Non Ordained Theologians

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting that you note this as this is the same discussion I have been having with Dachaser. How do you know this to be true? How many people have been baptized in a credo setting, only to later fall away, never to return? In the same way, how do you know God doesn't actually regenerate at this time if he so wills?
You yourself say:
Since baptism is administered by fallible men, they do not always infallibly judge of the truthfulness of the subject's confession. Many are baptized whose profession is spurious, but if elders waited for absolute judgment-day certainty, they'd never baptize anyone. So they operate to the best of their judgment, leaving omniscience to God. Ideally, only those who truly are regenerate should seek baptism, but we do not live in an ideal world. We operate by the light we have now: God will judge righteously at the great assize.
As for the elect children dying in infancy thing, RBs believe that God saves them without a baptism at all! Just like I'm sure you believe that an elect child dying in the womb is regenerated even though his little corpse never gets baptized.
 
When someone says "ordinances" are from Baptist Theology and "sacraments" are from Presbyterian Theology, one should use the emoticon <rolleyes>. It has nothing to do with that.

Historically, that is doubtless true. However, in the world in which we live (not that of the Puritans), the terms do seem to be more divided according to tradition. I cannot speak for Reformed Baptists (having migrated from broadly evangelical Baptist to Presbyterian), but in the Baptist circles with which I was/am familiar, sacramental language will typically arouse charges of Catholicism (at best!).
 
Since baptism is administered by fallible men, they do not always infallibly judge of the truthfulness of the subject's confession. Many are baptized whose profession is spurious, but if elders waited for absolute judgment-day certainty, they'd never baptize anyone. So they operate to the best of their judgment, leaving omniscience to God.

So, u would admit then that you baptize upon presumption? The reason I ask is because most credo's only admit this fact when pressed; most say that they only place the sign upon 'true believers', which is ultimately flawed.
 
So, you would admit then that you baptize upon presumption? The reason I ask is because most credo's only admit this fact when pressed; most say that they only place the sign upon 'true believers', which is ultimately flawed.

Not really presumption.

The test is objective but not infallible: "Those who actually do profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus...." (LBCF chp 29, para 2)

None of the RBs I know would presume that a profession of faith is dispositive of one's true standing before God
 
So, you would admit then that you baptize upon presumption? The reason I ask is because most credo's only admit this fact when pressed; most say that they only place the sign upon 'true believers', which is ultimately flawed.
What Victor said above.
 
Thanks for citing. I think I'm with Dr. McMahon, though, in using the terms interchangeably. I (and I think other RBs), believe that God confers special grace with the sacraments--not saving grace, since that has been conferred before the sacraments are administered--but a special, sweet, ineffable measure of His presence when we partake of the Word visibly illustrated in the elements. We do them because, as you said, He left them for us, and by faith we receive much benefit thereby. I fear there are some in Baptist circles who have lost sight of the glory and majesty and meaning of the sacraments, and I wish as a whole we would regain it and appreciate it more.
The problem that many Baptists have regarding this important issue is that they were raised up and instructed that both the Communion and the water Baptism were totally symbolic in nature, so is hard for Baptist to attach any significant spiritual grace activity happening while partaking of the 2 sacraments.
 
Historically, that is doubtless true. However, in the world in which we live (not that of the Puritans), the terms do seem to be more divided according to tradition. I cannot speak for Reformed Baptists (having migrated from broadly evangelical Baptist to Presbyterian), but in the Baptist circles with which I was/am familiar, sacramental language will typically arouse charges of Catholicism (at best!).
Yes, as Baptists such as myself were taught that both Ordinances are totally and only symbolic in nature, so when Presbyterians would give to them some spiritual grace being active in some sense, that would indeed cause many Baptists to think of items such as infant regeneration and some type of Eucharist going on here.
 
:butbutbut:

I was told that thinking Baptists taught that was
My understanding is that Reformed Baptists would see the spiritual presence of Jesus with us at the Communion, but view water baptism in a different way still than Presbyterians do.
 
Yes, as Baptists such as myself were taught that both Ordinances are totally and only symbolic in nature, so when Presbyterians would give to them some spiritual grace being active in some sense, that would indeed cause many Baptists to think of items such as infant regeneration and some type of Eucharist going on here.
David, here's the LBCF on this:
"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporately, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of His death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." LBCF 30:7
 
WCF:

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
 
WLC

Q. 162. What is a sacrament?

A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without.
 
I’m sorry to re-rail the thread, but Biblically speaking is there room for a non-elder to teach or publish under the oversight of elders?
 
I’m sorry to re-rail the thread, but Biblically speaking is there room for a non-elder to teach or publish under the oversight of elders?

I’d like to hear about this too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
David, here's the LBCF on this:
"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporately, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of His death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." LBCF 30:7
Yes, there would indeed be the presense of the Lord Jesus in a spiritual sense involved while partaking of the Communion, its additional grace, but not saving grace in this process.
And also would be clearly different then the traditional Baptist view that tends to see this as being fully in memorial.
 
I am not trying to stir anything up here, but by that definition, how could the sacraments themselves be applied to any other than those who know they have indeed been already saved now? As that definition includes identifying them as part of the NC, as now being partakers, sealed and identified as now being such?
 
I am not trying to stir anything up here, but by that definition, how could the sacraments themselves be applied to any other than those who know they have indeed been already saved now? As that definition includes identifying them as part of the NC, as now being partakers, sealed and identified as now being such?

Moderation

Let's bring the topic back to the "rerailment", that is, the scope of work for laymen theologians.
 
Last edited:
I teach SS in the PCA. I am not ordained. There are always elders present in the class. I guess it could be said that I am representing and not actually teaching; much like how the LS is sometimes passed through the pews by various congregants. :p

*I am a Seminary student, however.....
 
I teach SS in the PCA. I am not ordained. There are always elders present in the class. I guess it could be said that I am representing and not actually teaching; much like how the LS is sometimes passed through the pews by various congregants. :p

*I am a Seminary student, however.....

I teach Catechism in the PCA but with elder approved curriculum. And I lead a Bible study for adults, again under elder oversight.

But what about writing books for outside the congregation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
teach Catechism in the PCA but with elder approved curriculum. And I lead a Bible study for adults, again under elder oversight.

But what about writing books for outside the congregation?

I as well, pass my outline through the pastor, prior to me embarking on the subject.

Books? Well, I believe, personally that if you plan on publishing, since u are under their authority, it would do u well in running the book by them prior to publishing-I would want their stamp of approval.

I have a website...that has sparked some controversy a few times on certain doctrinal positions I take. For example, EP. It's hard not saying, on one hand, you hold to a position and write something substantial and on the other hand, not imply by example, that the other person is wrong-if u follow.

in my opinion, writing for a blog, website or books would fall, generally under ch 20 of the WCF.
 
I’m sorry to re-rail the thread, but Biblically speaking is there room for a non-elder to teach or publish under the oversight of elders?

In the context of the local congregation and its Minister or TE, in my opinion no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top