I am no longer Baptist.

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Giving praise to God for you!

You are now on a road where when you read through the Scriptures, they will seem very different, (richer in many ways) than they did before. I felt like a kid in a candy shop.

Blessings to you...

 

[fredtgreco]

So what about school and church?

By the way, congrats. I guess I went about this the hard way - having a kid!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Gabriel,
In the past our conversations were vigorous, but surely appreciated. I praise God for His truths and that which He has brought to light for you and yours. I had a feeling you were working these things out.

 

[john_Mark]

Why are congratulations and praise in order? Is Gabriel now "a better" or "more of" a Christian than before?

Would it be acceptable as a baptist to say the opposite such as, "I grieve upon your decision and pray God bring you back to credo-baptism?"

I ask this with slight tongue in cheek while also wondering about your responses.

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by john_Mark]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by john_Mark
Why are congratulations and praise in order? Is Gabriel now "a better" or "more of" a Christian than before?

Would it be acceptable as a baptist to say the opposite such as, "I grieve upon your decision and pray God bring you back to credo-baptism?"

I ask this with slight tongue in cheek while also wondering about your responses.

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by john_Mark]

Congratulations are in order because Gabriel now sees teh Scriptures in a better light. A baptist certainly could (and probably should) respond as you said. Would you respond to a man who said he had just come to accept Calvinism from Arminianism as "sorry you left Arminianism" or a man who left dispensationalism with grief for that?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
So what about school and church?

I will finish my B.A. in Biblical and Theological Studies here at Southern and then go somewhere else for my M.Div. and other important initials.

As for Church, I'll probably stay the same, as there aren't any good Presbyterian Churches here, really, in my opinion (There's only ONE PCA church here, and it is pretty... 'modern', if you will), being the headquarters of the PC(USA) (Louisville).

Right now, I'd really like to go to RPTS in Pittsburgh, but we'll see - I have about 2 years to first get married and figure out what we'll do after I'm done here.

 

[Ivan]

Best wishes to you, Gabriel. I pray that Christ will always be "the blazing center of God's glory" to you.

 

[blhowes]

Gabriel,
Thanks for sharing some of your reasons for changing camps. Its always good for the rest of us, especially those who are on the fence, to consider why others switch (from/to either camp).

 

[john_Mark]

I figured someone would bring up the Calvinism to Arminianism situation. The situtations are mutually exclusive, although, there may be similiarities in how we may approach each.

On these boards there are Baptists and Presbyterians who share very similar statements of faith(SoF) so the above is not an issue here. It seems that a bit more respect towards the Baptists here would be expressed since we are here on common and specific grounds i.e. particular SoF.

Just wondering so I can then respond with - Gabriel, I grieve upon your decision and pray God bring you back to credo-baptism.

 

[john_Mark]

PS:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Congratulations are in order because Gabriel now sees the Scriptures in a better light.

Rather, congratulations are not in order because Gabriel now sees Scriptures in a worse light.

 

[wsw201]

Gabriel,

Have you changed your views regarding ecclesiology as well as the Lord's Supper? There is a lot more to Reformed/Covenant Theology than baptizing babies! Lutherans baptize babies too.

[Edited on 1/14/2005 by wsw201]

 

[govols]

Actually ing john_Mark. Slow to hit the Enter key.

SOME of us are actually trying to work !



[Edited on 14-1-2005 by govols]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

What Wayne said is very much an interesting part to the whole scope of the move. Now you have to deal with polity (ecclesiology). That can be a bear in and of itself.

BUT - if you embrace Covenant Theology, polity will be easier based on continuity.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I've always believed the Presbyterian form of Church government is the best and most Biblical application, even while being Baptist.

I'm not sure what you are speaking of in regards to the Lord's Supper, however. Can you explain? I might already know what you're talking about but i'd like to be sure.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The Presbyterian view of the sacraments is a higher view. The LBC omits teh section on the sacraments.

Chapter XXVII
Of the Sacraments
I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, 10 immediately instituted by God, 11 to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: 12 as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; 13 and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. 14

II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. 15

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: 16 but upon the work of the Spirit, 17 and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. 18

IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. 19

V. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new. 20


[Edited on 1-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Oh, yeah I've always agreed with that since I first heard it about a year or so ago. I think I read Calvin's view on them, and I knew most Baptists disagreed, but I thought what he said was correct in that they "separate us from the world" through participation in them, and everything else the WCF mentions.

 

[sosipater]

Questions

Gabriel,

Since you chose to make a public declaration, I have a few questions for you. I apologize if you have addressed this as I am a occasional lurker and may have missed it.

1. Have you spoken in-depth to your elder(s) at your church about this massive shift in your theology?
1a. If so, would you mind sharing their thoughts?

2. What prompted you studying out this issue, or what first brought you under conviction that your credo baptist beliefs were incorrect?

3. Have you studied both sides of the issue fairly? I ask this because of this statement

Even Reformed Baptist arguments are cornered when you find that the entire basis for believing the NC is "believers only" is based on Jeremiah 31,

This statement seems incorrect as Jeremiah 31 is not "the entire" basis for Baptist's belief in the nature of the New Covenant, but an important and vital one.

Also, prior to most opinions expressed here, being a Baptist is not mutually exclusive with holding to covenant theology, but that issue gets
It is my view that Baptist CT is more consistent that the Paedobaptist. Have you discussed this with your elders also?

I will finish my B.A. in Biblical and Theological Studies here at Southern and then go somewhere else for my M.Div. and other important initials.

Why? Isn't SBTS a respected Seminary, even among Presbyterians?

Finally, I share johnMark's deep disappointment at your decision but am not surprised at the response by my paedobaptist brothers, as sometimes our zeal can drown out our humility. I look forward to hearing your answers to my questions.

Grace & Peace,
Russ

 

[Scott Bushey]

Russ,
Please click on the link in my post for sig requirements.
Thanks.

 

[doulosChristou]

Grieving for you, dear brother. May God expose the darkness of your error. I echo those who encourage you to look at Scripture with your elders. Bruce Ware attends your church, right? I'd go over this with him. Your statement that the "entire basis" for believer's baptism is Jer 31 is incorrect. Without turning this thread into another credo/paedo debate, let me remind you briefly of the Scriptural basis for credobaptism quite apart from Jer 31. While Colossians 2:11-12 certainly speaks of circumcision of the heart and Spirit baptism together, no text in all of Scripture brings together physical circumcision and water baptism; this is because they are very different things. Physical circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen.17:11). Infant-baptists mistake in saying that water baptism is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace or New Covenant. It is not. Scripture never says or implies that. The cup is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25) and according to Eph 1:13 the Holy Spirit is the seal. Water baptism is "the response of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet 3:21). It is never called a "sign" or a "seal," but the one thing Scripture does call water baptism is "the response of a good conscience toward God." An infant cannot make a respose or answer or request or pledge. It is not the replacement for circumcision. In keeping in mind that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith" and likewise that "neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcison, but a new creation" (Gal 5:6; 6:15), it seems clear to me at least, that those dear brethren preaching that circumcision continues on in infant baptism are guilty of "preaching circumcision."

http://www.founders.org/FJ35/article2_fr.html

 

[govols]

And by the way, Don't mess with Texas.

Gregory.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

1. Have you spoken in-depth to your elder(s) at your church about this massive shift in your theology?
1a. If so, would you mind sharing their thoughts?

No. I'm not a member of Clifton Baptist Church. My membership remains at my 'home church' where I grew up (SBC), as they are the body that recommended and approved me going to SBTS, as per the requirements of admission to SBTS. My theological perspective does not affect my right to attend SBTS and get a degree there, nor is anything I believe against any policy there. There are people of many different denominations attending the college. Also, my theological beliefs are not an issue at my home church, as they are largely pluralistic and require only that church members profess faith in Christ and be baptized to join the church (both of which I did at that church). There are no specifics that the church adheres to theologically, as it is (like most SBC churches) quite post-modern and program-driven.

2. What prompted you studying out this issue, or what first brought you under conviction that your credo baptist beliefs were incorrect?

Nothing that I know of, really. I just read and study God's Word on a regular basis and read a lot of books by dead guys. The conviction came from simple readings of Scripture as a whole.

3. Have you studied both sides of the issue fairly?

I studied the Baptist side for 21 years, and after a year or so of reading the Bible in a "redemptive-historical" mindset, I have discovered a large part of Baptist belief is inconsistent at the very least.

Why? Isn't SBTS a respected Seminary, even among Presbyterians?

Yes, it is respected, but I find myself uncomfortable there. If nothing else, because of the SBC mindset and philosophy that I largely disagree with. Not to mention that only 25% of the professors at the school are even 4 or 5-point calvinists apparently. It is hard enough sitting through a class for a semester being taught by a staunch Arminian, so why would I want to do through that longer than I have to? I will finish my undergraduate degree here, but after that, who knows? My goal in schooling is not to just get degrees, but to learn as much as I possibly can about God's truth so that I can be a responsible servant in training congregations I may pastor with sound doctrine. I see little point in paying money to go to a school that teaches a lot of things you disagree with (or, more importantly, you believe Scripture disagrees with), simply because it is a well-respected school. I want to be pushed to my limits and gain as much knowledge and wisdom in the next few years as I can, so that I am not an unprepared elder who, like Martha, cares more about serving God than listening to His Word and commandments.

 

[Irishcat922]

Congratulations Gabriel,
I echo the sentiments of my Presbyterian brethren, but I would also encourage you to do what Greg and Russ are telling you to do. Every time I made any major Theological shift, I sought out the advice of those in authority over me. I always stuck by my convictions, but I would allow them to speak into my life, and help me firm up my views.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by doulosChristou
Grieving for you, dear brother. May God expose the darkness of your error. I echo those who encourage you to look at Scripture with your elders. Bruce Ware attends your church, right? I'd go over this with him.

Yes, Bruce Ware is an elder at the church I attend. He is a nice man and I have a lot of respect for him. However, he is also a Premillennial Progressive-Dispensationalist Amyraldian, so why would I want to have a Theological discussion with him about something related to Covenant Theology? (Especially when I am Preterist/Postmillennial and Supralapsarianal)


Edited in error.........

[Edited on 1-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Irishcat922
Congratulations Gabriel,
I echo the sentiments of my Presbyterian brethren, but I would also encourage you to do what Greg and Russ are telling you to do. Every time I made any major Theological shift, I sought out the advice of those in authority over me. I always stuck by my convictions, but I would allow them to speak into my life, and help me firm up my views.

Congrats!

 

[govols]

These Congrats, Way to go, You don't know what you're talking about, You're still wrong, You're a monkey's uncle, etc. is getting pretty childish and sophomoric In my humble opinion. Send a U2U to the person if you have to.

I ain't talking about anyone in particular but how is it edifying to the brothers / sisters in Christ who don't hold this same view as the paedos, which is the incorrect one BTW. Just Kidding!

In the words of the prophet and saint Rodney, "Can't we all just get along (as reformed believers, edifying one another)

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by govols]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Physical circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen.17:11). Infant-baptists mistake in saying that water baptism is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace or New Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant was just one of the appearances of the Covenant of Grace, as the New Covenant is. It is not a "brand new" Covenant, but a "fresh" or "renewed" one, as the Hebrew word used for it indicates. God continued to renew His gracious covenant with His chosen people throughout redemptive history, until its final culmination in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

It is not. Scripture never says or implies that. The cup is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25)

The same cup that Jesus Christ gave to Judas Iscariot?

and according to Eph 1:13 the Holy Spirit is the seal.

Agreed. We cannot fulfill the spiritual requirements of the New Covenant without a new heart, granted to us by God.

Water baptism is "the response of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet 3:21). It is never called a "sign" or a "seal," but the one thing Scripture does call water baptism is "the response of a good conscience toward God." An infant cannot make a respose or answer or request or pledge. It is not the replacement for circumcision.

The ESV and NASB don't agree with what you are claiming here. The NASB reads: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" Baptism is an appeal FOR a good conscience, from God. This verse is not man-centered, but God-centered. Baptism shows our hope for the promise of forgiveness of sins. Justification. This forgiveness of sins clears our conscience as having been set free by the blood of Christ, and is accomplished "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" not because we have been Baptized. This shows nothing but applying a sign of the covenant to us with the faith and hope that God will work in us to grant us faith and repentance, give us a new heart, and cause us to persevere till the end - proving our calling and election and that we are true members of the New Covenant, both visibly/externally and spiritually (and not covenant breakers or apostates who may apply the signs of the covenant and partake in its visible/external blessings, but never have the regeneration of the Holy Spirit that comes to God's elect alone). The fact that infants cannot make a request for a clear conscience means nothing, as it is clear in the passage that the act of Baptism makes the appeal to God.

In keeping in mind that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith" and likewise that "neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcison, but a new creation" (Gal 5:6; 6:15), it seems clear to me at least, that those dear brethren preaching that circumcision continues on in infant baptism are guilty of "preaching circumcision."

The issue here in Galatians is Judaizing, and to make it about Paedo/Credo-Baptism is quite a stretch, considering the context. The primary concern is that some believers in the Church think that faith in Christ PLUS keeping ALL of the Law of Moses saves you, whereas we all know that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, based on Christ's perfection (and not our adherance to the Law of Moses). To bring the issue of Christian Baptism as related to Mosaic circumcision into this letter makes little if no sense to me at all.

Grace and Peace, brother in Christ.

 

[sosipater]

Russ, Please click on the link in my post for sig requirements.

Scott,

Sorry, I had a sig but I moved it to bio. Should be back below.

Gabriel,

Thanks for responding to my questions.

My theological perspective does not affect my right to attend SBTS and get a degree there, nor is anything I believe against any policy there. There are people of many different denominations attending the college. Also, my theological beliefs are not an issue at my home church, as they are largely pluralistic and require only that church members profess faith in Christ and be baptized to join the church (both of which I did at that church). There are no specifics that the church adheres to theologically, as it is (like most SBC churches) quite post-modern and program-driven.

I was not implying that your views were against any policy, merely that you submit yourself to whomever your spiritual authority is, for guidance and wisdom. That is what they are there for, and it is for your benefit.

The conviction came from simple readings of Scripture as a whole.

I will have to take your word for it. In my experience it has always been the case that a shift like yours is not preceded by conviction by scripture per se, but by outside influences on that reading of scripture and the emotional security that comes from agreeing with, as you put it, a bunch of "dead guys". This is not inherently bad, just enlightening from my point of view, and my desire is *not* to judge anyone's motives. I am sure yours are pure.

I was just curious about SBTS because I will be visiting in April and am trying to gather as much information as possible. Implied in my use of the word "respected" was conservative and solid, Biblically speaking.

I still believe you are seroiously wrong on this, but wish you well in your studies and pray for God's grace in your life.

Grace & Peace,
Russ

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by sosipater
I will have to take your word for it. In my experience it has always been the case that a shift like yours is not preceded by conviction by scripture per se, but by outside influences on that reading of scripture and the emotional security that comes from agreeing with, as you put it, a bunch of "dead guys". This is not inherently bad, just enlightening from my point of view, and my desire is *not* to judge anyone's motives. I am sure yours are pure.

If anything, my change in beliefs over the last few years has caused me a lack of emotional security, as most people I know don't agree with these issues, but also never really look into them or care much about them. I am outside of the beliefs of my entire family (Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists), and have very few friends that agree with me (maybe 3 at the most). Thankfully, God-willing, I will have a wonderful soon-to-be-fiance-soon-to-be-wife that is always a strong encouragement to me in the Lord, who is always willing to challenge me and help me think about issues over and over as related to Scripture and who God is in relation to mankind. My family will still love me, but I doubt they will ever really be "supportive and understanding" of my ministry, unless there is a major God-centered revival in our country in the future. Most people say they like things to be God-centered, but when it comes down to it, they usually end up bored with all the focus being on Him. May Christ's kingdom triumph over our culture and all of his enemies be made a footstool beneath His feet!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

In my experience it has always been the case that a shift like yours is not preceded by conviction by scripture per se, but by outside influences on that reading of scripture and the emotional security that comes from agreeing with, as you put it, a bunch of "dead guys".

This is the exact opposite of my experience, which happened with the books of Hebrews and Jeremiah. Also, this seems to be the testimony of those we know of who switched that are on this board thus far in the past 2 years, based not only on thier struggles that we have seen through texts, but also from their testimony after.

It would be wrong for anyone to change thier position based on what a "man" in any era said. That would overthrow Sola Scriptura.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Peace, Love, and Jesus. I hate sappiness. Why can't we all just get along? Why should we? I think that is a good question? I believe we all get along pretty good here. We do have different struggles and arguments. Either way God should be Glorified and Enjoyed. Let's have a good old debate and keep the lines drawn. But let's remember who we belong to and that we will have to give an account for how we treat each other also. God wants us to enjoy each other also. So be Edified you idiots. ha ha ha

BE Encouraged, Randy

Gabriel,

I would encourage you to read Mike Renihans book on John Tombe and his Antipeadobaptism. He was definitely not an anabaptist. He remained and Episcopal even though he ended up being called a Presbyterian at the end of his life. He always maintained his antipaedobaptist view. The section on Historical Theology is very compelling. He quotes some of the Church fathers and shows that they were not baptized as infants even though they were raised in the faith. According to Mike Renihan and John Tombe they didn't baptise children except out of necessity. Sickness etc. They held to a form of baptismal regeneration. If a child wasn't baptized it was considered lost and doomed to hell. They didn't baptize based upon the doctrine of CT. They baptized children for national purposes and even baptized children whose parents were not even church attenders. It wasn't based upon CT. It mentions the Latin Church Fathers such as Augustine, Tertillian, Fidus, Cyprian, and Jerome. And some of the Greek Church Fathers, Irenaeus (whom John Owen seems to refute John Tombe in vol. 16 p. 339). Irenaeus is shown by Tombe to be in conflict with the Gnostics. He was trying to identify Christ's ability to sanctify all from infancy to otherwise. He then moves on to Origen, then Gregory of Nazianzus. It is some very interesting reading. They didn't baptize children based upon CT. It was a rather new Practice and it was done out of so called necessity.(sickness or fear of death) Some pretty interesting Reading. Of course the book also covers the scriptural battles for understanding. Give it a good read.. http://store.yahoo.com/trinitybookservice/99104.html


[Edited on 1-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]

[Edited on 1-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]