Baptists Who Attend Presbyterian Churches

[Hammster]

I agree. They've missed something big time, but the pastor has told me that his Calvinistic theology means that God will bring them in, no matter what the church does.

I told him that the church was being disobedient by not engaging in overt evangelism. It still is not happening.

Oz

That's more in line with hyper-Calvinism, which isn't Calvinism at all.

 

[JM]

Not trying to argue Br. Oz, just want to respond to a few points and concerns you raised.

There are some disadvantages:
(a) I do not support covenant theology that plays itself out in infant baptism. On Sunday week there is an infant baptism and I choose not to attend for such.

This was one of my concern until I talked with the other Reformed Baptists who attend. My issue was the idea of new covenant 'children.' It just doesn't make sense but it doesn't affect us as much as I thought. My children are in there teens and have studied scripture with my wife and I so they understand the baptism issue. The Pastor has been open to dialogue about covenant theology and I believe he understands our point, that baptism is a covenant issue and Baptists can argue effectively for the credo position using covenant theology.

(b) Associated with its strong emphasis on TULIP Calvinism, this church does very little evangelistic outreach. I had one conservative Presbyterian minister (a former Baptist minister) who told me, 'God will bring them in'. No evangelism was done in association with that church.

I think the above issue goes to the heart of paedo covenant theology and not Calvinism itself. If your children are assumed to be apart of the covenant why evangelize anyone but your children? I'm sure paedos would disagree with the way I stated it but I have been told numerous times (and even stated it myself), "my first ministry is to my family." When a paedo reads Acts 2.39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children" they stop at "children." If we continue reading, "and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." So we can see the importance of preaching the Gospel to our children AND to those who are afar off but the emphasis in this verse is "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." This encourages us to proclaim the Gospel to everyone knowing God will call them in.

Last Lord's Day the message was about the purpose of the church with a evangelism in mind. It was a good message.

c) Since I am a Reformed Arminian by theological belief, I do not support some of the Calvinistic emphases.

I can deal with a Reformed Arminian just not a Wesleyan Arminian.

(d) The congregation is becoming grey-haired and reducing in numbers. However, some Presbyterian churches are into rock 'n roll Christianity (you now know my era) with the music in the services. I have a friend who attends such a service and he tells me that he puts a plug in his ears for the first half of the service, but he appreciates the substance of the sermon.

The church my family attends is filled with people my age and children. This has the oppose effect. Young families have less money to give to the church but God will provide. There is indeed a remnant, amen.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[OzSpen]

That's more in line with hyper-Calvinism, which isn't Calvinism at all.

So do you define TULIP Calvinism as hyper-Calvinism?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Not trying to argue Br. Oz, just want to respond to a few points and concerns you raised.

This was one of my concern until I talked with the other Reformed Baptists who attend. My issue was the idea of new covenant 'children.' It just doesn't make sense but it doesn't affect us as much as I thought. My children are in there teens and have studied scripture with my wife and I so they understand the baptism issue. The Pastor has been open to dialogue about covenant theology and I believe he understands our point, that baptism is a covenant issue and Baptists can argue effectively for the credo position using covenant theology.

I see no evidence in the NT that children were baptised.

I think the above issue goes to the heart of paedo covenant theology and not Calvinism itself. If your children are assumed to be apart of the covenant why evangelize anyone but your children? I'm sure paedos would disagree with the way I stated it but I have been told numerous times (and even stated it myself), "my first ministry is to my family." When a paedo reads Acts 2.39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children" they stop at "children." If we continue reading, "and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." So we can see the importance of preaching the Gospel to our children AND to those who are afar off but the emphasis in this verse is "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." This encourages us to proclaim the Gospel to everyone knowing God will call them in.

The context of Acts 2:39 is 2:38 where the action is associated with 'repent and baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' (ESV). None of that is possible for infant children.

I can understand the dedication of children to the Lord (which we do in Baptist/Baptistic circles in Australia), but not paedo-baptism. When the language of 'baptism' of children is used, I object and will not support it.

I can deal with a Reformed Arminian just not a Wesleyan Arminian.

In your understanding, what is the difference between a Reformed Arminian and a Wesleyan Arminian? Is this parallel to the difference between a Reformed Church/Reformed Presbyterian and a Reformed Baptist?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

So do you define TULIP Calvinism as hyper-Calvinism?

Oz

No.

 

[OzSpen]

No.

So how do you define hyper-Calvinism? Who are the hyper-Calvinists?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

So how do you define hyper-Calvinism? Who are the hyper-Calvinists?

Oz

In general, they see no need for evangelism because God will make sure the elect are saved. There's no ordination of the means as well as the ends.

 

[OzSpen]

In general, they see no need for evangelism because God will make sure the elect are saved. There's no ordination of the means as well as the ends.

So who are they?

Do hyper-Calvinists or regular-Calvinists believe in double predestination?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

So who are they?

Do hyper-Calvinists or regular-Calvinists believe in double predestination?

Oz

I'm not sure who they are, specifically. I'm not sure of you remember beloved57. He is one.

And you'll have to give me your understanding of double predestination before I can answer that.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure who they are, specifically. I'm not sure of you remember beloved57. He is one.

And you'll have to give me your understanding of double predestination before I can answer that.

Which denominations are promoting hyper-Calvinism? Or, in your view is hyper-Calvinism idiosyncratic with individuals within Calvinistic denominations? And they sometimes show up on CF?

So do you not support the Westminster Confession of faith and its definition of double predestination?

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.


The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III — Art. VI and VII)
​

That's exactly what I mean by double predestination - predestined / ordained to salvation and predestined / ordained to damnation (dishonour and wrath).

Oz

 

[JM]

I can understand the dedication of children to the Lord (which we do in Baptist/Baptistic circles in Australia), but not paedo-baptism. When the language of 'baptism' of children is used, I object and will not support it.

I see no evidence for baby dedications which are nothing more than dry baptisms. If you deny paedobaptism because there is no evidence...why not baby dedications? Honest question.

In your understanding, what is the difference between a Reformed Arminian and a Wesleyan Arminian?

Reformed Arminians or the original Arminians, differ from Wesley on 'entire sanctification' or practical perfection. Arminius also believed OSAS.

"Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration." Arminius

Is this parallel to the difference between a Reformed Church/Reformed Presbyterian and a Reformed Baptist?

Oz

Presbyterianism is a form of church government. All Presbyterians are Reformed but not all Reformed are presbyterians. The difference isn't one of soteriology, like Wesley and Arminius, but church government and the practice of the ordinances.

jm

From Wiki:

Wesley departs from Classical Arminianism primarily on three issues:

• Atonement – Wesley's atonement is a hybrid of the penal substitution theory and the governmental theory of Hugo Grotius, a lawyer and one of the Remonstrants. Steven Harper states "Wesley does not place the substitionary element primarily within a legal framework...Rather [his doctrine seeks] to bring into proper relationship the 'justice' between God's love for persons and God's hatred of sin...it is not the satisfaction of a legal demand for justice so much as it is an act of mediated reconciliation." [24]
• Possibility of apostasy – Wesley fully accepted the Arminian view that genuine Christians could apostatize and lose their salvation, as his famous sermon "A Call to Backsliders" clearly demonstrates. Harper summarizes as follows: "the act of committing sin is not in itself ground for the loss of salvation...the loss of salvation is much more related to experiences that are profound and prolonged. Wesley sees two primary pathways that could result in a permanent fall from grace: unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy." [25] Wesley disagrees with Arminius, however, in maintaining that such apostasy was not final. When talking about those who have made "shipwreck" of their faith (1 Tim 1:19), Wesley claims that "not one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands...innumerable are the instances...of those who had fallen but now stand upright."[26]
• Christian perfection – According to Wesley's teaching, Christians could attain a state of practical perfection, meaning a lack of all voluntary sin by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, in this life. Christian perfection (or entire sanctification), according to Wesley, is "purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God" and "the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked." It is "loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves".[27] It is 'a restoration not only to the favour, but likewise to the image of God," our "being filled with the fullness of God".[28] Wesley was clear that Christian perfection did not imply perfection of bodily health or an infallibility of judgment. It also does not mean we no longer violate the will of God, for involuntary transgressions remain. Perfected Christians remain subject to temptation, and have continued need to pray for forgiveness and holiness. It is not an absolute perfection but a perfection in love. Furthermore, Wesley did not teach a salvation by perfection, but rather says that, "Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ."[27]

 

[JM]

Oz, why are you turning this into a Calvinism debate? I was just asking if any Baptists on CF were attending Presbyterian churches.

 

[OzSpen]

I see no evidence for baby dedications which are nothing more than dry baptisms. If you deny paedobaptism because there is no evidence...why not baby dedications? Honest question.

JM,

There are good precedents for dedicating babies to the Lord. In the OT we have an example with 1 Samuel 1:27-28,

'I asked the Lord to give me this boy, and he has granted my request. Now I am giving him to the Lord, and he will belong to the Lord his whole life.” And they worshiped the Lord there' (NLT)

Here the godly woman, Hannah, prayed for so many years for God to provide her with a child. When that prayer was answered and she gave birth to Samuel, she prayed that prayer of dedication of him to the Lord. I know that Samuel served the Lord for a special purpose, but my dedication of my 3 children to the Lord is just as solemn for me.

We should not overlook what Joseph and Mary did in dedicating the baby Jesus in the Temple. In Luke 2:22-23:

Then it was time for their purification offering, as required by the law of Moses after the birth of a child; so his parents took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. The law of the Lord says, “If a woman’s first child is a boy, he must be dedicated to the Lord” (NLT).

I consider that these are sufficient biblical precedents for my wife and me to dedicate our children to the Lord. We did that when they were children. To call it

I am not imposing this view on anyone else, but I'm convinced that baptism is for those who believe in Christ for salvation and is included in discipleship (see Matt 28:18-20; Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:47-48). My understanding is that baptising infants sends the wrong message to a family and a congregation. Please understand that this is my understanding of Scripture. As Baptists, we do not believe in infant baptism.

See 'Child Dedications'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, why are you turning this into a Calvinism debate? I was just asking if any Baptists on CF were attending Presbyterian churches.

I don't think I'm doing that. However, one of the distinctive features of Presbyterian churches is their Calvinistic emphasis. Is that a problem?

Oz

 

[JM]

Oz,

The same precedents for dedicating babies are the same used to justify the inclusion of children in the covenant and for baptizing them.

Nice try though.

I really wish this thread wouldn't turn into another debate about Calvinism Oz.

jm

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

The same precedents for dedicating babies are the same used to justify the inclusion of children in the covenant and for baptizing them.

Nice try though.

I really wish this thread wouldn't turn into another debate about Calvinism Oz.

jm

You don't have to respond!

Oz

 

[JM]

You don't have to respond!

Oz

Considering you are changing the intent of the op, no, I don't have to respond.



If you are not attending a Presbyterian church why would you even want to comment? It just seems like you are looking for a fight.



The op:

"...just wondering if any other Baptists here on CF are in the same situation...where you find the local Baptist churches are just not preaching the whole council of God and therefore seek to hear the Gospel in another denomination?"

Hijacking a thread is against the rules...at least it was at one time.

jm

 

[OzSpen]

JM,

If you are not attending a Presbyterian church why would you even want to comment? It just seems like you are looking for a fight.

This is a demonstration that you have not read this thread in its entirety. If you go back to #17 you will find that I stated that my wife and I are attending a Presbyterian Church.

So why are you making this kind of statement against me? It's a straw man fallacy.

The thread is about Baptists who attend Presbyterian churches. I am one such person, so my comments relate to that.

Oz

 

[JM]

unsubscribed

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks great Oz, now you will hear Gospel preaching.

Do you simply attend services or are you a member?

How do you regard the authority of the Elders over you since you disagree with so much of what they teach, preach and believe?

I left an Arminian Baptist church because, even though the preaching was verse-by-by exposition, it was unsound. If you disagree with their confessions of faith and what they believe how can they "preaching soundly (expositionally)?"

According to your advantages it seems you attend because you enjoy the style of preaching and worship but disagree with everything that makes a Reformed congregation Reformed. Would that be a correct assessment?

jm

PS: I didn't make any argument. I asked a question and there is a difference. Questions can be used in a number of ways but I was asking for clarity since you seem to have a chip on your shoulder toward calvinism. I skimmed post 17 because of your willingness to argue and my unwillingness to get into another calvinism debate.

Your assumptions about why I attend a Presbyterian church are false. I attend because my wife prefers that church and, consistent with promoting harmony in my long marriage, I attend with my wife.

I am not a member of that Presbyterian church and would not become a member.

I have no chip on my shoulder with regard to Calvinism. There are some points of Calvinism, Arminianism, Pentecostalism and Dispensationalism with which I agree when they are consistent with Scripture. However, when I understand that aspects of these are not consistent with Scripture I will speak up.

Oz