I am no longer Baptist.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a learned Presbyterian, and the other an illiterate Baptist.

The Presbyterian stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, credo-baptists, scorners of theonomy, those who sing from strange hymn books, or even as this Baptist.

I recite the Confession twice a week, I loathe those who offer strange fire.

And the Baptist, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


Remember, we are all arminians by nature and then we are enlightened and we lust for perfection until gradually, without realizing it, we are lost among jots and tittles and looking down our sanctified noses on the unwashed. We fence the fences that fence the laws and lay such burdens on the pilgrims in their journey that they end up paralyzed for fear of violating the Regulative Principle.

Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on our enlightened backs.

Thanks for letting me protest a bit. Love you all.
 
:amen: and congratulations. The consistency in Bible reading was a big argument for me as well. Be strong in the days ahead
 
Gabriel, thank you for sharing your journey with us. I will pray that the Spirit will continue to further illumine God's Word to you for His glory and your benefit.

Originally posted by sosipater
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing in this thread has reflected a lack of humility. Pride has no place in such a change in doctrine, as it is solely the Spirit who amazingly illumines our sinful minds to the Word throughout our lives. Furthermore, when a brother in Christ comes to what one believes to be a fuller understanding of His peacious Word, how could one not mutually rejoice in such? I would see the lack of such a reaction by those who are like-minded as apathy toward the truth, not really believing one's view to be truly God-glorifying. And like Fred noted, I would fully expect a consistent credobaptist to rightly have the same reaction to one coming to their understanding.
 
I too find Baptist CT more consistent than Paedo. Embracing Covenant Theology and seeing Scripture in that way is not the same as no longer being a Baptist.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Nothing in this thread has reflected a lack of humility.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's a good thread.

And like Fred noted, I would fully expect a consistent credobaptist to rightly have the same reaction to one coming to their understanding.
Click to expand...
You got that right! :D :amen:
 
I am happy for you, because, as Matt said, it really is a wonderful thing to see the freshness this brings to your Bible study. Enjoy the feast!
 
This is the exact opposite of my experience...
Click to expand...

I must agree whole heartedly and could not agree more, though my journey is still in progress. My baptistic friends and family though well meaning (I realize not all baptistic believers would do this) whenever I began asking questions would always cut me off short (almost innocently, because I don't think they realized they were doing so) and incorrectly presume that I had picked the idea up from Calvin or some other man. I hadn't even read Calvin back then, that's the irony. Or "I was listening to a man's teaching", but again that was a wrong assumption on their part, and as I was actually listening to them I was by default listening to a man's teaching.

I had no baptistic or reformed background before conversion myself...pretty much a raw atheist/agnost. That's why I became a geologist. I was baptized at age 33 in my mom's church that she attended because I knew nothing or nowhere else to go, I just knew I had to baptized into Christ.

Among personal struggles and in a nut shell I began to see some inconsistencies in the whole "its an ordinance", a sin to disobey the ordinance, timing is essential to the ordinance, 'how do you get the timing right' to obey the ordinance, etc... Furthermore, it was deflecting my sight from Christ alone to "did I get it right" works.

I knew nothing of covenant theology to say the least. Then, ironically, while in a Saturday morning study of covenants via a dispensationalist leaning source no less with my wife, many years later, it began to strike me like lightening (the Scriptures that is). The study had nothing to do with baptism, that is the structure of the study. The covenants literally stunned me and the Scriptures began to come more alive to my reading. I recall leaning over to my wife during a specific moment in that study and saying, "You know this concept is completely lost in modern America, it is absolutely gone!". I was shell shocked by it. Suddenly the OT was more than a book primarily written for Israel. Without going into details it has been and continues to be the study of the scriptures and the covenants that influences my walk/journey/struggle with baptism, but as I go I see its far more than just baptism.

It is like having a brighter light than before and when it comes on the covenants/covenantal structure literally leaps out at you - even when your not looking for them and Scripture is suddenly richer than before.

The two brightest lights I've personally experienced have been the Law/Gospel distinction and the covenants.

Blessing always,

Larry
 
Gabriel, it's always good to hear I'm not the only one to make this shift.

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".
Click to expand...

I actually did do a lot of reading before switching over to the Reformed Padeobaptist view from the Baptist Credobaptist view. I had never really considered the issue before having spent my 5 years in the Church in a Baptist church. So when I came on here and saw all the discussion on the subject I looked into the writtings of both sides; MacArthur, Piper, Jewett, Gill, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones...Calvin, Wilson, Booth, Henry, Warfield. I also spent a lot of time in scripture, examining the scriptures both sides used. I thought when I began to look at it that it would be an easy win for the Baptists, but after a year of study (no one told me when I began to study it that I would have to first have a basic understanding of Covenant Theology) I found myself in agreement with the Padeo position.

Some of my freinds have suggested to me that my love for reading "the dead guys" influenced me so I took the easy root on this but I disagree for a couple reasons: 1. I love reading Gill, Spurgeon and Bunyan is my favorite author so not all my "heros" hold to that position and 2. The vast majority of my freinds and church are Baptists it would be a lot easier for me to stay a Baptist.

In the end I know it came down to Peter's Sermon in Acts for me. I could not ignore how his comments regarding children fit perfectly with what was said all thoughout the OT.



Bryan
SDG
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes

I knew nothing of covenant theology to say the least. Then, ironically, while in a Saturday morning study of covenants via a dispensationalist leaning source no less with my wife, many years later, it began to strike me like lightening (the Scriptures that is).
Click to expand...

How funny!

My shift toward the paedo position came one Sunday when I had been recruited to teach the 5th and 6th grade Sunday School lesson at my parent's (SBC) church. That official SBC Sunday School literature pointed out things I'm sure the authors never intended, like the fact that the majority of instances of baptism in the Old Testament were household baptisms. (I know Baptists have explanations for this, and I have read them, but in my case, further exploration of the issue led me--correctly or not--to the paedo position.)

Has anyone on the board shifted from paedo to credo?
 
Re: Peter's sermon and Acts 2:39

The promise (what promise? repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit) THAT promise is to you, your children, and those far off - THAT promise is TO as many as the Lord our God will call.

What promise? Tell your children and those far off that if they repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus (repentance, faith, leading to obedience) for the remission of sins that they will receive the Holy Spirit. And they will only repent if God has called them.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-15-05 by pastorway]
 
Phillip,
Peter is speaking with Israelites. What do you think they thought when he said this?

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they (the house of Israel) heard this, they(the house of Israel) were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them (the house of Israel), Repent, and be baptized every one of you (the house of Israel) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you (the house of Israel), and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. my emphasis added

How is this any different from what they knew as the Abrahamic promise?

[Edited on 1-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Gabe,

I've enjoyed are sometimes warm, sometimes heated discussions. And like all beleivers of God's Word I take pleasure when I feel someone has gotten more light on an issue. Hey I feel like I'm learning a lot about CT in our present exchanges.

My own recent change in positions actually came while in the midst of studying Believers Only Baptism, and my former pastor (and current friend's) Baptist version of Covenant Theology. Keep the lamp oil fresh brother. :scholar:
 
Ex Nihilo,

That's funny, very similar.

You know I never ever even thought about reading John Calvin until much later and do you know why? Not because I wanted to be convinced by John Calvin. Not at all. It was shear curosity. I heard so many times about how wrong John Calvin was on this issue, I thought, "I have GOT to read what he said about it that's got everyone so worked up."

Larry
 
No No I only meant that if you Paul and PW are going to have a seperate discussion then it might be best to start a new thread thats all :)

:bigsmile:

blade
 
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.
Click to expand...

There's far more in the sacraments than just "separating us from the world."

We feed on the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. In so doing, of course we're separated from the world, but the crucial Calvinist doctrine is feeding and the union it brings about.
 
Man everyone is ganging up on me I just didnt want to see this get turned into something else that didnt directly relate to the topic at hand which was Gabe's confession or annuncment of his theological transistion.

Oh well....

Blade
 
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Man everyone is ganging up on me I just didnt want to see this get turned into something else that didnt directly relate to the topic at hand which was Gabe's confession or annuncment of his theological transistion.

Oh well....

Blade
Click to expand...

Blade,

I hear you and I think that is what is happening. I think (to go out on a paison limb) that Paul was kidding you.

Thanks for your sensitivity to Gabriel. :up:
 
75. Q. How does the Lord's Supper signify and seal to you that you share in Christ's one sacrifice on the cross and in all His gifts?

A. In this way: Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup in remembrance of Him. With this command He gave these promises:[1] First, as surely as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given to me, so surely was His body offered for me and His blood poured out for me on the cross. Second, as surely as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and the cup of the Lord as sure signs of Christ's body and blood, so surely does He Himself nourish and refresh my soul to everlasting life with His crucified body and shed blood.

[1] Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20; I Cor. 11:23-25.


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


76. Q. What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His shed blood?

A. First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal.[1] Second, to be united more and more to His sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us.[2] Therefore, although Christ is in heaven[3] and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones,[4] and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.[5]

[1] John 6:35, 40, 50-54. [2] John 6:55, 56; I Cor. 12:13. [3] Acts 1:9-11; 3:21; I Cor. 11:26; Col. 3:1. [4] I Cor. 6:15, 17; Eph. 5:29, 30; I John 4:13. [5] John 6:56-58; 15:1-6; Eph. 4:15, 16; I John 3:24.
 
Fred,
thank you I wasnt trying to diss anyone just wanted to make sure or at least try to maintain order of which Im very guilty of not letting happen.

blade
 
79. Q. Why then does Christ call the bread His body and the cup His blood, or the new covenant in His blood, and why does Paul speak of a participation in the body and blood of Christ?

A. Christ speaks in this way for a good reason: He wants to teach us by His supper that as bread and wine sustain us in this temporal life, so His crucified body and shed blood are true food and drink for our souls to eternal life.[1] But, even more important, He wants to assure us by this visible sign and pledge, first, that through the working of the Holy Spirit we share in His true body and blood as surely as we receive with our mouth these holy signs in remembrance of Him,[2] and, second, that all His suffering and obedience are as certainly ours as if we personally had suffered and paid for our sins.[3]

[1] John 6:51, 55. [2] I Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:26. [3] Rom. 6:5-11.
 
I'd really like to see someone respond to my string of quotations/replies I made earlier in this post (near the top of the second page) about baptism/circumcision.

I don't mind the thread being hijacked ;)

[Edited on 15-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Philip A
  • Locked
I, too, am no longer a Baptist
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
11K
Herald
Herald
Scot
  • Locked
What am I? A Bapterian?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Scot
Scot
Tim
  • Locked
Why is the OT longer than the NT?
Replies
12
Views
3K
Miller
Miller
JS116
  • Locked
Am I a Dispensationalist?..
Replies
10
Views
6K
brandonadams
brandonadams
PuritanCovenanter
  • Locked
Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology is Ready now.
Replies
5
Views
3K
Mayflower
M
Back
Top