Featured Coming back to the Baptist:Help!

You poor mistreated thing. Maybe instead of worrying about you quotes, you should reread Scripture.

 

The DOG are weak, mistaken, and unbiblical. God desires all men be saved. That is scriptural. Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. That is scriptural. We are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. That is scripture. Our election for salvation is conditional. That is scriptural. Men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel. That is scriptural.

Lets leave the weak, mistaken and unbiblical DoG on the dustbin of history, or defend it straight up rather than by making snide remarks about other views.

 

Since the only contribution you make is to find fault with others, you should get the log out of your own eye.

 

See, that is the difference between you and me. Everyone has some type of log, and when it is removed, I do see. On the other hand, there are those that are totally blind.

 

strange that God would send his Son to atone/die for all sinners, making an actual propiation for them, secured them and purchased them back, yet allows them to deicide freely to accept/reject it!

 

Not strange if giving someone freedom is to love them completely, which are both essential elements of God's character. What is strange is the idea that God compels someone to love, which is no love at all.

 

Nonsense times two

Christ becoming the propitiation or means of salvation is how 1 John 2:2 reads. Can you not get anything right! He did pay the ransom, He did purchase all mankind, even the false teacher who denied his Master's blood was bought, 2 Peter 2:1.

The propitiation provided by Jesus must be received, John 3:16. Whoever believes (has his or her faith credited as righteousness) shall be saved (by God setting the person apart spiritually in Christ.)

 

Spot on!

Didn't Paul write something about "love does not demand its own way."

 

Dear Chris,

Praise God! What a blessing it is that you are working through these issues.

I really love my Presbyterian brothers. When I am traveling, and cannot find a Reformed Baptist or Founders Friendly church, I will attend an OPC church, or -- in a pinch -- a good conservative PCA church.

Perhaps my experience will be of interest to you.

I really believe that in order to rightly participate and be subject to a church (a particular congregation) -- an important aspect of orthopraxy -- one must work through their confession. (Being confessional is, I think, an essential. It helps the church to know where you stand, and it helps you to know where the church stands. Churches or individuals without confessions have, it seems to me, little to talk about. Or perhaps what I mean is that they have too much to talk about!) Of course, with the PCA or the OPC it would be the Westminster Confession; for the RCA it would be the Three Forms of Unity; for the Reformed Baptist it would be the 1689 LBCF, etc.

In the last year we relocated to our current home. Finding a new church was a real challenge. In my state, there are only two Reformed Baptist congregations. The nearest of the two is an hour away. Consequently, I sought out the Presbyterians. Sadly, at least in this Metropolis, all of the Presbyterian churches were very liberal. The many Baptist churches all used an synergistic or dispensational hermeneutic -- assuming they exposited scripture at all.

Eventually, though, I found a very conservative RCA church. As I spent time at this church, I also met with the pastor and elders. The sermons were both expository and convicting. It was very much a blessing. Attending a church is one thing, though, and joining is quite another. Failing to join, of course, raises questions concerning ones willingness to submit to the discipline of our Lord through His institution of the church. Joining, is an important decision. The elders have a clear responsibility to insure the purity of the church. Consequently, before submitting a person for membership, they must examine that person in terms of faith and practice.

As I carefully considered this church, I found myself asking some serious questions. For example, how could I come to this church and affirm my commitment to the Heidelberg Catechism -- excepting question number 74 (dealing with paedobaptism)? If the elders would accept that qualification, what did it say about their commitment to their confession? What would it say to their people? What would it be saying to me? On the other hand, if I embraced the Heidelberg Catechism as a whole, how could I set aside credobaptism so easily? Is it a distinctive that is of so little importance? Did I embrace the 1689 LBCF so thoughtlessly? What would this whole process be saying to my fellow Baptists? Indeed, what would it say to my family?

Yes, the elders have a responsibility to the purity of the church. But I was beginning to understand that I have a responsibility to the purity of the church, too! I could not, with a clear conscience, hand this square-peg-in-a-round-hole problem to these brothers in the RCA church.

God in His grace, however, finally provided for us at the Reformed Baptist congregation an hour from home. (Sometimes I say, "The doctrine is worth distance!") There is no longer a difficulty in working for, submitting to, and joining with the church.

Nonetheless, I wonder sometimes: What would I have done had I not been able to find a confessionally compatible church? Neglecting attendance wouldn't be an option any more than neglecting membership. God was very kind, in His providence, to not leave me in that conundrum.

Given tonights preparations for Lord's Day, I have dashed this post off to you. I hope that you will find some of the thoughts helpful. At the very least, I hope that you will know that I can empathize with your experience. I will be praying for you, the congregation that you left, and the new congregation in which you worship. God bless you as you seek to serve Him.

In Him, Doc

 

You keep assuming that we hav real free will, what verses support that fact after the fall of adam?

And how can the Death of jesus be offerring and securing a real salvation for those sins He atoned for, if they are not saved by that act of His on their specific behalf?

cannot have substitutionary atonement without death meant for just those saved by it!

 

he also stated that JUST the chosen/faithful remnant of the Jews alive at time of Christ were saved by jesus, and that God Himself hardened/blinded off the rest...

How can he desire all to be saved, and yet harden and blind those he did not choose to save?

 

Baptism and circumcision are both signs of their respective covenants, yes. There is a correspondence, but not a direct correlation.

Old Testament circumcision was a sign given to infant males to identify them familially and geopolitically with the nation of Israel. It pointed to the expectation of the circumcision of the heart.

New Testament baptism is a sign given to "spiritual infant" males and females to identify them as believers in the Body of Christ. The New Testament fulfillment of circumcision IS the circumcision of the heart--regeneration. God "poured out" His Spirit on "all flesh." He sprinkled clean water, making us clean. We then, as regenerated believers, circumcised in heart, symbolize this with water baptism.

If there were a direct correlation between circumcision and baptism, there would have been no council in Acts 15 to consider the challenge of the Judaizers. The answer would have been obvious: "Of course these Gentiles don't need to be circumcised according to the Law! It was replaced with baptism!" However, the conclusion was not circumcision's replacement with baptism, but rather "Why put a yoke on these people which neither we nor our fathers could bear?"

 

That is why we do not identify as baptists the two items as being direct equivalents!

 

Many verses support that fact, and they have been referenced many times.

You keep assuming that man doesn't have free will, and you get that from Calvin. If the will is not free, then God is not Love. But God is Love, and He has endowed men with the ability to choose.

 

what verses support than man can freely decide to accept Jesus apart from either the father drawing, or the Spirit enabling him to do such though?

 

No, baptist do not.

But SHOULD they? That is the question.

I am a baptist minister. I have never baptized an infant. I have never sprinkled anybody.

But it is a worthwhile discussion for baptists to have to consider whether our stance is based on solid ground.

New Testament Baptism is the replacement of Old Testament circumcision. That much is plainly true.

 

I know that is the position of Presbyterians, Lutherans, and perhaps even Catholics.
But I don't believe it is the Biblical position. I don't believe the two are even related. I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved. I wasn't connected to any local church of any kind. But I was still saved.

In the OT the person being circumcised is an infant and has no choice about it.
In the NT the person being baptized is an adult and he is the one who chooses to be baptized. It is his decision. He cannot be forced into that decision. It has nothing to do with any covenant. It is strictly in obedience to the command of Christ given in the Great Commission.

Baptism is by immersion and is always after salvation.
It depicts our death to our old life of sin, and our resurrection to a new life in Christ.
It also may depict the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This is the picture given in Romans 6:3,4.
There is no resemblance here to circumcision. It is a NT ordinance given by Christ and has nothing to do with circumcision.

 

No one in Presbyterianism thinks that baptizing an infant actually saves.

They just see God applying the sign of the covenant to children clearly in the OT and see no command to stop in the NT.

 

Where does the Bible say it has to be a "choice"?

The NT EXPANDS the covenant. Therefore that's precisely what one would expect the SIGN of the covenant to do- expand.

And that's exactly what you DO see in the NT.

Perfectly consistent.

Every Christian puts tremendous emphasis on covenants. If he does not he has not read the Bible at all. It is bursting with covenantal language.