussing baptism with a ‘Reformed’ paedobaptist brother is simply weak and saddening. MacArthur rejects infant baptism because it is NO WHERE to be found in the Bible. You will NEVER find it in the Bible. He brilliantly states that it’s one thing to have disagreements over things that are found in scripture but quite another to have them over things which are nowhere to be found. He also vividly illustrates that baptism and circumcision do not mean the same thing. Just do a search through the Bible of every time that circumcision is used and you will find that it signifies depravity and a need for cleansing and purity. Baptism signifies a believers union with Christ, repentance, and a washing away of that depravity. They are two totally different signs.
I’m not sure if MacArthur discussed this, but can you tell me why Melchizadek was never circumcised? A man who is probably the closest representation of Christ, both a priest and a King (in Jerusalem) whom Abraham gives a tenth of all he has, isn’t circumcised, does this mean that he is not to be incorporated into the Abrahamic Covenant? If circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of Grace why wasn’t it given to other believers such as Melchizadek, Lot, and Shem, who was still alive at this time?
Also, how can you say that Gen. 17 is the Covenant of Grace with circumcision, then simply change the sign with baptism and change those who receive the sign and the time when the receive the sign. The covenant of circumcision is an everlasting covenant, you cannot change the sign but keep the substance, you cannot pick and choose which you will take from this chapter and which you will insert then paste in and then take out.

Spencer, a few things to note. First, I would appreciate watching your tone when you speak with someone who is a pastor. I shall not cry "offense" in this case, but the tone in your post above is less than respectful. If you think I'm being disrespectful of John MacArthur, let me assure you that I think him to be a fine Christian pastor, a faithful man who is simply wrong in his view of the covenant. In fact, on another thread I commented that his book The Gospel According to Jesus was one of the first I read as a new Christian and had a tremendous impact on my life. I am also hoping to see him at the Together for the Gospel conference later this month. I have no problem with him being associated with the Reformed camp, nor do I think him ignorant of Reformed theology (a very disingenuous reading of what I posted in its own right). Furthermore, if we are talking about history, you would have to at least consider your own views as being somewhat of an historical novelty itself. The question, of course, is not whether they were practiced, but whether they are biblical.

To say that something is not mentioned in Scripture, therefore it is to be excluded, presents many problems and is a bad hermeneutic. By that account, women cannot come to the Lord's Supper, since it's not mentioned anywhere. By that account, Timothy was never baptized in the book of Acts (since it's not mentioned anywhere), although his circumcision is recorded. The Reformed hermeneutic, at least from a Westminsterian standard is this: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." Now, you may disagree about the good and necessary consequence part, but that is a different matter. To simply say it doesn't appear therefore it may be discarded is bad exegesis, and the history of the church itself is against you in the matter.

If you have specific questions about covenant theology, I would suggest you start a thread on that matter, as the questions you ask at the end are somewhat off topic. Also, there is a recent PB thread dealing with recommendations of books on covenant theology; I would encourage you to read that as well if you have questions on the matter. For example, to the best of my knowledge, the relationship between circumcision and baptism is not really a point of disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians (judging by some of the statements I've read from Reformed-minded Baptists); it's the application of the sign, etc. where the difference lies.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Good grief, Spence. You might as well say that your own theological definition of baptism doesn't get any bona fide historical traction until the anabaptist era, the same century!

The trail of blood, or any version thereof of baptist history, is complete bunkum. So guess what? Both sides end up having to face the fact that we have to deal with a common church history that messes up the theology of baptism early in the life of the NT church. For you to say that IB was "always" practiced with BR in mind only poisons the well of the extra-biblical record. That's why we all go back to the Bible for our definitions and practical defenses.

At least for the specific history of the Reformed view, you should acquaint yourself with Hughes Oliphant Old's The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century, rather than as it seems from your post, simply imbibing a view of the relevant history from those who dissent.

"We can see how [it] came about." No, actually you can interpret the remains and the records to favor your position, and so can the other side. Because I can see how YOUR baptismal theology "came about," does that make it wrong? Of course not, and you shouldn't use a form of argument that you aren't prepared to put up with against your own side.

MacArthur actually stated a few years ago that if Calvin had reformed properly he would have been Dispensational. That was at his Shepherd's Conference. So, he's opened himself up to the criticism that "he doesn't really understand" some of the positions he takes issue with. Since the doctrine of Trinity isn't mentioned in Scripture, I guess that means its just a tempest-in-a-teapot too?

If you think its OK to lump people together in practice, based on the outward form of things instead of the variety of the theology behind it (but it takes TIME to read and understand those things...), then don't complain if you get tarred with the brush, because most of "baptizing" cultists and unitarians, etc, borrow from the immersionist tradition. If you don't appreciate that connection, and think it is entirely illegitimate, then you have some idea of what it is like to have to listen to people who think we simply carry-over the Roman practice. How ignorant.

I hope you understand that Reformed folks (speaking narrowly) simply do theology differently than your tradition. There are similarities, great; but you do not read the Bible the same way we do. So when you say that IB isn't in the Bible, enough said. You read the Bible in such a way that it isn't there. We read the Bible in such a way that it is undeniably there. What are we going to do? How about stop writing "it isn't there" over and over and over, as if the mantra were convincing.

You say circumcision and baptism signify different things. OK, we say they signify (at the basic level) the very same things. What could be more contrary than that? We read the relevant texts differently.

Not that its relevant, but how do you know Melchizedek wasn't circumcised? It isn't as if the text of Genesis mentions it one way or another. Since when does silence on an irrelevant subject constitute evidence against something else? Anything you propose on the topic becomes a hypothetical conjecture.

Your reading of Genesis17 makes its own assumptions. Look, instead of saying: "I understand your position just fine," try expressing it sympathetically, and ask a reliable exponent of that position to read it and go over it, and tweak it and clarify, until you've agreed on the understanding. And then go forth to dismantle it.
 

PuritanCovenanter

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
Second of all, you’re utter carelessness in regards to MacArthur’s theology is deplorable. I know that many of you on here disagree with MacArthur on many issues, as do I, but to say that he cannot know what a ‘Reformed’ believer ,as yourself, would believe or in what context your understandings of infant baptism were formed. I get VERY tired of many on this bored who just lambast this man just because he holds a different view of eschatology than us, or because of how he views Israel in relationship to the church. To attack this as something which would bar him from discussing baptism with a ‘Reformed’ paedobaptist brother is simply weak and saddening. MacArthur rejects infant baptism because it is NO WHERE to be found in the Bible. You will NEVER find it in the Bible. He brilliantly states that it’s one thing to have disagreements over things that are found in scripture but quite another to have them over things which are nowhere to be found. He also vividly illustrates that baptism and circumcision do not mean the same thing. Just do a search through the Bible of every time that circumcision is used and you will find that it signifies depravity and a need for cleansing and purity. Baptism signifies a believers union with Christ, repentance, and a washing away of that depravity. They are two totally different signs.


You need not get tired of those who criticize JM. JM has already exhibited major misunderstandings about the theology of those who are Reformed. Especially in his diatribe against everyone who claimed to be a Calvinist and wasn't dispensational Premil. Do you know about this? Samuel Waldron responded to JM's major misunderstandings in a book 'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto'. JM is not beyond criticism.

We also disagree with him because he does eisegesis concerning his dispensational Pre mil view every now and again. You ought to read his Commentary on Hebrews 6. He does a pretty good job but inserts the Premil dispensational doctrine in his commentary in that chapter which has nothing to do with the millennium.

BTW, circumcision and baptism are closely linked together in the New Testament in Colossians 2:11,12. So to say they just pull this teaching out of thin air is a gross misunderstanding. I am a credo only guy and find some of your charges baseless.

I would also recommend if you want to discuss things here you should tone down your attitude.

BTW, I agree with you concerning King Mel. I also agree that the covenant of circumcision was more than the covenant of grace. But you do have to admit that the Covenant of Grace is a part of it. To deny this is to deny that you are an heir as a child of Abraham. Since JM doesn't understand the Bible Covenantally, he by sheer nature of hermeneutic would not understand the Bible holistically. Therefore he looses touch with the Covenant of Grace and the Church which has existed in Christ since Adam and Eve. The Bride of Christ is one. Christ is not a polygamist. If Isreal and the Church are not one then this leads to many other problems. JM is problematic.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I would also recommend if you want to discuss things here you should tone down your attitude.

This Baptist agrees. If it's a fight you want, you might just get it on PB, and most will not be as gentle as Rev Buchanan.

--------------------

And by the way, no one on PB 'lambasts' JM. Many disagree with him on many things but also recognize the good he has done for Christ's kingdom. The fact that you (and others) consider any disagreement with JM to be 'lambast' only belies an over-inflated view of his theology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top