Presbyterian-ism

Here's some stuff on it.


I'm at work and don't have time to type more stuff out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Your public profile says you are a SDA. Aren't they baptists?

 

Believer's baptism - by immersion -- so ok "Baptist" to the baptists.

Presbyterian form of government so "Presbyterian to the Presbyterians"

Arminian - free will like the Methodists -- so "Methodist to the Methodists"

Sabbath keeping Trinitarian like the Seventh-day Baptists.. so "SDB to the SDBs"

I am all things to all people.:thumbs:

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just wondering.. why?

Also, the United Church of Canada is much more liberal than the Presbyterian churches in the states.

 

Cumberland Presbyterians are not Calvinists but are OSAS much llike Southern Baptists. Look up website on Google.

 

Are you certain? The Cumberlands and the PC(USA) are in communion; there's even been some talk of reunion.

We had our last General Assembly together.

 

I'm certain. I grew up in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. This is a distinctive that dates back to the early 19th century when CPs broke away from the main body. Calvinism was the main reason for the break and they drew up their own profesion of faith seperate from westminister. From the confesion of faith:

2.01 God, in creating persons, gives them the capacity and freedom to respond to divine grace in loving obedience. Therefore, whoever will may be saved. 2.02 Because of their God-given nature, persons are responsible for their choices and actions toward God, each other, and the world.


[SIZE=+1]PREFACE TO THE 1883 CONFESSION[/SIZE]
The Cumberland Presbyterian Church was organized in Dickson County, Tennessee, February 4, A.D. 1810. It was an outgrowth of the Great Revival of 1800--one of the most powerful revivals that this country has ever witnessed. The founders of the church were Finis Ewing, Samuel King, and Samuel McAdow. They were ministers in the Presbyterian Church, who rejected the doctrine of election and reprobation as taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The causes which led to the formation of the church are clearly and distinctly set forth in publications issued at the time, and in various tracts and books published subsequently. To these the reader is referred for full information on the subject.
The Cumberland Presbytery, which was constituted at the time of the organization of the church, and which originally consisted of only three ministers, was in three years sufficiently large to form three Presbyteries. These Presbyteries, in October, A.D. 1813, met at the Beech Church, in Sumner County, Tennessee, and constituted a Synod. This Synod at once formulated and published a "Brief Statement," setting forth the points wherein Cumberland Presbyterians dissented from the Westminster Confession of Faith. They are as follows:

1. That there are no eternal reprobates.
2. That Christ died not for a part only, but for all mankind.
3. That all infants dying in infancy are saved through Christ and the sanctification of the Spirit.
4. That the Spirit of God operates on the world, or as coextensively as Christ has made atonement, in such a manner as to leave all men inexcusable.

http://www.cumberland.org/gao/confession/confess.htm#1984 Confession

The Cumberland Presbyterian Church is a very good church and in my opinion, most other Presbyterians tend to believe like they do rather then believing in Calvinism. This is with the exception of the PSA and other small conservative denominations.

 

I was going to point out that the list is a very good representation of Reformed theology.

 

Does "Reformed theology" embrace the teachings of John Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith? I thought these sourses taught that Christ died only for the elect, but not for all mankind.

 

That would be both 4 and 5 point Calvinism.

 

What about infant baptism in the Presbyterian church? Is this the same form of baptismal regeneration of infants (marking the soul as they say) in the RCC?

 

No, it's different for Presbyterians (at least Cumberland Presbyterians). They believe that all infants and small children are included under the covenant of grace, and as such are part of the family of God. For this reason, Christian parents have their children baptised as the sign of the covenant. They trust that, being brought up in the Christian home, they will someday accept Christ upon reaching the age of accountability. But when they reach this age, they have to make the dicision for themselves. The baptism has no saving power. Calvinistic Presbyterians believe that only elect children are saved.

 

One of the things we, as Reformed Christians, understand is that we don't understand everything. One of the difficulties with 4- and 5-point Calvinism, and for that matter with Arminianism, is that it presumes to know more about God than is, frankly, possible. There are many things about God which, taken as they are, appear to be contradictions; if the facts about God we learn through Scripture are true, then we must accept them, and hold them, as it were, "in tension" with one another.



And Smoky, the theology of baptism is the same for PC(USA).

 

So they are not claiming ANY change ANY grace at all is being administered through the act of Baptizing an infant??

What do they then do about the fact that these sinners then go on to one day accept Christ as their Savior?? In the Bible when the sinner accepted Christ he repented and was baptized. Let's say I am a 20 year old Presbyterian who does the same -- but OH WAIT! I had that pointless infant baptism already! Do I get Baptized again but this time "for real"???

ARE they claiming that ALL Presbyterian children are BORN "once saved always saved" (elect by virtue of family status!!) without the need of Baptism or the need of ever coming to Christ???? If so - they are far more extreme in their beliefs than I thought!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, Presbyterians just have a different interpretation of what baptism means. They believe it is the sign of the covenant for Christians as circumcision was for Jews under the old covenent. There is scripture to back this up: Col. 2:11-12 (NASB-U)
"and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; [12] having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
Jewish children were circumcised before they had the ability to choose right from wrong. I'm sure you believe an infant or small child would be saved if they died before reaching the age of accountability. For Presbyterians, baptism is not pointless because it marks little children as being a part of God's family . They become sinners when they grow up and have the ability to reject Christ responsibly and do so. If raised in a Christian home and they acccept Christ upon reaching that age, there's no problem. Yes, sinners in the Bible had not had the opportunity yet to grow up in a Christian home so needed to repent and be baptised, as anyone today needs to be under the same circumstances.

No, they have the need to accept Christ when they grow up and the value of the Christian family is that it trains the child to know Christ so that, when the time comes, the dicision will be made easily. Cumberland Presbyterians are more arminian when it comes to "once saved always saved." Their bellief is that once a person is saved, they will never want to fall away from Christ again, and so ,therefore, never will. As an arminian, this belief may give you some problems, but I'm just letting you know what Cumberland Presbyterians bellieve the best I can.

 

Hmm -- the more full quote however points to the moment of belief and the new birth - not to a non-particiapting unconscious act of the sinner.

It points to a time when the SINNER is dead in their tresspasses and sins and then they come to Christ and receive the new birth - circumcision of the heart "without hands". (Not to baptism without hands)

Col 2
10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

IF presbyterians use that logic - are they claiming that at the moment of baptism the infant is "FORGIVEN all transgression" that the infant has done?!! Do they claim that it is THEN that the infant is convicted of being DEAD in transgresssion? Is the infant then RAISED in newness of life??

Romans 2 makes this link to Circumcision and the New Birth EXPLICIT.

28 For [b]he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter[/b]; and his praise is not from men, but from God. [/b]

The NT teaching on the spiritual reality and valud of circumcision is that it is of the HEART in the NEW birth done by the Holy Spirit

It is NOT a SACRAMENT done by MAN and done WITH HANDS of man to the OUTWARD flesh.

It is the BELIEVER that is first convicted of being DEAD in tresspasses and sins and then TURNING to Christ is born-again - circumcised in the heart WITHOUT HANDS - buried with Christ and raised with him.

In Romans 6 this argument for the ACTIVE particpation of the believer in being buried WITH Christ is given as the motivation for PERSEVERANCE in that SAME decision that they FIRST made in coming to Christ.

How do Presbyterians turn away from this Bible truth?

in Christ,

Bob

 

As it so happens - I do believe that -- but I don't believe in OSAS so that means that ALL will STILL have to COME to Christ and repent and CHOOSE to submit to the gospel once they become accountable for their own decisions.

If they do not - they are lost.

I also do not believe that God is partial based on family status.

For "God is not partial" Romans 2:11.

So at birth - as an infant they ARE "Lost" until the sacrament of Baptism is performed OUTWARDLY and WITH HANDS to the non-compliant non-believing non-approving non-deciding infant?

Isn't that MARKING THE SOUL as the RCC says?

But the Col 2 point is for the believer "WHILE DEAD in transgression and sin".

But then when they accept Christ why not follow him in knowing, believing, understanding, and "real" baptism "appealing to God for a clean conscience" as 1Pet 3 states?

And what if they reject the religion of their parents when growing up -- are they all OSAS anyway?? IN THE KINGDOM anyway because after all they are children of Presbyterians!!??

The infant NEVER repented and then was baptized. If the Presbyterian youth or young adult that then accepts Christ is born again then this would be the FIRST TIME they themselves REPENT and are baptized for they never did that as an infant -- agreed?

Hmm - I agree with that.

Good news.

I am confused again -- Aren't they declaring that the infant is saved?

BTW - that position on perseverance sounds like either 3 or 5 point Calvinism. I hold to some form of perseverance - I just don't hold to the "retro deleted assurance" that is common for Calvinists that accept the Bible doctrine on perseverance.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No one is saying that God is partial, Bob. Stick to the subject, OK?

No, the infant is not "lost." Baptism isn't a salvific act.

Because baptism is not a salvific act.

No.

No, baptism is a one-time event for Presbyterians. If a child, teen, or adult has never been baptized, then we'll get them however wet they want to get. But if it's happened already, then it is unneccesary.

I suppose it depends on one's view of theology, doesn't it?

I have no idea what retro deleted assurance is, but it doesn't sound at all like Reformed theology.

 

I appreciate the fact that you provide text after each question - no please answer the question in context of the points raised.

For example -- when you claim that col 2 is the basis for infant baptism but then deny that col 2 is SHOwING one who IS LOSt becoming saved- one who is dead in tresspasses and sins - being born again - deal with the substance of the point please.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Apparently my questions were not clear enough for some readers to understand the point being addressed.

#1. If Col 2 is the BASIS for infant baptism then the LOST STATE identified in Col 2 must apply to infants. DEAD in tresspasses and sins.

#2.IF the SAVED condition identified in Col 2 is to apply to the SACRAMENT of infant baptism THEN the sacrament is providing salvation... As faulty as that argument for infant baptism from Col 2 may be -- my question is - what do you do with OSAS once you get the kind of SAVED identified in col 2 to apply to infants???

#3. HOW can a sacrarment administered WITH HANDS be said to compare at all to the focus of the new birth in Col 2 "WITHOUT HANDS"?

#4. What did you do with the fact that in fact it is the NEW BIRTH that is the NT spiritual equivalient of circumcision according to Romans 2???

This is shorter and perhaps a more focused response will be forthcoming.

In Christ,

Bob