Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum  Rich:
"face shots"? Are you for real? |
It's an expression Perg.
I've just always found it interesting that some Reformed denominations are criticized for being exclusive or restrictive in some of their beliefs.
Typically, for instance, Dutch Reformed tend to be historically exclusive about what they consider to be true Churches and there is a normal uproar here when that is articulated and Baptist Churches are referred to as "sects".
Conversely, the elephant in the living room is Baptist Churches who don't recognize the baptism in Reformed Churches at all. In other words, unless a person is baptized in the Credo Church then no baptism has occurred at all and zero participation in the life of the Church is possible. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the person was not baptized in a valid Church.
I understand it for what it is as a conviction on the Baptists' part and I'm simply pointing out that Baptists ought to be self-aware of what they are really confessing and not be shocked and appalled at others when they express a similar conviction about the nature of their Ecclesiastical Bodies. You don't see a line of Presbyterians lining up in outrage that Will is saying that a person isn't baptized according to his view but a recent thread by a Dutch Reformed brother on another topic pointing out a historic conviction in the Dutch Reformed tradition drew a lot of heat.