Presbyterian acceptance of other baptisms

That's OK. I was not raised in it (raised dispy Baptist) and am now a deacon in a Presbyterian church. I don't think you really have to look too hard to find it imho. (BTW, that's probably the biggest difference between the two denominations.)

 

Baptisms

Does the fact that we ended up in opposite places say anything about how Christians raise their chldren.:laugh: I hope you and I will help our children focus on Christ. God bless you in your church:thumbs: . Isn't it nice that God is bigger than all this :type: !

:godisgood:

 

Funny, isn't it? Anyway, I agree --- God's best to you & family.

 

We have a few arminians among Baptist -- the same with Pres? I did not think they came in that flavor.:laugh:

 

Why wouldn't they -- after all that is a case of Presbyterians getting it right!:jesus:

 

It is worse than that. Many
baptist Church Including Southern Batist do not only require immersion but immersion in a Baptist Church.
As if baptist water is holy water or something.
i realize that Paul had Timothy to be circumcised to fit in and avoid an argument but did he have him circumcised twice?

 

Twice?? Double OUCH!!

As much as I might like to do it, I don't feel up to inserting a "laughing" Smilie, for that ain't no laughing matter!

All four - count 'em, four puns above are fully intended!

Ed

 

In Romans 2 Paul says that the spiritual new-birth is the reality that circumcision represented -- not baptism.

Baptism only has one form OT and NT and it was not a "replacement" for anything.

-- So those that follow the NT Bible model for Baptism -- even if they are Presbyterian - should be accepted to any other church that follows full water baptism for believers.

IMHO -

in Christ,

Bob

 

Apparently Presbyterians departed from their father, John Calvin in terms of Baptism.

John Calvin claimed the Baptismal Regeneration, Infant Baptism, but I don't find Baptismal Regeneration in the Westminster Confession, but notice the Infant Baptism was still there. Infant Baptism means the Unbelievers Baptism.

However, though Presbyterians may accept the Baptism of Baptist churches, Baptist Churches cannot automatically accept the Baptism of Presbyterians because of the following:

Westminster Confession 1646

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.
II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/i....org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

 

Calvin quoted 2 things in OT:

1) Noah's family passed thru the Flood which was the shadow of the Baptism, then Calvin mentioned that 3 sons of Noah were baptized in the rain shower.
However, Calvin was so foolish to miss the fact that 3 sons of Noah were already adults, having married with their wives, one was 100 year old, the second 98 year old, the third may be over 90 ( not mentioned). Far older than the Infants.

2) Calvin mentioned the sons of Abraham were circumcised regardless of their faith. But he didn't notice that Circumcision was commanded to be performed specifically on the 8th day after birth, and is different from Baptism which is the burial of old man and the resurrection of the new person in Jesus Christ. The Circumcised people were still to be Baptised after believing in Jesus.

 

I am reading the book titled " What Love is this" by Dave Hunt.

Sometimes, I doubted whether Calvin said such ridiculous dogma indeed.

BUt apparently Calvin had tremendous problems with his doctrines, such as Total Depravity, Coercion of Faith, Predestination, Baptismal Regeneration, No Salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church, Infant Baptism, Baptism by Sprinkling, Sacraments should be administered by Clergy, etc.
He was nothing but a modified, reformed Roman Catholic, inherited from Augustine.
I would recommend this book to everyone.

 

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Huss, Jerome, etc weren't they all Catholcs trying to create some reform within the RCC?