I, too, am no longer a Baptist

[3John2]

Can someone help me out. This is sort of deviating from the original thread but what Phillip posted about the OT & the NT & how they really have a lot more in commone than most think is where I'm at currently. I have just recently & GLADLY come into Reformed belief. I was raised & baptized a Roman Catholic then abandoned that & went Word of Faith & finally have come to a Reformed belief & church where I'm VERY happy & learning/growing.
I was taught a LOT of NT in the WOF movement but not much OT as "it has been done away with as we are now under grace" as I was told.
Well my pastor teaches a LOT of OT. I have started to realize what Phillip has & wanted to know if anyone can recommed any reading material (books!) or any teaching series on cd/mp3 to help me along those lines? I'm simply VERY hungry for growth. Last night I ordered the "Together 4 the Gospel" cd series as I heard that Ligon Duncan did an EXCELLENT teaching on Christ in the OT.
Anyways sorry to crash in on this thread but I saw what Phillip wrote & it really spoke to my heart. If anyone wants to answer either here or e mail me at [email protected] I would GREATLY appreciate beyond what mere words can say.
Thank you!

 

[panta dokimazete]

Blessings and welcome 3John2! - you may find this link interesting:

Christ in every Book


-JD

 

[py3ak]

Frank, on www.ccel.org you can find a copy of Calvin's Institutes. Check out Book 2, chapters 10 and 11.

 

[3John2]

Thanks guys will do!!

 

[3John2]

Ruben Zartman hablas espanol? Hay muchas iglesias que creen como nosotros en el distrito? Jamas e hido para el distrito pero si a viajado en Mexico un poco. Voy a Reynosa, Tamaulipas vastante pero solo para comer bien!

 

[py3ak]

Frank,

Mis padres viven en Monterry y van a McAllen muy seguido. ¿Cómo es tu iglesia? A lo mejor les puedo convencer a visitarla.

No hay muchas iglesias reformadas en el D.F.

Te invito a mi blog --tengo vínculos para algunos recursos reformados traducidos al castellano.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by py3ak
Frank,

Mis padres viven en Monterry y van a McAllen muy seguido. ¿Cómo es tu iglesia? A lo mejor les puedo convencer a visitarla.

No hay muchas iglesias reformadas en el D.F.

Te invito a mi blog --tengo vínculos para algunos recursos reformados traducidos al castellano.

Careful. I don't think speaking in tongues is allowed...

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by blhowes]

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by py3ak
Frank,

Mis padres viven en Monterry y van a McAllen muy seguido. ¿Cómo es tu iglesia? A lo mejor les puedo convencer a visitarla.

No hay muchas iglesias reformadas en el D.F.

Te invito a mi blog --tengo vínculos para algunos recursos reformados traducidos al castellano.

Careful. I don't think speaking in tongues is allowed...

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by blhowes]

Of course brother, it is not an unknown tongue...

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Of course brother, it is not an unknown tongue...

Good point. Jabber away.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Philip A
As you can tell from the title, I, too, am no longer a Baptist.

By no longer being a Baptist...




...you're helping them enemy right now "” namely paedo-baptist Presbyterians.





On the up side, at least you can goto church, that doesn't have a cheesy bulletin board that some head-counting Baptist erected.

 

[caddy]

This is rich with wisdom and very well said !

Thanks kceaster for your thoughts in this post

Originally posted by kceaster
The biggest question I had before I found my current place was why do men believe what they believe. The answer I found was that God illumines all minds to the same truth unless He hardens their heart to it. This is the only logical conclusion to why men believe different things about God since He is One and only one truth may be said of Him. Therefore, He has either blinded men's eyes from the real truth, or there are multiple truths. Since there is only one truth, one hermeneutic, one understanding of God's redemption, then the disagreement must be because the Spirit has not opened the eyes and softened the heart. Of course, we come to this because we are sinful. But God's truth must still be true though every man sins.

Unless someone can point me to another alternative, I think this is the only conclusion to be made.

Therefore, never stop searching for truth. I am not saying this because I think I've found it. I know for a fact that I am a sinful man and that I deceive myself constantly. But this is why God made faith. He continually works this faith within us so that we continually search for the truth. The minute we are so certain that we have all the truth, is the exact moment He has hardened our hearts because of our own sin.

Anyway. I do hope you know I am not ridiculing you. I just wanted to give you something to think about.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
By no longer being a Baptist...

...you're helping them enemy right now "” namely paedo-baptist Presbyterians.

On the up side, at least you can goto church, that doesn't have a cheesy bulletin board that some head-counting Baptist erected.

For the record, I am one of the enemy now.
Muahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

But I still go to my "Reformed" Baptist church - and no, they don't have a cheesy bulletin board.

 

[caddy]

Cheesy Bulletin boads = Abience

 

[javacodeman]

Muddy Waters?

Me Died Blue wrote:
Then since all of the promises are made to the children of believers, and you acknowledge that some of them are Gospel Covenant Promises, how can you logically say that such children have no promise in the Covenant of grace?

Hi, I'm new to this site and new to some of the terms used here. I have started a study of Dispensationalism with my pastor. We would term ourselves (although not everyone at my church would--some are much more hard line Dispensationalists) "Progressive Dispensationalists".

In short a Progressive Dispensationalist is a sort of hybrid between CT and DT (if those are the right abbreviations). My general view from my studies is that there are three major covenants that are grant covenants (i.e. not dependent on the recipient). These are the Abrahamic, Davidic, and the New. Each successive covenant reveals more about the prior(s) and about how God intends to fulfill the prior(s).

There are also "already-not yet" versions of these Covenants: Mosaic, Solomonic, To the Seven Churches (this last is mine as I have not heard or read any one else use or suggest this*). These were not grant covenants (Suzerain-Vassal, actually), and are therefore not necessarily eternal.

Anyways (here's my point), I say all of that to say this: the Abrahamic covenant got off to a "rough" start. Ishmael and Esau saw no part of it (other than a large Arab nation). Moreover, Reuben, Simeon, and Levi were all skipped over for the central fulfillment of the covenant as the Messianic lineage passed through Judah. I think that this shows that God will and does fulfill His covenant, but He may not include our particular children.

I think this is also shown in this passage:

John 1:12-13

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

*I am still studying this and am not yet totally convinced, but I think that it is correct at this point in time. If you know of someone who has taught on this or where I could do more research, then let me know.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

The Covenants of God

Javacodeman:

There are two books concerning Covenant Theology that are excellent to study: O. Palmer Robertson's, The Christ of the Covenants, and Hermann Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Here is the resignation letter of the great Particualr Baptist J.C. Philpot when he left the paedo's and joined the Particulars.

http://www.gracegems.org/Philpot/letter.htm

Philpot's letter of resignation from the
Church of England, March 28, 1835.

Mr. Provost:
I beg leave to resign the Fellowship of Worcester College, to which I was elected in the year 1826. This step I am compelled to take because I can no longer with a good conscience continue a Minister or a Member of the Established Church.

 

[Philip A]

Here is the resignation letter of the great Particualr Baptist J.C. Philpot when he left the paedo's and joined the Particulars.

I could post my resignation letter from the deaconate of my former church, but it's rather boring - "I am no longer a Baptist, so I ought not to be an offiercer in a Baptist church"

 

[javacodeman]

Javacodeman:

There are two books concerning Covenant Theology that are excellent to study: O. Palmer Robertson's, The Christ of the Covenants, and Hermann Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man.

Blessings,

-CH

I actually own The Christ of the Covenants and will read/work through that book soon. I'm currently on Progressive Dispensationalism. In fact my pastor and I have a good friend who is a Presbyterian Pastor that we plan to sit down and discuss this issue further. Craig, the other pastor, actual "grew up" a dispensationalist and became a covenant theologist.

 

[S. Spence]

I've just been reading through this thread.

Thought I might add just one or two comments. I too was a Reformed Baptist and I really struggle to see the PB's point of view. But then I came to see that the CoG was not the equivalent to election. Election has more to do with the CoR.

However sometimes it is the simple things that make you change your mind. After reading virtually every book I could find on baptism and CT, I just thought to myself, 'If I was a Jew on the day of Pentecost, would I not expect the sign of the covenant to be applied to my children?' How could the children of believers, be in the covenant one moment and not in it the next? I know it's very simplistic but I truly believe there would have been an absolute uproar if baptism as a sign not applied on believers' seed.

I found this sermon by David Silversides on this topic very helpful. (In fact he's pretty amazing on anything to do with the Covenant!)

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=1105104752

Just on another point, I lived in the south east of England for a while and in that region if someone described themselves as a Particular Baptist it was generally understood to mean a Baptistic hyper-Calvinist, it's funny how the same phrases can mean different things in different places.

 

[S. Spence]

Oops, just noticed quite a few grammatical mistakes in my last post - wrote it in a hurry, sorry.

 

[pilgrim2]

Covenant Theology

A "must" read for all those interested in Covenant theology is Dr. M. Horton's book, "God of Promise".

SDG,
Pilgrim

 

[AV1611]

But then I came to see that the CoG was not the equivalent to election. Election has more to do with the CoR.

Differentiating between a CofR and CofG is not, in my opinion, correct.

 

[S. Spence]

Differentiating between a CofR and CofG is not, in my opinion, correct.

You're entitled to your opinion - I'm not trying to put a huge difference between the CoR and the CoG but their is still a difference in that one is between the Godhead concerning mankind and the other is between God and mankind. Both the CoW and the CoG stem from the CoR.

A "must" read for all those interested in Covenant theology is Dr. M. Horton's book, "God of Promise".

In complete agreement.

 

[AV1611]

You're entitled to your opinion - I'm not trying to put a huge difference between the CoR and the CoG but their is still a difference in that one is between the Godhead concerning mankind and the other is between God and mankind. Both the CoW and the CoG stem from the CoR.

I respectfully disagree.

A. A. Hodge:

For the sake of simplicity, some Calvinist theologians have set forth the divine method of human redemption as embraced in two covenants The first, styled the "covenant of redemption," formed in eternity between the Father and Christ as principal, providing for the salvation of the elect; the second, styled the "covenant of grace," wherein life is offered to all men on the condition of faith, and secured to the elect through the agency of Him who, as "surety of the new covenant," insures the fulfillment of the condition in their case.

Our Standards say nothing of two covenants. They do not mention the covenant of redemption as distinct from the covenant of grace. But evidently the several passages which treat of this subject (Conf. Faith, ch. 7., s. 3; L. Cat., q. 31; S. Cat., q. 20) assume that there is but one covenant, contracted by Christ in behalf of the elect with God in eternity, and administered by him to the elect in the offers and ordinances of the gospel and in the gracious influences of his Spirit. The Larger Catechism in the place referred to teaches how the covenant of grace was contracted with Christ for his people. The Confession of Faith in these sections teaches how that same covenant is administered by Christ to his people.

(http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah7.htm)

John Gill:

3d. It is by some divines called, "the covenant of redemption"; and very truly, because the redemption of God’s elect is a principal article in it: the Father proposed to the Son, that he should raise up, restore, redeem Israel, his chosen ones; the Son agreed to it, and hence he was declared and promised, and expected as the Redeemer, long before he came into this world to do this service; Job knew him as his living Redeemer, and all the Old Testament saints waited for him as such, having had a promise of it, which was founded on this covenant agreement; for as it was proposed to him, and he agreed to it, to be the Redeemer, so it was promised him, that upon the condition of giving himself, the redemption and ransom price for the elect, they should be delivered from all their sins, and the effects of them, and out of the hands of all their enemies; see (Isa. 49:5, 59:20; Job 33:24). But then,

3e. This covenant is the same with the covenant of grace; some divines, indeed, make them distinct covenants; the covenant of redemption, they say, was made with Christ in eternity; the covenant of grace with the elect, or with believers, in time: but this is very wrongly said; there is but one covenant of grace, and not two, in which the Head and Members, the Redeemer and the persons to be redeemed, Christ and the elect, are concerned; in which he is the Head and Representative of them, acts for them, and on their behalf. What is called a covenant of redemption, is a covenant of grace, arising from the grace of the Father, who proposed to his Son to be the Redeemer, and from the grace of the Son, who agreed to be so; and even the honours proposed to the Son in this covenant, redounded to the advantage of the elect; and the sum and substance of the everlasting covenant made with Christ, is the salvation and eternal happiness of the chosen ones; all the blessings and grants of grace to them, are secured in that eternal compact; for they were blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, and had grace given them in him before the world was; wherefore there can be no foundation for such a distinction between a covenant of redemption in eternity, and a covenant of grace in time.

(http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_2/book2_07.htm)

 

[S. Spence]

Hi Richard,

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Throughout history there have been many good men who said they did not hold to a CoR, on the other hand many have, these include the likes of:

John Owen
Caspar Olevian
Johannes Cocceius
Herman Witsius
Charles Hodge
Geerhardus Vos
Louis Berkhof
and many more.

Personally I find the idea of a CoR essential for a proper understanding of election but I realise that you may disagree, I'm sure we have far more in common than what we disagree on.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Was Baptist and Anabaptist for years

Now a member of a local Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

 

[Davidius]

Now a member of a local Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

And welcome to the PuritanBoard!

 

[Iconoclast]

How about a "covenant child" timeline?

What exactly is the status of the "covenant child"? Is he a child of wrath,even as others,,,,dead in sin as per eph.2 :1-3? Is he or she the natural man,of 1cor 2;14? Does the "covenant child" need to be born again, as Jesus said? or exempt from Adamic sin?? To hear some speak of it,you would think that somehow the "covenant child" does not need to be quickened by the Spirit. Some describe the ability of the "covenant child" to recieve divine truth as apart from the Spirit's work???
What happens when your covenant child does not show fruit in the life?
Is he in the covenant one day, out the next?? At what age do you say that an unfruitful "covenant child" needs to be called to account?
Or like the Roman Church,,,,do you believe the conferring of the sign, somehow covers him?
In 1cor 12,,,,,,we are told that God places the members in the body as it pleases Him. Are you saying that God places all covenant children in His body? Then like the arminian teaching,,,they jump out of His hand?? Does anyone have a timeline of how the "covenant child" comes to new birth??
I am a reformed baptist, with many questions,,,[non dispensational,lol] by the way. If any have not the Spirit of Christ they are none of His? When does this take place,in the timeline. I do not believe the scripture teaches unregenerate church membership. I will look forward to any responses,thank you.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Iconoclast: first thing, please find your control panel (user CP) and update your signature line in accordance with board rules, thank you (for the administration)


Covenat child status? These are church members, non-communing (not yet permitted to the Lord's Table).

Why are they "members"? Because we aren't baptists. haha. Well, that's accurate, really, but its kind of uninformative. Because, unlike baptists, we don't believe that membership issue for ANY persons is "unregenerate/regenerate." Adults become members because they profess faith. We have no idea, ultimately, whether this adult person is regenerate or not, because we can't see the heart. They really are members of our church though. However, in the baptist paradigm, unless he's regenerate, he's not a church member either. So I've heard of many baptist churches "disfellowshipping" someone they later deem unregenerate, but its hard to tell someone who wasn't a "member" (indeed couldn't be a "member" unregenerate!) that he's no longer a "member."

But for us, that adult was a professing MEMBER of our church. He was an outward participant in the church. But that's all he was--someone seeking covenant blessings, but not as by faith. So, when he apostatizes, and is "excommunicated", he is removed from membership in the visible church. We still don't know ultimately: is he is regenerated or not, elect or not, converted or not? We are just being faithful to the outward discipline God gave the church.

How about the children of professing believers? Well, we believe God put them in his church as far back (definitively) as Genesis 17 (really we would go back to the first family in the Bible). In that chapter, God gives the OT sign of covenant inclusion (outward) to Abraham, the believer, and to his seed, to his whole house in fact--which was the beginning of a new visible church. We do not believe this command has ever been recinded. The sign has changed--from circumcision to baptism--but they mean essentially the same things, allowing for the progress of revelation and the forward-backward natures of the two signs.

Children of believers need to be CONVERTED. Like anyone else. They must have and exercise their own faith. But they are baptized on the basis of their parent's professed faith--faith in God to save them, and their children (when their children believe). "I will be God to thee, and to thy children after thee." That is the promise of the Almighty. Now, those children won't be saved UNLESS they too believe. Anymore than Abraham's children and grandchildren for generations were saved unless they too believed. And many did not.

So, CONVERSION is absolutely necessary to that covenant child. Conversion is not regeneration. When does the regeneration happen? I don't know, because that's invisible. It happens at different times for different people. Regeneration is the inward call of the Holy Spirit, usually accompanied by the external call by the Word. But not always--some saved (infants, mentally handicapped) are incapable of being outwardly called. But the Spirit is still able to call them too. I do know that the Bible gives us examples of infants, even in utero, who were called savingly by God. So, there is no "time limit" on when that can happen. But signs of CONVERSION, evidence of REPENTANCE and FAITH, ordinarily come through the application and internalization of God's Word.

Baptists do not believe in an outward administration of the New Covenant. (Don't worry, even if you don't understand this terminology, it is accurate--for example, listen to James White's baptism debate with Bill Shishko). That is because they believe that the New Covenant is purely invisible. So, they do not see the church today as administering the covenant outwardly as did Abraham, and later Moses and Israel, in the Old Testament.

But we do. And so, anyone who is "in the covenant" outwardly can be "cut off" from that covenant. That is excommunication for adult apostates. And, that is what will happen to rebellious covenant children. They may not be able to be denied communion if they never became communing members already, but they can still be removed from membership in the church (removed from the covenant) by discipline. Baptists, by contrast, do not think of the NC as having anything external, and no one can be "only" in the NC "outwardly." There is no "outward" to be "in" under baptist theology.


One more thing: Do not mistake baptism in Reformed churches for baptism in RC or EO churches. While outwardly they may look similar (just as your baptism may look similar to Church of Christ baptism-for-salvation) there is a massive theological chasm of understanding between them. So, your confusion is understandable when you may conflate all churches that practice infants-baptism assuming their understandings are the same, only because they don't do it your way. Peace.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Bruce,

When you said, “Conversion is not regeneration”, I faltered at that for a moment. I remembered reading just that in Louis Berkhof’s Summary…., and wondered about it then also. So I got his book down and read that section again. That a person may be regenerated in infancy (in the womb, even) is clear from John the Baptist’s record, and it makes sense that (in Berkhof’s words) “When the change wrought in regeneration begins to manifest in the conscious life, we speak of conversion”, so I falter no longer.

I was thinking of normal adult regeneration, which almost immediately results in conversion. But in children it is different – I can see that. And also with the mentally disabled. I worked for years with the mentally retarded, and would talk to them about the Lord Jesus – even those termed “profoundly retarded”, non-verbal – assuming that the Lord could touch their hearts by His Spirit.

Thanks for your clarity.

Steve