Are Baptists who hold to TULIP also Reformed?

[Epiphoskei]

So what you are saying is that Scripture can always be reinterpreted into doctrine ad infintum?

I am saying that churches can be wrong and there is nothing infallable outside the scripture.

Sorry but the Presbyterian church (which is the only church that I can speak of) believes and adheres to the Westminster Confession of Faith. A good example here actually...so are you stating that the WCF can be reformed more?

Yes. Baptism being one. I believe, on the basis of scripture, that it cannot appropriatly be applied to unbelieving infants. Now we've been having that one out for years, and my point is not here to argue it, but simply to point out that if the lable "Reformed" requires one to believe the Bible teaches paedobaptism without an honest investigation of the text without those kinds of precommitments, then confessions are being treated essentially the same way Rome treats the canons of its councils, as on par with scripture.

Honestly I don't buy it...the entire arguement that God's Truth has multiple layers that are hidden until we discover them is a paradox, unless I am TOTALLY misunderstanding you. I don't take God's Word as scientists take the concept of the origin of the universe. We KNOW God's Truth by now as compared to how scientists "know" how the universe was created.

This has nothing to do with esoteric truths placed under layers. It has to do with the fact that humans can mess up with some pretty plain and simple truth. Rome has, and their theologians have had the Bible for centuries longer than we have, yet we believe that after all this time, they're still fallable, and are still making mistakes, mistakes that need to be corrected. We may believe that our doctrines are true, and we may indeed be justified in believing that, but we are hypocrites if we are unwilling to continually examine them against scripture and plain reason and allow for the real possibility that we were wrong. "The Church is to be always reforming."

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I am saying that churches can be wrong and there is nothing infallable outside the scripture.

Right, but churches that follow Scripture to a tee, ie the Reformed Churches are good to go.


Yes. Baptism being one. I believe, on the basis of scripture, that it cannot appropriatly be applied to unbelieving infants. Now we've been having that one out for years, and my point is not here to argue it, but simply to point out that if the lable "Reformed" requires one to believe the Bible teaches paedobaptism without an honest investigation of the text without those kinds of precommitments, then confessions are being treated essentially the same way Rome treats the canons of its councils, as on par with scripture.

Honest investigation of the texts has been done time and time again. I won't address it. Covenant theology(which implies and requires PaedoBaptism) is Reformed, anything else is not. Fact.



This has nothing to do with esoteric truths placed under layers. It has to do with the fact that humans can mess up with some pretty plain and simple truth. Rome has, and their theologians have had the Bible for centuries longer than we have, yet we believe that after all this time, they're still fallable, and are still making mistakes, mistakes that need to be corrected. We may believe that our doctrines are true, and we may indeed be justified in believing that, but we are hypocrites if we are unwilling to continually examine them against scripture and plain reason and allow for the real possibility that we were wrong. "The Church is to be always reforming."

The WCF doesn't mess up at all regarding our faith as Christians.
I don't care what Rome does.
That is why I am truely Reformed(was Catholic for 25 years btw.)
So Rome got it wrong, the Reformed churches got it right finally, otherwise it's folly to adhere to anything regarding faith because it can change at any moment someone has a "revalation" regarding doctrine.
I say again...I don't buy it as I am sure many others don't as well. You talk to an EO or a Catholic, and they are unwavering from their faith...same here with me. I say that anyone who adheres to dispensational theology is NOT Reformed period...Calvinist yes...Reformed NOPE.

If you don't respect this, then move on and and don't quote me. I feel that so many in the reformed faith here just don't have the guts to fully express their opinion, which is in line with mine(ie, HISTORICAL REFORMED FAITH). If that's not true then so be it.

If you want to call yourselves Reformed with a capital R...I don't care like I stated on page 1 of this thread. I know what's what.
I ask myself why I would adhere to a faith that has the possibility to "ever change" in doctrine. I don't and won't, and that is not what Semper Reformanda means in the first place guys.

 

[Epiphoskei]

The very reason Rome got it wrong is because it handled doctrine the way you are handling it. Essentially you have made the WCF infallable and co-equal with Scripture because you will not allow that it could ever be judged false on the basis of Scripture. Catholics pay lip service to scripture in the same way, by claiming all of their doctrine to be in accordance with the Bible, regardless of what the Bible says, but I don't believe that to be Sola Scriptura in either case.

The certain belief that one perfectly understands scripture is the end of Sola Scriptura and the beginning of the infallability of the councils of men.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

The very reason Rome got it wrong is because it handled doctrine the way you are handling it. Essentially you have made the WCF infallable and co-equal with Scripture because you will not allow that it could ever be judged false on the basis of Scripture. Catholics pay lip service to scripture in the same way, by claiming all of their doctrine to be in accordance with the Bible, regardless of what the Bible says, but I don't believe that to be Sola Scriptura in either case.

No I haven't and you are wrong.
Why would anyone adhere to the WCF if it was wrong?
It has nothing to do with "co-equal to scripture"...stop trying to make Confessions of Faith to be in a bad light.
Simple:
Scripture #1....that's it.

The WCF= a confession of faith regarding Truth and Scripture.

I won't allow it to be judged false because it's not false and truely reflects what Scripture TEACHES. Is it 100%? I think so as of right now yes.


Always trying to make a case against man made stuff is the reason I left the SBC(all over the place regarding what "truth" was/is). The WCF is based 100% on Scripture. I don't have to prove that, just google it sister.

It's a matter of human semantics now.
People act like the WCF can be revised now...yes it can I guess...tell me how...what NEW stuff should be added, or what stuff in it should be revised? I say none.
We can't revise Scripture so the WCF must be "reformed and reformed and revised and reformed as we learn more and more and more of God's Word!"
Bull, it's already been done.





Thanks.

 

[Epiphoskei]

It is seriously hypocritical to ever correct anyone from scripture if one is unwilling to be corrected by scripture, and one cannot be corrected by scripture until one is ready to believe that one's curent understanding of scripture is not necesarally infallable. Sola Scriptura is incompatable with the use of any other document that posesses the final word.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

It is seriously hypocritical to ever correct anyone from scripture if one is unwilling to be corrected by scripture, and one cannot be corrected by scripture until one is ready to believe that one's curent understanding of scripture is not necesarally infallable. Sola Scriptura is incompatable with the use of any other document that posesses the final word.

Why would I adhere to a confession of Faith when it can always be changed by man's opinion? Charismatics and neo-orthodox people do that all the time....let's have an emergent conversation eh? Bah.

Bottom line to me is that the WCF is 100% representative of Christian doctrine and God's Will period.


To me...nuff said.

 

[Epiphoskei]

It seems we are getting caught up on what is and is not "man's opinion." You treat the confession as entierly representative of God's teaching, and any dissent is man's opinion. I am arguing that for Sola Scriptura to be true, it must be allowed that it is possible that any historical confession or doctrine or document except the scripture may be man's opinion, and open to reform from God's teaching.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that we change the truth to fit man's opinion, but that any formulation of doctrine outside the scripture might be errant, and while we may hold to them to the degree scripture convinces us they are Biblical, constant reexamination of the scripture is necesarry if we are to not fall into the same trap as the "infallable tradition" churches.

 

[the particular baptist]

John, what do you think of the WCF's position on images of God the Father, Christ, or the Holy Spirit ?

 

[DD2008]

A confesion is your confession of what you believe is true. I agree with the men who penned the Westminster Confession. So, the Westminster Confession of faith is MY confession of what I believe to be reality.

There are many Baptists who confess the baptist confession of 1689. That is their confession of what they believe is true.

Without a confession that reveals your position on doctrine you cannot be reformed in the traditional sense of the word. The confession explains what we believe and why we don't believe the false teachings of the western church that we reformed. How can one claim they are reformed or have reformed anything without documentation?

 

[AndOne]

The WCF is one heck of a church document that really shouldn't be changed. Granted, I am a Baptist and don't necesarily agree with chapter 28 paragraph 6 - I absolutely agree with and affirm the rest of it. I absolutely love the WCF and read it on a regular basis. There is nothing in this document that is not supported by scripture. Nothing should be taken out - nothing should be changed. Though it is not scripture - it is fully supported by it and it bows in submission to it.

It is because of my love for this document that I have flirted with becoming a presbyterian on more than one occassion. I just cannot give into my conscious and deny credo-baptism (not to mention I am also Charismatic). Having said that however - every Presbyterian should guard this document in it's origonal entirety with their very lives and fight like mad against any woman, man or organization who wants to change it. Anyone one who wants to do so is someone who ultimately wants to change scripture - just my opinion.

To my fellow Baptists - if you haven't read this I urge you to do so. It is a great tool in systematic theology and it is very useful in teaching someone who is new to Chrisitanity the essentials.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

John, what do you think of the WCF's position on images of God the Father, Christ, or the Holy Spirit ?

I totally disagree with it!
figure that one out. haha.

 

[kenrapoza]

I totally disagree with it!
figure that one out. haha.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I haven't read that section of the WCF in a while, but I agree that images/icons etc shouldn't be worshiped. But if I want a picture of our Lord on a collector's plate on my mantle then so be it.

Guys, before this goes too far....my basic point was that yes reforming is always good...but core doctrines of our Faith do not need it.
Trinity is Trinity, infant baptism is infant baptism, etc.
It's my opinion, I could be wrong.

*unsubscribing and back to the GT looney bin. *

 

[AndOne]

I guess you'll need to show me where infant baptism is specifically mandated in scripture....

 

[DD2008]

I guess you'll need to show me where infant baptism is specifically mandated in scripture....

Here is a good place in the WCF to start:

Chapter XXVIII

Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
II. The outward element to be used in this 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.[9]
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

Each numerical link is a scriptural proof.

Here is the link: Westminster Confession of Faith

Here is a great article on the subject as well:

My Retraction: A 15 year Reformed Baptist turns Paedo-Baptist

 

[the particular baptist]

Brother, i appreciate you quoting the WCF on baby sprinkling, but its just not there. This is the result of "good and necessary consequence". A basic word study of John's baptism, then the new covenant baptism, is bapto, which literally means immerse, it should have never been translated baptism, but immerse. The next study is to see who it was administered to.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Anyone ever think that the original intent of the word "immerse" was to become a part of the full faith?
Immersed in FAITH by Salvation, not water?

Just throwing it out there.

 

[Hammster]

Anyone ever think that the original intent of the word "immerse" was to become a part of the full faith?
Immersed in FAITH by Salvation, not water?

Just throwing it out there.

Then wouldn't that, by its very definition, exclude infants?

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Then wouldn't that, by its very definition, exclude infants?

Just a seed for infants, doesn't make it less full. The seed of a redwood has all of the genetic material in it to grow a redwood tree.
So no it wouldn't.
Anywho, just an imaginative hypothesis on my part. Surely I'm not the first to think of this.

 

[Hammster]

Just a seed for infants, doesn't make it less full. The seed of a redwood has all of the genetic material in it to grow a redwood tree.
So no it wouldn't.
Anywho, just an imaginative hypothesis on my part. Surely I'm not the first to think of this.

But a redwood seed doesn't make good siding.