The Call to Repentance Over Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Vic,
Thanks for replying.


They should have been under the authority of the general Protestant church and in accord with her standards.



I'm thinking of Gal 5:20 where the word used might be dissension, division, disunion.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions....."​

I'm sorry, David. I knew what you were getting at..I couldn't resist being picky.

Still, calling it sedition begs the question that the underlying disagreement is resolved.

:cheers:
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
Fellowship is in degrees. It is like friendship but more intense being centered around common interests and abilities.

Christian fellowship is God's special gift to those who believe in the true God through the Holy Spirit by the blood of Christ. It is commanded.

But the highest form of Christian fellowship would be worshipping, communing, praying etc. on the Lord's day with those holding to the same creeds and confessions.

How would you apply this distinction to the discussion?

Are you implying that credo and paedo baptists can 'fellowship' ie be friends, but cannot really FELLOWSHIP ie full church communion?
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
That's what I get for using the King James translation!

I don't understand. Rather shouldn't we say this division begs to be resolved?

Well, that is probably true as well. But I was talking about begging the question meaning it assumed the proposition to be proved:

It is sedition (or divisive) because it is contrary to scripture. It is contrary to scripture because it is divisive. The accusation assumes the conclusion.

I haven't had much time to enter the debate, but I think the real issues revolves around the idea that Baptism replaces circumcision. The other items, such as gloss on how to interpret NT practice, is actually interpreted according to our presuppositions.
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
It is sedition (or divisive) because it is contrary to scripture. It is contrary to scripture because it is divisive. The accusation assumes the conclusion.

Gosh, I need to learn logic.

I don't think it's a perfect circle though. It is divisive because it is contrary to doctrine. It is contrary to doctrine because man is fallen.
 

Chris

Puritan Board Sophomore
Since the marks of the church are pure preaching, right use of the sacraments, and discipline; any departure from those would be a seceding from the church, or sedition.

While baptismal regeneration was jettisoned in the reformation, infant baptism was not. Only the radical sects practiced believers' only baptism then, and 90% of Baptistic churches today are Arminian. What does that tell you?
If it looks like sedition, smells like sedition, sounds like sedition.......?

It tells me that you, sir, are really good at confusing correlation with causation.

The (proper, credo) view of Baptism is NOT the reason for modern baptists' bad theology in other areas, any more than paedobaptism is responsible for roman error.

:banghead:
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
It tells me that you, sir, are really good at confusing correlation with causation.

The (proper, credo) view of Baptism is NOT the reason for modern baptists' bad theology in other areas, any more than paedobaptism is responsible for roman error.

You are right, correlation isn't causation. But given the nature of the ecclesiological error (emphasis on the member's volition determining baptismal sign), it is easy to see that it led to the adoption of a soteriological error of similar emphasis, namely Arminianism. Error begats error.

You could possibly argue that the Reformation didn't come full tilt until 1689 but I doubt you would get much agreement from unbiased historians. Case in point: the baptists were a small minority and remain so.
 
Last edited:

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
You are right, correlation isn't causation. But given the nature of the ecclesiological error (emphasis on the member's volition determining baptismal sign), it is easy to see that it led to further emphasis on free will which in turn has led to the soteriological error of Arminianism. Error begats error.

Error does 'beget' error. :agree:

How do you explain the soteriological error of Arminianism among paedobaptists?
 

Chris

Puritan Board Sophomore
Case in point: the baptists were a small minority and remain so.

I could use the 'small group' argument to support our being wrong or right; it's all a matter of how you skew it.

Might does not make right. Please, stop making such spurious arguments. :banghead:
 

Dagmire

Puritan Board Freshman
*ahem*


Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that baptizing anyone is sin?



I really want to know.
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
I could use the 'small group' argument to support our being wrong or right; it's all a matter of how you skew it.

Might does not make right. Please, stop making such spurious arguments.

Chris,
My point was to the question of whether the Reformation found it's climax with the London Confession of 1689. Given the ratio of Baptist numbers to Reformed numbers, I don't see it. Does anyone else see it? Spurgeon? Was the mid 19th century the high mark of theology?

To revisit begetting, isn't hyper-Calvinism most prevalent among baptists?

My motivation here is not to beat up on my baptist brothers, but to ask them to examine church history and ask whether or not there was a secession from the Protestant Church.
 

Dagmire

Puritan Board Freshman
It's right next to the passage that says God is a Trinity.


I don't see how that's the same thing. Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father in him. And the Spirit goes out from the Father and Son... three... in one.


Some people baptize their children in faith that God will bless them as a part of His covenant with them, as they are the offspring of His people.

Some people baptize those who profess faith gained in Christ.



I don't understand all the fuss.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Might I interject a quote from the most Rev. Divine Spurgeon on this topic of Secession and then I will fade back in my screen...


" We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect.

—Charles H. Spurgeon"



My motivation here is not to beat up on my baptist brothers, but to ask them to examine church history and ask whether or not there was a secession from the Protestant Church.
 

Chris

Puritan Board Sophomore
To revisit begetting, isn't hyper-Calvinism most prevalent among baptists?

Amongst Baptists, we have the Primitive Baptists, which are a tiny, tiny, tiny group. Most Baptists are anything but hyper-calvinist anymore. Baptist culture simply won't tolerate hyper-calvinism nowadays.

My motivation here is not to beat up on my baptist brothers, but to ask them to examine church history and ask whether or not there was a secession from the Protestant Church.


I wouldn't say we seceeded from you so much as we merely refused to join you.
 

Chris

Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't see how that's the same thing. Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father in him. And the Spirit goes out from the Father and Son... three... in one.


Some people baptize their children in faith that God will bless them as a part of His covenant with them, as they are the offspring of His people.

Some people baptize those who profess faith gained in Christ.



I don't understand all the fuss.


A sincere belief in either view virtually necessitates a sincere rejection of the alternate theory.

Please keep in mind, we are NOT killing each other over it.
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
Might I interject a quote from the most Rev. Divine Spurgeon on this topic of Secession and then I will fade back in my screen...


" We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect.

—Charles H. Spurgeon"

Very interesting, but I'm not sure Spurgeon is helping your case. It sounds as though he is appealing to the radical reformers of whom are descended the Mennonites and other groups with less than stellar ecclesiastical pedigrees.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Very interesting, but I'm not sure Spurgeon is helping your case. It sounds as though he is appealing to the radical reformers of whom are descended the Mennonites and other groups with less than stellar ecclesiastical pedigrees.

I don't think that most Reformed/Particular Baptists would agree with Spurgeon. I know Waldron does not.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
The Waldenses which is one group he is refering to was very Calvinistic and very Baptistic way before the reformation and by some account as old as the 2nd century. They later merged with the Reformers and became paedo but they did have higher ecclesiastical pedisgrees then the reformational anabaptist groups..

Michael

Very interesting, but I'm not sure Spurgeon is helping your case. It sounds as though he is appealing to the radical reformers of whom are descended the Mennonites and other groups with less than stellar ecclesiastical pedigrees.
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
Let me research the Methodists and Cumberland Presbyterians. I'm guessing they go both ways as liberals often do. Nobody mentioned the Anglicans. I will do my homework and wait for the paint to dry as I have painted myself into a corner.......
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
I know a many of Reformed Baptist that do agree with Spurgeon and I am friends with many of those pastors....

I might also mention that John Gill mentions the same thing way before Spurgeon....

Michael

I don't think that most Reformed/Particular Baptists would agree with Spurgeon. I know Waldron does not.
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
Prostestants remain a minority to the RC majority. Is that because we are in error?


No. Good point. I was speaking in the context of post-Reformation. Of course now orthodoxy is the slim minority because so much time has elapsed since Luther and Calvin.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Let me research the Methodists and Cumberland Presbyterians. I'm guessing they go both ways as liberals often do. Nobody mentioned the Anglicans. I will do my homework and wait for the paint to dry as I have painted myself into a corner.......

Anglicans are Arminians???? I did not know that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top