Something I found interesting

[BaptistCanuk]

This is the introduction to an article by W.J. Seaton. The full article can be found at:

http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church/baptbapt.html

I thought it was interesting because all along I have been saying that we should get church doctrine from the NT. What do you all think about this?

There are two main views of baptism held and practiced within the professing 'visible' Churches of Christ: that which involves the sprinkling of infants, and that which involves the immersion of those who confess their sins towards God, and profess their faith in Jesus Christ the Lord.

The first view of baptism rests essentially on the understanding of the 'Covenant of Redemption,' "“ the arrangement and the agreement of redemption "“ that God made with Abraham and his 'seed' after him. The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.

The first view of baptism is that which is usually referred to as Paedo-baptism, that is, the baptism of children; the second view is usually called the Baptistic view.

Both, of course, look to the Scriptures of the Word of God to validate their positions, and both also seek to draw support from the practice of the Churches of Christ following on from the days of the apostles. The paedo-baptists especially, lay great stress on the Old Testament Scriptures; the Baptists, on the New.

It is the Baptistic view of baptism that this booklet will state; and the first foundational remark that we would like to make is this "“ that: There is only one place to begin a study of Christian baptism, and that is in the pages of the New Testament Scriptures of God.

We may not begin a study of baptism with the Old Testament, as though the New Testament was not the final revelation of God. And we ceitainly must not finalise a study of baptism by resting on what may have become an accepted and traditional practice at some point in the Church's History.

Once the true nature of baptism, as revealed in the New Testament, has been settled and established, only then may we look back into the Old Testament to those things that preceeded the Christian ordinance. And only then, also, may we look forward from the New Testament to see the validity of any view of baptism, or anything else that followed.

It is the New Testament that contains God's full revelation concerning baptism and, therefore, all Old Testament references that would be related to the issue of baptism must be related to it in the light of that New Testament revelation. It is the New Testament that contains God's full revelation concerning baptism and, therefore, all the findings and pronouncements of the Church of a later age must be judged in the light of that New Testament revelation.

This rule of interpretation is absolutely basic to a right understanding of Christian baptism, and it is the rule that must be satisfied and applied if we would ever have a conscience "void of offence" on the baptism question.

P.S. how come if we forget to put a subject before we post our thread, we lose the whole thread???

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.

Except for Simon. Or those three thousand at Pentecost that likely didn't give lengthy explanations of their conversion to Christ prior to Baptism along with "real" signs of fruit and repentance.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Ok. So I can turn it around. Except for those hundreds of thousands of babies throughout the centuries who couldn't make a profession of faith eh? Don't forget them.

Now, where in the quote that you gave did it say that one had to give a lengthy explanation of show signs of fruit and repentance? I take it that since that passage of Scripture said that 3,000 people believed that day, that there is probably a reason the author knew that? How did those baptizing them know that they believed? Because the people confessed to believing. But I still see nothing about signs/fruit/repentance there.

I have a question. Why were Roman Catholics and Protestants alike MURDERING anabaptists? THAT is not a good sign of fruit and repentance, wouldn't you agree?

[Edited on 9-3-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Ok. So I can turn it around. Except for those hundreds of thousands of babies throughout the centuries who couldn't make a profession of faith eh? Don't forget them.

All those who were believers in the Lord, and regenerated through the Word of God and their Baptism, professed faith. When this happened, temporally, doesn't matter. Those who rejected their Baptism and the Word of God were damned and cut-off from God's mercy and covenant.

Now, where in the quote that you gave did it say that one had to give a lengthy explanation of show signs of fruit and repentance? I take it that since that passage of Scripture said that 3,000 people believed that day, that there is probably a reason the author knew that? How did those baptizing them know that they believed? Because the people confessed to believing. But I still see nothing about signs/fruit/repentance there.

Maybe I jumped to a conclusion you do not share. If so, my apologies. I guess my point is that the Baptist view of baptism rests on the fact that it is PART of one's profession of faith and should occur after such a profession. How you define "profession of faith" would then in turn explain whether or not a simple "I believe" is sufficient for baptism, especially on such a large scale as at Pentecost. I would think most evangelicals today would be in an uproar if 3,000 people at a "revival" simply said "i believe" and were considered regenerate, justified, etc. and qualified for baptism. Then again, I forgot about revivalism...

I have a question. Why were Roman Catholics and Protestants alike MURDERING anabaptists? THAT is not a good sign of fruit and repentance, wouldn't you agree?

Because they were heretics. This is an attempt, on your part (if I may assume), to poison the well or overturn the validity of infant baptism with an ad hominem to quoque, but I'll bite the bullet and say that such murder was justified, when and where it happened. It wouldn't "fly" today, however, nor should it. This is, of course, my opinion though.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Ok. So I can turn it around. Except for those hundreds of thousands of babies throughout the centuries who couldn't make a profession of faith eh? Don't forget them.

All those who were believers in the Lord, and regenerated through the Word of God and their Baptism, professed faith. When this happened, temporally, doesn't matter. Those who rejected their Baptism and the Word of God were damned and cut-off from God's mercy and covenant.

I don't see this in the new covenant. The only ones cut off from God's mercy and covenant are those who reject Jesus.

Now, where in the quote that you gave did it say that one had to give a lengthy explanation of show signs of fruit and repentance? I take it that since that passage of Scripture said that 3,000 people believed that day, that there is probably a reason the author knew that? How did those baptizing them know that they believed? Because the people confessed to believing. But I still see nothing about signs/fruit/repentance there.

Maybe I jumped to a conclusion you do not share. If so, my apologies. I guess my point is that the Baptist view of baptism rests on the fact that it is PART of one's profession of faith and should occur after such a profession. How you define "profession of faith" would then in turn explain whether or not a simple "I believe" is sufficient for baptism, especially on such a large scale as at Pentecost. I would think most evangelicals today would be in an uproar if 3,000 people at a "revival" simply said "i believe" and were considered regenerate, justified, etc. and qualified for baptism. Then again, I forgot about revivalism...

Fair enough. I do think you have to take someone at their word though. The validity of their salvation/faith is between them and God.

I have a question. Why were Roman Catholics and Protestants alike MURDERING anabaptists? THAT is not a good sign of fruit and repentance, wouldn't you agree?

Because they were heretics. This is an attempt, on your part (if I may assume), to poison the well or overturn the validity of infant baptism with an ad hominem to quoque, but I'll bite the bullet and say that such murder was justified, when and where it happened. It wouldn't "fly" today, however, nor should it. This is, of course, my opinion though.

You can assume that if you want, but it is not true. None of that murder was justified in any way, and if it was then but it wouldn't fly today, well...then that would mean the church has fallen away I presume? Not sticking to original doctrine?

It's not an ad hominem anything...it's not ad hominem when it's TRUE. I asked the question because I am absolutely sick and tired of being told that I'm a covenant breaker destined for hell (but not really destined for hell...sounds a lot like the saying Republicans pick on Kerry for if you ask me). I am not a covenant breaker and I don't know of any anabaptists or any other group that went around murdering Roman Catholics and Protestants. But we do know who murdered anabaptists. Something that is true is not an "ad hom" anything.

 

[BJClark]

From my understanding when an infant is Baptised, it is ONLY baptising them into the Coventant Family based on their parents faith and really not much different than a Baptist who dedicated their infant without the water.

The baptist churches I've gone to in the past had baby dedications all the time, which was basically saying "we believe this child is a member of the coventant family" and we as the parents will raise our child up in the tenants of our faith.

Pretty much the same thing parents do at our church now, so really how is it much different by the actions, other than one is with water and one without?

Even in the PCA if an infant is Baptisted, when they are older they still need to accept Christ as their own Savior, no longer relying on their parents faith as their own.

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.

Except for Simon. Or those three thousand at Pentecost that likely didn't give lengthy explanations of their conversion to Christ prior to Baptism along with "real" signs of fruit and repentance.

I am not precisely certain what you mean: regarding Simon, Acts 8.12-13 says, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

It would seem obvious from this passage that Simon had in fact made a profession of faith in Christ. The fact that this profession ultimately proved to be a false one does not negate the fact that the profession was made, and it was on the basis of this profession that he was baptized.

Regarding the 3,000 at Pentecost, the record in Acts 2 records that "when they heard this [Peter's preaching], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins' . . . Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. " (v.37-38, 41)

It would seem equally obvious in this passage that these 3,000 had confessed repentance and faith in Christ. No one said anything about lengthy explanations, but surely they had made a profession of faith.


More importantly, I am not certain what exactly you would hope to show by establishing that Simon and these 3,000 were baptized without a profession of faith? Because, to my understanding, reformed Credo-baptists and Paedo-baptists would all agree that at least in regards to non-infant baptisms, that is baptism of "adult" converts as opposed to infants of believers, we would require a credible profession of faith in order to administer baptism to an individual. Surely your Presbyterian church would not baptise new adult converts without such a profession of faith?

Given that Simon and many of the 3,000 at Pentecost would have belonged to exactly such a class of adult "converts", why would you hope to show that they were baptised without confession of sin and profession of faith in Christ? Surely you do not actually believe that that is the Biblical teaching in regards to adult converts?

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 9-3-2006 by Jie-Huli]

 

[jaybird0827]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
. . .

I thought it was interesting because all along I have been saying that we should get church doctrine from the NT. What do you all think about this?
. . .

This view is dispensational. We are to get all our doctrine, including that of the church, from the whole counsel of God. (Acts 20:27. "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.") The church in the OT was the "church in the wilderness." NT believers are one in Christ with OT saints.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Brian, I don't recall saying you're a covenant breaker. I must have missed something. I'm not sure what the killing of heretics in the 16th/17th century has to do with infant baptism.

 

[Puritanhead]

Gabriel, I simply cannot believe you would say something like that.

I'm not going to mince words or debate it however.

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
"”2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NKJV)

Maybe, I should stay away from Presbyterians. More and more of them seem crazy day-by-day, particularly after this F.N. Lee non-sense I heard the other day.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Gabriel, I simply cannot believe you would say something like that.

I'm not going to mince words or debate it however.

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
"”2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NKJV)

Maybe, I should stay away from Presbyterians. More and more of them seem crazy day-by-day, particularly after this F.N. Lee non-sense I heard the other day.

Was God unjust in commanding the murder of homosexuals in Leviticus? We are so far removed from the culture in which the death of "anabaptists" occurred at the hands of the Roman Church and so forth, that it is kind of hard for us to sit on our computers in North America in the 21st Century and make sweeping judgments about how "unsanctified" so-and-so's behavior was. At that time in our history, the State -- which WAS the Church -- executed heretics. It was justified. Today, things are completely different, and none of us is going to go around executing Mormons or other heretics. Not only is it unlawful, it is not our responsibility or right. Don't read more into my reluctant comments to the aforementioned person's -- in my opinion -- odd remarks, which I found to be completely unrelated to any discussion in this thread.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Just for the sake of clarification, I hope no Baptists on this board view themselves as "Anabaptists." They denied so many tenets of the faith, it was manifestly clear that they were heretical. Just because modern Baptists share in common a few things with the Anabaptists (like... putting off baptism until later in life -- although for radically different reasons than modern Baptists) does not make them such. I would never make such a deduction, at least.

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Just for the sake of clarification, I hope no Baptists on this board view themselves as "Anabaptists."

No, of course not.

 

[MW]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.

This is contradicted by the 16th chapter of the Acts, where we discover the "households" of Lydia and the Philippian jailor were baptised. Profession of faith is not mentioned as a pre-requisite to the baptism of the households. In fact, it is to be doubted if it was pre-requisite even to Lydia and the jailor. We hear of their readiness to attend upon the preached word. "Judged faithful" and "believing" are characteristics which are mentioned after their baptism.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Gabriel, the murdering of anyone by the "Christian" church never has been nor ever will be justified. I already explained my purpose for bringing that up; I'm not going to again.

Also, I am not an Anabaptist. Could I safely presume that you were proposing an ad hominem argument yourself? Because I believe in the Anabaptist teaching regarding baptism doesn't mean I agree with them on everything.

And, in what ways did the Anabaptists drift from the faith? What wrong doctrines were they teaching?

[Edited on 9-4-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by jaybird0827

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
. . .

I thought it was interesting because all along I have been saying that we should get church doctrine from the NT. What do you all think about this?
. . .

This view is dispensational. We are to get all our doctrine, including that of the church, from the whole counsel of God. (Acts 20:27. "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.") The church in the OT was the "church in the wilderness." NT believers are one in Christ with OT saints.

Is dispensational wrong though brother? I have not been convinced that it is. I'm open to learning about covenant theology but as of this time I am not convinced of it. I hope I don't have to be a covenant theologian to be a member of this board.

Declaring the whole counsel of God does not negate the fact that we get church doctrine from the NT. Acts was written before Scripture was complete (during a time of transition). You can't get church doctrine from the OT because the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant and the church was not mentioned anywhere in the OT.

 

[Larry Hughes]

The biggest mistake that most make concerning the Anabaptist is to romanticize them as being persecuted for the faith as if "œpersecution" in and of itself proves possession of the real faith. Far too many so far divorced from that time period today defend the Anabaptist by putting this up so as to make their anti-gospel "œuntouchable" by a false shield of mere sentimentality to their plight. Many "œfaiths" are persecuted by others, Buddhist for example in atheist China. And laughably the Evolutionist are starting to cry this out in our country today by the Christians, albeit a more passive version. However, persecution in and of itself does not PROVE possession of the Gospel AT ALL!!! In fact as Luther correctly points out, and we would be stupid to believe otherwise, the devil always has his martyrs too.

It is sheer folly to foist persecution forth as the untouchable proof and defense of a false Gospel and that one is in real position of the true faith just because of its inherent harshness. Do you think the devil so dull and as strategically foolish? It would be more like the devil to propagate a false Gospel by using part of his army (Rome) against another part of his army (the Anabaptist) so as too keep the Gospel out of certain things!

Ldh

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Larry, you are just excited in your speech instead of shouting at me I believe.

That said, uh...but why would the devil persecute a group of people for no reason? He pretty much persecutes Christians doesn't he? If the RC Church (which I don't consider Christian, I'm sorry) persecuted Anabaptists, then it suggests to me that the devil was persecuting the Anabaptists through the RC Church.

Why would the devil persecute other faiths? I believe it is more just sinful man persecuting other faiths, as the devil won't waste his time with a group that is not Christian. And I believe that Christians wouldn't persecute other Christians.

 

[jaybird0827]

Brian,

Dispensational theology, as articulated by such as Darby, Schofield, L. S. Chafer, Walvoord opposes the historic confessions held by the members of this board, in many points. Surely you have observed people using the term "œdispy" in reference to people who hold to this system of doctrine. I personally hold modern premilennial dispensationalism to be heretical in the light of Scripture. I am sure that there are others on this board who would agree with that assessment and would back me up.

Check out the ground rules of the forum. See especially Paragraph 7 and note the last sentence in the paragraph. I think that a chief reason why you´re experiencing negative reactions to your posts is because some of us perceive them as opposing doctrines that are systematically taught in Scripture and expressed by these confessions.

You do not have to be a covenant theologian to be a member of this board. You say that you are open to learning about covenant theology, but you say that you are not convinced. Are you willing to be convinced? Does your assertion that you are not convinced of it constitute an indication that you will contend for doctrine that opposes it?

There are two ways to ask questions. Some people ask questions because they want to learn something and they show by the way they ask the question that they´re open. Others ask questions that might sound like they want to learn something but they show by the way they ask the question that they really have an agenda or that they already have their mind made up and are not willing to be convinced of the truth. Those in the second category tend to make it very clear in subsequent responses when people attempt to answer their questions. Which of these two models do your questions tend to fit?

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Declaring the whole counsel of God does not negate the fact that we get church doctrine from the NT. Acts was written before Scripture was complete (during a time of transition). You can't get church doctrine from the OT because the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant and the church was not mentioned anywhere in the OT.

At first, I realized that I may have "œjumped the gun" the way I responded to your post. When I reread the message, I saw that I had mentally inserted the word "œonly" so as to read "œwe get church doctrine only from the NT." Initially your comment does not exactly say this, but when you say "œYou can´t get church doctrine from the OT" you qualify it, rendering my original interpretation correct.

Here again, this last sentence opposes the doctrinal standards represented on this forum, in my opinion, because a review of the 1689 Confession, the Westminster Confession, or the Three Forms of Unity will show that our doctrines are drawn from the whole counsel of God, and that includes both testaments of the Scriptures.

This is why, as I understand it, the moderators of this forum require the burden of proof to be upon those who publicly state such views here.

If you are open to being convinced of the doctrines upheld here and ask your questions in that spirit, I am sure that you will be encouraged. If you continue to contend for ideas that undermine or oppose these doctrines, you will not likely be comfortable very long.

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
The second rests on the fact that throughout the New Testament Scriptures of God, baptism is seen only to be offered to, and received by, those who do confess their sins towards God and their faith in Jesus Christ.

This is contradicted by the 16th chapter of the Acts, where we discover the "households" of Lydia and the Philippian jailor were baptised. Profession of faith is not mentioned as a pre-requisite to the baptism of the households. In fact, it is to be doubted if it was pre-requisite even to Lydia and the jailor. We hear of their readiness to attend upon the preached word. "Judged faithful" and "believing" are characteristics which are mentioned after their baptism.

Please forgive me if I do not understand what you are saying. I understand your view with regard to the "households", as that is the standard paedo-baptist view of those passages.

But what do you mean that it is to be doubted if a profession of faith was pre-requisite "even to Lydia and the jailor"? Are you saying that their "readiness to attend upon the preached word" was not expressed as a confession of faith in that preached word before their baptisms?

This seems to me a strange idea, and beyond what paedo-baptists would normally want to establish with these passages. Even conceding, for the sake of discussion, that other members (perhaps infants, etc.) of the household were baptised without a profession of faith, under the paedo-baptist understanding would that not be because of the faith of the head of the household, the entire family coming into covenant with God? If even that head (the jailor, or Lydia) had not made a profession of faith, on exactly what basis would anyone in the household be baptised?

Is it the case in your church that people are baptised as soon as they begin to show some "readiness to attend upon the preached word" even absent a confession of faith? (And what would such "readiness to attend upon the preached word" mean outside of profession of faith in it?)

Thank you for clarifying,

Jie-Huli

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Jay, I am not convinced of covenant theology. I personally don't believe dispensationalism to be heretical. Though I hold to the LBCF, I put Scripture on a higher authority. If I will not be welcome here for that reason then that's fine. I already know that I can't email someone of a "high" rank on this board and get nothing in response but a spelling correction.

Also, I have been asked questions in a poor spirit at times too.

I'm sorry, but I get my belief from the Bible. The church was non-existent in the OT, I'm Baptist (they believe the NT is where church doctrine is). We can learn theology, etc. from the OT but church doctrine specifically comes from the NT. If I'm a heretic for saying that, then I am in good company (at least with Baptists anyways). Please listen to what I'm saying. I'll repeat myself. never, and I "mean" never, have I said the OT was useless. As I "did" say, the OT is profitable for much, it is where we can learn theology, etc. But specifically CHURCH DOCTRINE is found in the NT. You can't get church doctrine from the OT when it never mentions the church.

Also, do I not have the right to contend for what I believe? If the beliefs of everyone on this board are so strong, they should be able to handle it. Yes, I am open to covenant theology but I'm guaranteeing you it is not going to be a walk in the park for you guys to convince me of it. And there is nothing wrong with me saying that.

What I "am" uncomfortable with on here is how it can be tolerated when a whole group of people are called such things as "covenant-breaker" and on their way to hell, etc. I am uncomfortable with the "bullying" that goes on here on a regular basis. I fight back against that. If I'm going to have to persist in fighting back due to the bullying then maybe I am going to decide that I don't want to be here, like many other people have decided as well. Which would be a shame. Not that many of you would care...

 

[BaptistCanuk]

P.S. Maybe it's high time that people start realizing that though Confessions can be good, they are NOT Scripture. Scripture is the final authority.

"Let God be true and every man a liar."

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Jay, I am not convinced of covenant theology. I personally don't believe dispensationalism to be heretical. Though I hold to the LBCF, I put Scripture on a higher authority. If I will not be welcome here for that reason then that's fine. I already know that I can't email someone of a "high" rank on this board and get nothing in response but a spelling correction.

Also, I have been asked questions in a poor spirit at times too.

I'm sorry, but I get my belief from the Bible. The church was non-existent in the OT, I'm Baptist (they believe the NT is where church doctrine is). We can learn theology, etc. from the OT but church doctrine specifically comes from the NT. If I'm a heretic for saying that, then I am in good company (at least with Baptists anyways). Please listen to what I'm saying. I'll repeat myself. never, and I "mean" never, have I said the OT was useless. As I "did" say, the OT is profitable for much, it is where we can learn theology, etc. But specifically CHURCH DOCTRINE is found in the NT. You can't get church doctrine from the OT when it never mentions the church.

Also, do I not have the right to contend for what I believe? If the beliefs of everyone on this board are so strong, they should be able to handle it. Yes, I am open to covenant theology but I'm guaranteeing you it is not going to be a walk in the park for you guys to convince me of it. And there is nothing wrong with me saying that.

What I "am" uncomfortable with on here is how it can be tolerated when a whole group of people are called such things as "covenant-breaker" and on their way to hell, etc. I am uncomfortable with the "bullying" that goes on here on a regular basis. I fight back against that. If I'm going to have to persist in fighting back due to the bullying then maybe I am going to decide that I don't want to be here, like many other people have decided as well. Which would be a shame. Not that many of you would care...

The LBC states in ch 26:

I. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.[1]

1. Heb. 12:23; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:10, 22-23; 5:23, 27, 32

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Jay, I am not convinced of covenant theology. I personally don't believe dispensationalism to be heretical.

I don't consider dispensationalism heretical by any means, just in error.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Fair enough Ryan.

Uh...Scott...what was your point? All those books that mention the church that you referenced happen to be in the NT.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The church was non-existent in the OT

 

[BaptistCanuk]

It was non-existent in the OT. I am flabbergasted that you could think that it did. Israel existed in the OT. You proved my point by giving only NT verses that mention the church. Israel is Israel; the Church is the Church. Otherwise, we better go back to animal sacrifices, no?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Brian, some questions and comments for you...this comes from having been raised baptist, dabbled in anabaptism, and being paedobaptist.

1) bad choice "RCC and R persecuting the poor anabaptists"....consider the incident at Munster that involved 1000's of anabaptists. They murdered ppl. Not all anabaptist groups were pacifistic...there were many that were revolutionaries as well, thus causing all anabaptists to be targeted in heavier proportions.

2) anabaptists deny Christ's humaness

3) what do you think you are doing when you "dedicate" a child and where is that found in scripture?

4) The scriptures mentioned the believer AND his household being baptised. This is key. It was a patriarchial society (and that is the structure God intended and we should follow) and thus scriptures would mention the HEAD of the house and then the structure is for the rest of the household to baptised with him to be shown as a covenanted family.

5) The OT then shouldn't even have been cannonized...we should just set it aside with the history books or children's stories. But that is not what happened...it IS holy script and DOES apply in accordance with the NT.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Brian, some questions and comments for you...this comes from having been raised baptist, dabbled in anabaptism, and being paedobaptist.

Fair enough, you know what you're talking about.

1) bad choice "RCC and R persecuting the poor anabaptists"....consider the incident at Munster that involved 1000's of anabaptists. They murdered ppl. Not all anabaptist groups were pacifistic...there were many that were revolutionaries as well, thus causing all anabaptists to be targeted in heavier proportions.

I don't know if it was a bad choice. I just didn't know about that. I do believe they were considered revolutionaries though; because they disagreed with RC doctrine.

2) anabaptists deny Christ's humaness

I would not agree with them on this.

3) what do you think you are doing when you "dedicate" a child and where is that found in scripture?

I honestly don't know Colleen. Because dedicating is not even commanded in Scripture eh? I think I understand how the two are pretty much the same though.

4) The scriptures mentioned the believer AND his household being baptised. This is key. It was a patriarchial society (and that is the structure God intended and we should follow) and thus scriptures would mention the HEAD of the house and then the structure is for the rest of the household to baptised with him to be shown as a covenanted family.

I would have to totally agree with you I guess...if God intended us to follow that structure. I don't know of any command to follow that structure; I was taught it was a cultural thing. Shouldn't men be having multiple wives then? I think the verse that can convince me the most is Acts 16:31 but then, my household (family) is still not saved.

5) The OT then shouldn't even have been cannonized...we should just set it aside with the history books or children's stories. But that is not what happened...it IS holy script and DOES apply in accordance with the NT.

Oh I know it's holy script. It most definitely should have been cannonized. I have already said I believe this though; I don't understand why people question me on that. I've explained my position.

 

[Arch2k]

Brian,

Scott's post was conferring something. The confessions of the LBC and the WCF refer to the church as consisting of " the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof"

Ephesians 1:22-23 is one of the proof texts.

Eph 1:22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

If Christ paid the penalty for those in the OT as well as the NT, then Christ is the head of his elect (the church) in the OT as well as the NT.

Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Eph 5:27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.