Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

[JustAsIam77]

First of all to the mods: if what I am about to write is in some way against the rules of this forum, please remove this thread and I apologize in advance.

I tried to join another forum whose name I will not give but it does hold to the reformed Calvinistic doctrines and I was denied membership because of my Credobaptist beliefs. I would like to know from those of you that hold to the Paedobaptist belief if any of you believe that the doctrine of Credobaptist is a heresy and if it is so important to ones theology that it is a concern to divide?

I have never seen it as a concern to disassociate one whe believes the other and see it as something that should not divide.

It is a non sequitur, you are correct.

 

[the particular baptist]

Originally Posted by msortwell View Post




Well, in my statement that you quoted above I am most certainly correct, otherwise one of us (you or I) is NOT one of God's people . . . and your doctrine of baptism wouldn't be wrong.

Its not wrong. Forgive me, i dont understand. Are you a baby sprinkler or believers baptism ?

Concerning that, Hebrews 8 speaks to knowing God, Who He is, His attributes, Three In One, Sovereignty, etc. All the laws that ever proceeded from His throne write on our hearts, etc. To such an extent that no man has to teach his "brother" saying know the Lord, for they will all know Him.

Understanding of the ordinances/sacra*cough*ments arent in Hebrews 8. And from what i understand, paedo's do practice believers baptism, if in name and not mode, along with baby sprinkling.

 

[the particular baptist]

Thanks for sharing this - I couldn't agree with the guy more. This statement says it all about those boards: "So there you have it. The hyper-covenantal theology that undergirds the Puritan Board is not Puritan at all! It is a theology that teaches that anyone who rejects the doctrines of grace or the doctrine of infant baptism is an apostate, not justified, reprobate, and hence, going to hell!"

Guess im apostate and heretic then !

But,

Acts 24:14 "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets"

 

[the particular baptist]

Part of the problem is that we often listen to the theology of the Arminians rather than to their testimonies. I cannot count the number of times that I have heard those who profess to hold to a "free will" theology while offering a personal testimony of having "no interest in" or an antagonism for, the things of Christ, only to be brought to a place where they seemed have no choice other than to trust Him. I have to laugh to myself when they, on one hand, emphasize the need to choose Christ, but on the other freely offer that God "hit me over the head with a 2 by 4" or otherwise brought them "kicking and screaming" to faith in Him. Often their testimonies are closer to expressions of a sovereign grace experience than one that supports their expressed theological view.

I't be nice to hear such a testimony from one of them myself sometime, and ask them if God is subject to the will of man. If they say yes, well then, The Holy Ghost was extremely vague in Hebrews 8.

 

[AMR]

I found this interesting blog by a Pastor who parted ways with the PB back in 06.

pastorway: pastorway and the Puritan Board

I am not an owner or a mod at PB, but found the item posted to be grossly mis-characterizing of the tenor at PB. When I seen rancor in evidence at PB, it is inevitably related to persons that seek to promote a view contrary to the Confessional Standards that are clearly set by PB for membership. The managers of PB are within their rights to set whatever standards of conduct and membership they deem appropriate. Unfortunately, some folks think these rules are mere guidelines and open to debate. They are not and members will be quick to point this out to persons who wade in beyond the bounds.

One of the admins at PB posted the following and I think it accurately captures the environment one can expect at PB:

Anyone here who feels compelled to push the boundaries on core doctrines won’t find me very welcoming. This may come across as some sort of fundamentalist fanaticism, but I do study the Scriptures daily, and I am transformed by them. I also remain convinced of the wisdom of the Reformed forefathers that came before us when I read what they have written and compare their writings to Scripture. Not a week goes by that someone somewhere decides they have a new view, new perspective, or new interpretation related to the fundamentals of our faith; despite their having withstood the test of time and painful examination for many, many, hundreds of years.

Thus I become very concerned about discussions that start to challenge the core aspects of our faith. For those who see themselves as theological sophisticates, I would ask that these persons seek a more pastoral approach, rather than trying to be innovative. I recognize that within theological circles it seems that only if one is radical or a trail-blazer that they garner attention. But the constant plowing up of new ground is not what I see as the task of theology. Indeed, I am very content to stop, ponder, and be satisfied to walk in the same steps of those who have come before me. In fact, being more willing to so is what is needed today, versus demonstrations to others how wonderful a person’s insightful exegesis, logic, or sophisticated reasoning may be.
​

This resonates with me and the same sentiments have been my own for many years, including in discussion boards that I have started or participated within.

PB is an acquired taste, and not for everyone.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I am not an owner or a mod at PB, but found the item posted to be grossly mis-characterizing of the tenor at PB. When I seen rancor in evidence at PB, it is inevitably related to persons that seek to promote a view contrary to the Confessional Standards that are clearly set by PB for membership. The managers of PB are within their rights to set whatever standards of conduct and membership they deem appropriate. Unfortunately, some folks think these rules are mere guidelines and open to debate. They are not and members will be quick to point this out to persons who wade in beyond the bounds.

One of the admins at PB posted the following and I think it accurately captures the environment one can expect at PB:

Anyone here who feels compelled to push the boundaries on core doctrines won’t find me very welcoming. This may come across as some sort of fundamentalist fanaticism, but I do study the Scriptures daily, and I am transformed by them. I also remain convinced of the wisdom of the Reformed forefathers that came before us when I read what they have written and compare their writings to Scripture. Not a week goes by that someone somewhere decides they have a new view, new perspective, or new interpretation related to the fundamentals of our faith; despite their having withstood the test of time and painful examination for many, many, hundreds of years.

Thus I become very concerned about discussions that start to challenge the core aspects of our faith. For those who see themselves as theological sophisticates, I would ask that these persons seek a more pastoral approach, rather than trying to be innovative. I recognize that within theological circles it seems that only if one is radical or a trail-blazer that they garner attention. But the constant plowing up of new ground is not what I see as the task of theology. Indeed, I am very content to stop, ponder, and be satisfied to walk in the same steps of those who have come before me. In fact, being more willing to so is what is needed today, versus demonstrations to others how wonderful a person’s insightful exegesis, logic, or sophisticated reasoning may be.
​

This resonates with me and the same sentiments have been my own for many years, including in discussion boards that I have started or participated within.

PB is an acquired taste, and not for everyone.

To be fair, Pastor Way's blog was written back in 06 as stated and there could have well been changes there since then regarding the belief by PB ownership that only calvinist and paedo baptists are really christian. That is what Pastor Way claims is his reason for stepping down there was. I don't know if they have changed hands in that time or the owner has changed his mind. However, I would find it hard to believe that Pastor Way would lie about this in such a public manner.

Regarding pushing the envelope at the PB, I've notioced that includes saying anything that isn't written explicitly in the confessions. Since that is the case, everything is figured out and written in a neat confession, why discuss anything at all?

I've tried the PB twice and have found the taste very sour indeed. I will not aquire it.

 

[student ad x]

Perhaps, David (DD2008), your "taste" is not what you'd "like" to hear in rebuke at the PB or even here at CF ....... as it is by the CF magisterium's grace that you are still posting HERE after being banned.

 

[AMR]

Regarding pushing the envelope at the PB, I've notioced that includes saying anything that isn't written explicitly in the confessions. Since that is the case, everything is figured out and written in a neat confession, why discuss anything at all?

I've tried the PB twice and have found the taste very sour indeed. I will not aquire it.

I won't get into a board war of sorts, but your recent experience at PB was due to your continued misunderstandings of covenantalism and dispensationalism for starters. Despite this being pointed out to you on several occasions,even by one of the most staunch Baptists at PB, you continued to ignore correction.

Frankly, your statement above is nothing more than sour grapes and is bearing false witness, brother. So rather than come here and complain, you could easily have taken this up at PB, no?

And BTW, read Cam's post above carefully.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Are you a baby sprinkler or believers baptism ?

I will attempt to show how either or on this subject of baptism is a false dilemma. I will provide the shorter WCF catechism along with Scripture references and my thoughts, here goes...

CHAPTER XXVIII

Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[MT 28:19] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[1 Cor 12:13] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[RO 4:11, CO 2:11-12] of his ingrafting into Christ,[Gal 3:27, RO 6:5] of regeneration,[Ti 3:5] of remission of sins,[Mk 1:4] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[RO 6:3-4] Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[MT 28:19-20]

For clearification purposes...

The word "sacrament" from The New Bible Dictionary (published by InterVarsity Press)...."SACRAMENTS. The word ‘sacrament’ (Lat. sacramentum) in its technical theological sense, when used to describe certain rites of the Christian faith, belongs to the period of the elaboration of doctrine much later than the NT. The Vulgate in some places thus renders Gk. mystēion (Eph. 5:32; Col. 1:27; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 1:20; 17:7), which was, however, more commonly rendered mysterium (*Mystery). In early ecclesiastical usage sacramentum was used in a wide sense of any ritual observance or sacred thing.....

...The common definition of a sacrament accepted by the Reformed and Roman Churches is that of an outward and visible sign, ordained by Christ, setting forth and pledging an inward and spiritual blessing. The definition owes much to the teaching and language of Augustine, who wrote of the visible form which bore some likeness to the thing invisible. When to this ‘element’, or visible form, the word of Christ’s institution was added, a sacrament was made, so that the sacrament could be spoken of as ‘the visible word’ (see Augustine, Tracts on the Gospel of John 80; Epistles 98; Contra Faustum 19. 16; Sermons 272)."

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.[MT 3:11, JN 1:33, MT 28:19-20]

The words, "A minister of the gospel" are likey based on Jesus giving his disciples authority to baptize and them in turn performing the sacrament of baptism on believers in Christ.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[Heb 9:10, 19-22; Ac 2:41, Ac 16:33, Mk 7:4]

Notice the wording, "not necessary", while the word "rightly" might seem to imply dipping is wrong, I do not think this is the case. The text does not use exclusive language like "only". I do not think the writers of WCF would deny Biblical texts such as "When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water" (MT 3:16, 20:23; Mk 1:10). and "And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water" ( Acts 8:38-39) In my opinion, some Baptists and Presbyterians put far too much emphasis on how baptism is administered. I believe both, need to remember that salvation is not in water or how it is applied, that baptism in the Holy Spirit is from God, and that we are saved by grace, not sacraments or rituals.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, [Mk 16:15-16, Ac 8:37-38] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[Gen 17:7,9; Gal 3:9,14; Co 2:11-12; Ac 2:38-39, RO 4:11-12, 1 Cor 7:14, MT 28:19, Mk 10:13-16, Lk 18:15). ]

This is a tough one to swallow, and required years for me to understand and accept. I did not understand infant baptism for the longest time, I misunderstood it completely. I did not make the connection between OT infant circumcision and NT infant baptism. I do believe the following statement (V) in WCF is part of the context for IV, and softens the mandate to a degree.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[Luke 7:30, Exodus 4:24-26] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[Romans 4:11, Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[Acts 8:13, 23]

Here the WCF explicitly states that the sacrament of baptism, is not a requirement for God's sovereign grace to save a person. IOW, regeneration is not dependent upon baptism.The thief on the cross next to Jesus, the person on their deathbed, the soldier in a foxhole, can be saved and die without having been baptized. The WCF also states that just because an infant is baptized, that does not guarentee they will grow up to be regenerated and saved. If the baptized infant happens to die as an infant, that is a different story. A newly regenerated Christian should want to be baptized (it might take a little time), out of obedience to commands found in Scripture.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[537] 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.[538]

Although I tend to agree, this statement in WCF, in my mind, would seem to perhaps be problematic. However it should be interpreted within the context of the other statements. I would especially benifit from reading commentary on this statement. Here is a thought though, obviously to be immersed in water, they would have to be near a body of water, and I would not doubt many conversions took place near water where they were converted and baptized right then and there. Things have greatly changed in modern times, and as we know water baptism does not always happen in that fashion, probably most often not. Most people these days are probably baptized with water some time after they were saved. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, in which God regenerates believers from spiritual death to spiritual life and seals with His Spirit is another story.

VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[539]

I agree with VII, however, I am probably 'softest' on this statement. In my personal experiences, I have been baptized with water twice, once when I was 8 years old, and later in my 20's (both times by immersion not that it really matters). There are several reasons which I won't get into to stay on target. The way I see it, infant baptism can certainly count as the one baptism, but it does not forcefully count (as though we could force God's hand in matters of salvation). If you were baptized as an infant, and God saved you as an adult, there is no real need to be baptized a second time, however it is quite possible for an infant to be baptized but never be regenerated by God in their lifetime. Are they saved? I do not think so, earthly infant baptism as a sacrament, lacks the power to individually save a soul, and at the same time the sacrament of baptism, although commanded, is not the means of salvation, for salvation belongs to the Lord and His great salvation is graciously and monergistically applied to those whom He has chosen according to His will and purpose for His glory. Am I a sprinkler or believers baptism? I suppose you could say I am both. Perhaps I have already said too much, perhaps I am confused at a point and fail to see, which reminds me of where Paul say's, we see as through a glass darkly.

 

[student ad x]

Correct me if I'm wrong in my reading of Scripture, but those who believed were baptized with water

and Paul would have corrected the Judaizers in Galatians on circumcision with the instruction to infant baptism

 

[AMR]

I will attempt to show how either or on this subject of baptism is a false dilemma. I will provide the shorter WCF catechism along with Scripture references and my thoughts, here goes...

I fear things explanatory of things explained (<--see discussion of WSC questions 92-95).

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Correct me if I'm wrong in my reading of Scripture, but those who believed were baptized with water

True that

and Paul would have corrected the Judaizers in Galatians on circumcision with the instruction to infant baptism

Not necessarily, I agree infant baptism is not taught directly (at least to the best of what I know and understand) in Scripture, however I think the case can be made indirectly. OT infants were not believers either, nevertheless, circumcision involved a Covenant with God between believing parents setting apart their children from the children of non-believers through the sacrament of circumcision. In doing so, they were exercising their faith in an act of obedience giving God glory. I see no harm in believing parents dedicating their children to God, through baptism. In this God honoring covenant the parents agree to raise their children in the ways of the Lord. If I am misunderstanding, I hope someone will help me. Although I agree with Westminster standards, and I trust in the Lord, I do not think I fully understand WCF...or a ton of other things if we get right down to it. If I were a temple, the sign in front would read "under construction".

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I fear things explanatory of things explained (see WSC questions 92-95).

Thank you I will try working through those, reading them now. I completely forgot to check the larger catechism for answers. It's been a long day.

 

[AMR]

Thank you I will try working through those, reading them now. I completely forgot to check the larger catechism for answers. It's been a long day.

Actually, my link in the post above is to Fisher's exposition of the Shorter Catechism since you used the WSC in your post.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I won't get into a board war of sorts, but your recent experience at PB was due to your continued misunderstandings of covenantalism and dispensationalism for starters. Despite this being pointed out to you on several occasions,even by one of the most staunch Baptists at PB, you continued to ignore correction.

Frankly, your statement above is nothing more than sour grapes and is bearing false witness, brother. So rather than come here and complain, you could easily have taken this up at PB, no?

And BTW, read Cam's post above carefully.

I don't have a misunderstanding of covenantalism vs dispensationalism. I certainly lean toward the dispy side. I don't agree with covenant theology. I think it's wrong. I agree with John Macarthur on the basics and even view the church as a grafting into Israel so it's really a remnant position. I understand what is at stake and the various points of contention. I reject soundly the gentleman at the PB's "correction" because it would just lead me into an unbiblical view. I believe I am the one that was correcting him. My argument there was not about the intricacies of his system or my system but at the core that my system doesn't contradict the LBCF and that Macarthurian dispensationalism and the variants of it can and should be included in Reformed conversation. I do not believe for a second that Reformed theology is limited to covenant theology and symbolic eschatology. They strongly disagree and we are not compatible given the rules of that site.

So, that was my argument. I do not belong at the PB. Is there sour grapes between me and them, you bet. I disagree with them fervently. Am I bearing false witness, absolutley not. I said that one must toe a line that is explicit in the confessions and if one drifts into the implicit zone then one is removed from fellowship there. That is true. Do I think they are legalists? In almost every way indeed. So they reject the things I believe in. I reject the things they believe in. We are not the kind of people that would be in fellowship. That is why there are different denominations. Am I ever going to take anything up with the PB again? Absolutley not. I'm never going back there. I believe the unbiblical outweighs the biblical in their overall approach and I just don't trust their views.

Also I posted Pastor Way's blog and didn't even comment on it. He is a pastor and was an admim there. He wrote what he wrote. I didn't write it, but did indeed post it here because it does support the general topic of this thread.

Not trying to start a "board war" just giveng my views and experiences on the one you mentioned. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Perhaps, David (DD2008), your "taste" is not what you'd "like" to hear in rebuke at the PB or even here at CF ....... as it is by the CF magisterium's grace that you are still posting HERE after being banned.

Yes I was banned from CF and allowed to return. They forgave me of my crimes. Forgiveness is a principal of our faith. I admit to breaking CF rules being forgiven and plan to never break them again. I was repentant and was forgiven and given a second chance. They taught me how to not flame catholics and liberals, but yet speak what I believe.

The differences between me and the PB that still do and always will exist are purely doctrinal. I agree with Macarthur they don't. I'm not open to covenant theology I think it's not correct. However, I am a full supralapsarian 5 point calvinist who believes Macarthurs views don't compromise the LBCF. So I claim the LBCF within the framework of the umbrella of the Baptist Faith and Message. I am glad to be a member of my original denomination the SBC. I believe the diversity gives us the opourtunity to openly discuss matters of importance and come closest to biblical truth in our congregations.

The differences that no longer exist between CF and I was that I posted in a way that offended people of other denominations and moral views. A mod from CF walked me through how to avoid doing that while still presenting my beliefes. I haven't received a warning since. So it is possible to post what you want to say without breaking CF rules. I never posted to anyone out of ill will, but simply wanted to help. So now I can do that without stepping on toes.

Your comparison is like apples and oranges. Two totally different subjects.

 

[JasonLibertad]

Not as well as you think.

You seem to imply that in 1Corinthians 15:3-4 the gospel is the just the historical facts of the Lord's life, death, resurrection. I disagree.


For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Youre aware "according to the scriptures" is the OT. The OT teaches a particular Atonement. The Christ that "arminian-ish" professing christians has nothing in common with the Christ and His Work of the OT. They have the same name, thats about it.

In Hebrews 8 and the NC promise, God states in no uncertain terms that His people "will" know Him. The god of "arminian-ish" christians is a helpless beggar, no ? He is powerless to do anything unless the mighty will of man gives him permission. Is this how the God of the Bible makes His people "know" Him ? Some of His children know Him as sovereign and others know him as a beggar at the feet of human will ?

We are like minded on this. How can anyone believe in a Sovereign God that says that His people will know Him, His sheep hear His voice and continue to call an Arminian minded person Brother? They do not serve the God of the Old or New Testament. The All powerful Sovereign El Shaddai, The First and the Last, Alpha and Omega. Our God is not a beggar nor respecter of men.

Do we look at Jehova Witness' or Mormons as Brothers in Christ? The only "works" we are saved by is the "work" done by Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I don't want to sound like a rent-a-mod. But can we stick to the point? All this debate about confessionalism, baptism...ect I don't think was the intent of the original thread. If you want to debate all of these issues please make another thread.

 

[msortwell]

We are like minded on this. How can anyone believe in a Sovereign God that says that His people will know Him, His sheep hear His voice and continue to call an Arminian minded person Brother? They do not serve the God of the Old or New Testament. The All powerful Sovereign El Shaddai, The First and the Last, Alpha and Omega. Our God is not a beggar nor respecter of men.

Do we look at Jehova Witness' or Mormons as Brothers in Christ? The only "works" we are saved by is the "work" done by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to probe into how far from a solid 5-point Calvinist a person can be theologically and still be reconciled to God through Christ.

Must a person be a monergist to be saved?

 

[Bryne]

I am interested in this, as well. Would those who don't consider Arminians to be brothers consider Lutherans to be brothers? (don't worry...I am not going to flip out if anyone says "no")