-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Infant Baptism
- Thread starter Gabriel
- Start date
- Dec 25, 2003
- 6,026
- 132
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Covenant Heart said:
Through careful discussion.
Sola Scriptura is one of the slogans of the reformation is it not? Which means that all you citations, confessions, and canons are ultimately irrelevant. What matters is what we find in the Bible.
The came of this forum is Semper Reformanda which means always reforming. This is another theme of the Reformation. Reformist beleieve that we are fallible, even in Christ, and that we must look to be sanctified and conform to Christ. Since we are not perfect, those confessions and cannons that are not part of Scipture may not be perfect, therefore warrent question.
You seem to adhere to the doctrine of men more than The Scriptures. All those people are mere men (1 Cor. 3). Reformed Theology is just that--theolgy. It is not a denomination, but a set of beliefs.
You demand that only those who adhere to the doctrine of those men be allowed to debate on this subforum. But what about THE BIBLE? Some of us adhere to Reformed Theology found in The Bible.
God, the person who wrote The Bible.
Upvote
0
Covenant Heart
Principled Iconoclast
Our post has been delayed unduly as this members aged parents have for the past several weeks visited in what will likely be their last visit in these United States.
Dear Lynne:
Your post touches the heart. Some would never guess that writing has clues as to where one has walked. More than one has concluded that this member doesnt know squat. For the honour that your good words bestow, we thank-you. Concerning teaching, we can give some time to offer perspective, encourage theological reflection and to suggest paths for study. Debate is different. And while we indicate our openness to it, we will not do so regularly. Debate eats time; we must pick stands wisely. We will share regularly and debate occasionally. But we have no plans to mix the two on an ongoing basis.
Basically, you invite us to draft a policy solution. But some questions forbid easy answers. And while forum design obviously reflects intention, that intention is not always obvious. This member devotes too little time here for that! Good work doesnt happen quickly, and your questions beg time for reflection.
As for throwing you out on your coattails or making forum exilesno. Reformed polity doesnt work that way. And we have neither means nor inclination to do so. We have no more or less say than any other member. We support fully the work of our moderators and owner. And as this question admits no easy answer, we shouldnt envy them!
This member is not the standard of reformed faith. Reformed faith is defined by our confessions, by the reformers who wrote them, and by a tradition of the writings of a handful of the very best reformed minds in each generation. Seen in this light, "TULIP" reduces reformed faith to a mere shell and then forbids correction. An illustration may help.
Thomas F. Torrance "Mediation of Christ" traces mediation between God and Israel in covenant history to show how Christs two natures fulfill perfectly the divine and human sides of the covenant. He shows how the incarnation shapes the idea of revelation, sin and atonement, vicarious suffering and reconciliation in Gods plan to restore shalom, and how all this converges at the Lords Table. But Lynnewe kid you notif T.F. Torrance posted his thesis on the sacrament here, do you know what he would find? He would find a post that read in essence:
"1Co 11:24 says its a memorialgo find a Bible church, man!"
And people would agree.
And if he said that beyond memorial, the reformed view of the Table includes covenant renewal (Ex 24:8), thanksgiving, forgiveness, the eschatological hope of the heavenly feast (Mat 26:26-29), atonement (Mar 14:12), spiritual nourishment (Joh 6:35), and proclamation (1Co 11:24), what then? At that point, Professor Torrenceonce Head of Christian Dogmatics at Edinburgh and Moderator of the Church of Scotlandwould here find a post that read in essence:
"No, its a memorialyou dont understand reformed theology, man!"
And again, people would agree.
A bit much? From Calvin and the confessions (including the Canons), we define reformed faith through the lips of the reformers themselves. Yet all is undone with a post that says as much as "noyoure wrong."
And again, people agree.
So one has to ask, "what is the point of doing quality work." If the words of Calvin, the reformers, Bavinck, Vos, Torrence or Kline (a former teacher of this member) are brushed aside with an hand sweep, if they cannot define accurately the parameters of reformed theology, what could this member possibly add to the subject? In this context, "reformed faith" means very little. It has become a shell. Please dont read this as sarcasm. Its just that even if we had time and inclination for ongoing debate (which we dont), why bother doing good work?
Infant baptism never became a key reformed doctrine. It was reformed doctrine from the start. All the reformers and all our confessions affirm infant baptism. Unless the confessions define what reformed faith is, that faith will defined by general concensus. What is left will have no meaningful resemblance to classical reformed dogmatics. Reformed faith will become everything (and therefore nothing) at the same time.
As we show, this problem emerges in ecclesiology (churchly doctrine), eschatology (amillennial end of the age), sacraments, the relationship of the testaments, Christian spirituality, the cultural mandate, etc. On a dozen issues, we can redebate our core, philosophical differences with non-reformed theology endlessly. But what is the point of having to do that on a reformed board? Isnt that why we have general fora?
A doctrinal baseline is needed. And in reformed churches the baseline has always been our confessional standards. That is how and where the churches of the reformation declare their faith. It is in reference to the confessions that doctrines either conform to or dissent from reformed theology. As for "general theological bent," that concerns the degree to which ones faith is in accord with the system of doctrine set forth in the confessionsrather than to specific doctrines.
If confessional subscription and forum participation are divided, any member can post anything their heart desires. But by the same token, you have no reformed board. To have a reformed board means at the very least that the confessions which define the reformed faith are the doctrinal baseline by which the reformed faith is here defined.
To ask questions is one thing, but to offer Malones position as a way of holding reformed theology is absurd! Mr. Malone cant point to one reformer or confession that holds his view of church, sacraments or covenant. Nor can readers. Questions are fine. But to proffer an alien theology as a form of reformed faith? To that, we will never agree.
As to how much latitude (dissent) from reformed doctrine is allowedwe will abide gladly by whatever rules the moderators/owner devise for participation based on the same principles that apply to other parts of the forum(the Roman Catholic, Charismatic boards, etc.). But in any case, reformed theology is not a soteriological position. Reformed theology is an interpretation of the whole of our Christian faith and life in which soteriology is but one of many vital aspects.
Blessings! Covenant Heart
Dear Lynne:
Your post touches the heart. Some would never guess that writing has clues as to where one has walked. More than one has concluded that this member doesnt know squat. For the honour that your good words bestow, we thank-you. Concerning teaching, we can give some time to offer perspective, encourage theological reflection and to suggest paths for study. Debate is different. And while we indicate our openness to it, we will not do so regularly. Debate eats time; we must pick stands wisely. We will share regularly and debate occasionally. But we have no plans to mix the two on an ongoing basis.
Basically, you invite us to draft a policy solution. But some questions forbid easy answers. And while forum design obviously reflects intention, that intention is not always obvious. This member devotes too little time here for that! Good work doesnt happen quickly, and your questions beg time for reflection.
As for throwing you out on your coattails or making forum exilesno. Reformed polity doesnt work that way. And we have neither means nor inclination to do so. We have no more or less say than any other member. We support fully the work of our moderators and owner. And as this question admits no easy answer, we shouldnt envy them!
This member is not the standard of reformed faith. Reformed faith is defined by our confessions, by the reformers who wrote them, and by a tradition of the writings of a handful of the very best reformed minds in each generation. Seen in this light, "TULIP" reduces reformed faith to a mere shell and then forbids correction. An illustration may help.
Thomas F. Torrance "Mediation of Christ" traces mediation between God and Israel in covenant history to show how Christs two natures fulfill perfectly the divine and human sides of the covenant. He shows how the incarnation shapes the idea of revelation, sin and atonement, vicarious suffering and reconciliation in Gods plan to restore shalom, and how all this converges at the Lords Table. But Lynnewe kid you notif T.F. Torrance posted his thesis on the sacrament here, do you know what he would find? He would find a post that read in essence:
"1Co 11:24 says its a memorialgo find a Bible church, man!"
And people would agree.
And if he said that beyond memorial, the reformed view of the Table includes covenant renewal (Ex 24:8), thanksgiving, forgiveness, the eschatological hope of the heavenly feast (Mat 26:26-29), atonement (Mar 14:12), spiritual nourishment (Joh 6:35), and proclamation (1Co 11:24), what then? At that point, Professor Torrenceonce Head of Christian Dogmatics at Edinburgh and Moderator of the Church of Scotlandwould here find a post that read in essence:
"No, its a memorialyou dont understand reformed theology, man!"
And again, people would agree.
A bit much? From Calvin and the confessions (including the Canons), we define reformed faith through the lips of the reformers themselves. Yet all is undone with a post that says as much as "noyoure wrong."
And again, people agree.
So one has to ask, "what is the point of doing quality work." If the words of Calvin, the reformers, Bavinck, Vos, Torrence or Kline (a former teacher of this member) are brushed aside with an hand sweep, if they cannot define accurately the parameters of reformed theology, what could this member possibly add to the subject? In this context, "reformed faith" means very little. It has become a shell. Please dont read this as sarcasm. Its just that even if we had time and inclination for ongoing debate (which we dont), why bother doing good work?
Infant baptism never became a key reformed doctrine. It was reformed doctrine from the start. All the reformers and all our confessions affirm infant baptism. Unless the confessions define what reformed faith is, that faith will defined by general concensus. What is left will have no meaningful resemblance to classical reformed dogmatics. Reformed faith will become everything (and therefore nothing) at the same time.
As we show, this problem emerges in ecclesiology (churchly doctrine), eschatology (amillennial end of the age), sacraments, the relationship of the testaments, Christian spirituality, the cultural mandate, etc. On a dozen issues, we can redebate our core, philosophical differences with non-reformed theology endlessly. But what is the point of having to do that on a reformed board? Isnt that why we have general fora?
A doctrinal baseline is needed. And in reformed churches the baseline has always been our confessional standards. That is how and where the churches of the reformation declare their faith. It is in reference to the confessions that doctrines either conform to or dissent from reformed theology. As for "general theological bent," that concerns the degree to which ones faith is in accord with the system of doctrine set forth in the confessionsrather than to specific doctrines.
If confessional subscription and forum participation are divided, any member can post anything their heart desires. But by the same token, you have no reformed board. To have a reformed board means at the very least that the confessions which define the reformed faith are the doctrinal baseline by which the reformed faith is here defined.
To ask questions is one thing, but to offer Malones position as a way of holding reformed theology is absurd! Mr. Malone cant point to one reformer or confession that holds his view of church, sacraments or covenant. Nor can readers. Questions are fine. But to proffer an alien theology as a form of reformed faith? To that, we will never agree.
As to how much latitude (dissent) from reformed doctrine is allowedwe will abide gladly by whatever rules the moderators/owner devise for participation based on the same principles that apply to other parts of the forum(the Roman Catholic, Charismatic boards, etc.). But in any case, reformed theology is not a soteriological position. Reformed theology is an interpretation of the whole of our Christian faith and life in which soteriology is but one of many vital aspects.
Blessings! Covenant Heart
Upvote
0
Covenant Heart
Principled Iconoclast
Seedy: First, we ask how we would know whether or not we agree with the theology of Dort if we have not read the Canons.
You reply, "through careful discussion."
We mean no disrespect, but it is embarrassing to credit this proposition with a reply. How can we have careful discussion of the Canons if we have not read them? That's silly! If we do not read the confessions, everything that we know about them is by definition hearsay. How does this differ from a pooling of ignorance? Would you tell members to derive their knowledge of Scripture "by careful discussion?" No. And if members who seem familiar with our confessions are censured for subordinating Scripture to manmade doctrines, againto what extent do you actually agree with our theology?
Second, you say: "Sola Scriptura is one of the slogans of the reformation is it not? Which means that all you citations, confessions, and canons are ultimately irrelevant. What matters is what we find in the Bible."
In reply: All of life is confessional. You say that the "confessions and canons are ultimately irrelevant." That has confessional import. Now it may not be officially adopted by your church (although we wouldnt put it past some). But it does confess what you sincerely believe. It guides your response to our words. So your words that the "confessions and canons are ultimately irrelevant" function for you as a confessional article of faith.
But to confess, "confessions are ultimately irrelevant" must mean that this article is itself "untimately irrelevant." That is a self-negating premise. Well simplify. Suppose you say that "all confessions are ultimately irrelevant." We may ask, "does that include the statement you just confessed." In that vein, "Sola Scriptura" is also a brief, confessional statement. If all confessions are irrelevant (as you say), then "Sola Scriptura" (which guides and functions as a confessional article) must be irrelevant also.
That some 50 confessional statements were bequeathed to us in the first 150 years of reformation history might suggest to you that youve never really grasped how the reformers held the confessions, the five solas and Scriptures. We really would not care to think them too stupid to see the contradiction.
Third, we are familiar with Semper Reformanda, and human fallibility not at issue. Confessions have been changed to bring them into greater conformity with the word of God. The Belgic Confession no longer condemns Anabaptists as seditious persons. And Westminster Conf. chap 31 states in article 3 that "all synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice." But then on your confession (above), that also is "ultimately irrelevant."
You say, "you seem to adhere to the doctrine of men more than the Scriptures."
Really? Well, as Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 5 states, "we receive all these books [the 66], and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith."
Or is that "ultimately irrelevant" also?
You say that "Reformed theology is just thattheology. It is not a denomination, but a set of beliefs."
We are not aware of having referred to any one denomination in this regard. Provide the URL and we will correct the post. As for a "set of beliefs," this shows a woeful misunderstanding both of our confessions and of reformed philosophy of truth. First, confessional statements are not a "set of beliefs" in the sense of listing things that we believe to be true. Rather, they lift Biblical patterns of teaching from Scripture and put them on paper in a way that holds these motifs in their Biblical balance and relationships. Confessions integrate all major parts of our doctrine into a coherent system. They also seek to bring together and balance all the Biblical witness on a subject.
That is why when your Anabaptist forefathers were debating whether to live in communes and pondered Sabellius heresy (no Trinity), John Calvin was defining the threefold office of Jesus Christ (prophet, priest and king) and developing the theory of vicarious atonement.
As for the Bible, we replied already with Belgic Confession, Article 5. But we add Westminster Confession, chap 1, article 10. "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
But alasthat is "ultimately irrelevant."
Confessions will be used; the question is whether the confessions that hold are those of the reformation or such as "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love" as the non-reformed oft confess. We also agree that "what matters is what we find in the Bible." As confessions go, we have to tell you that we find those of the reformation (above) much more helpful.
Again, if the confessions are ultimately irrelevant, so is the doctrine that they articulate. As Seedy includes the Canons in his confessional disclaimer, we feel vindicated for saying that without the confessions, even the Canons will be lost and reformed faith reduced to a shell. We see at least as much cause to spurn as "irrelevant" the recommendation that we spurn as "ultimately irrelevant" the collective wisdom of great teachers of past generations without even reading them!
We have no problem whatsoever with Seedy's issue of conscience on these things. Indeed we commend him for it in the spirit of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20 which states that God has left the conscience free from the doctrines and commandments of men. But to say that our confessions (and by extention their theology) are ultimately irrelevant, to hold as an open question the Biblical commitment those who hold the confessions, that (we believe) breaks from reformed faith. Why would such a one post here? If all confessions are "ultimately irrelevant" (save that one), why would we bother to read them or to give them "careful discussion?"
If that unsettled readers, consider this before granting squatters rights. What will you do when, with Seedys logic, a Wesleyan says that the five points are not Biblical and hold us as outcasts on our own forum? If granted, Seedys argument must cut both ways. Do you want a reformed forum or not? We have Seedys answer. You have ours. We continue to wait for our moderator/owner.
Blessings!
Covenant Heart
You reply, "through careful discussion."
We mean no disrespect, but it is embarrassing to credit this proposition with a reply. How can we have careful discussion of the Canons if we have not read them? That's silly! If we do not read the confessions, everything that we know about them is by definition hearsay. How does this differ from a pooling of ignorance? Would you tell members to derive their knowledge of Scripture "by careful discussion?" No. And if members who seem familiar with our confessions are censured for subordinating Scripture to manmade doctrines, againto what extent do you actually agree with our theology?
Second, you say: "Sola Scriptura is one of the slogans of the reformation is it not? Which means that all you citations, confessions, and canons are ultimately irrelevant. What matters is what we find in the Bible."
In reply: All of life is confessional. You say that the "confessions and canons are ultimately irrelevant." That has confessional import. Now it may not be officially adopted by your church (although we wouldnt put it past some). But it does confess what you sincerely believe. It guides your response to our words. So your words that the "confessions and canons are ultimately irrelevant" function for you as a confessional article of faith.
But to confess, "confessions are ultimately irrelevant" must mean that this article is itself "untimately irrelevant." That is a self-negating premise. Well simplify. Suppose you say that "all confessions are ultimately irrelevant." We may ask, "does that include the statement you just confessed." In that vein, "Sola Scriptura" is also a brief, confessional statement. If all confessions are irrelevant (as you say), then "Sola Scriptura" (which guides and functions as a confessional article) must be irrelevant also.
That some 50 confessional statements were bequeathed to us in the first 150 years of reformation history might suggest to you that youve never really grasped how the reformers held the confessions, the five solas and Scriptures. We really would not care to think them too stupid to see the contradiction.
Third, we are familiar with Semper Reformanda, and human fallibility not at issue. Confessions have been changed to bring them into greater conformity with the word of God. The Belgic Confession no longer condemns Anabaptists as seditious persons. And Westminster Conf. chap 31 states in article 3 that "all synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice." But then on your confession (above), that also is "ultimately irrelevant."
You say, "you seem to adhere to the doctrine of men more than the Scriptures."
Really? Well, as Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 5 states, "we receive all these books [the 66], and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith."
Or is that "ultimately irrelevant" also?
You say that "Reformed theology is just thattheology. It is not a denomination, but a set of beliefs."
We are not aware of having referred to any one denomination in this regard. Provide the URL and we will correct the post. As for a "set of beliefs," this shows a woeful misunderstanding both of our confessions and of reformed philosophy of truth. First, confessional statements are not a "set of beliefs" in the sense of listing things that we believe to be true. Rather, they lift Biblical patterns of teaching from Scripture and put them on paper in a way that holds these motifs in their Biblical balance and relationships. Confessions integrate all major parts of our doctrine into a coherent system. They also seek to bring together and balance all the Biblical witness on a subject.
That is why when your Anabaptist forefathers were debating whether to live in communes and pondered Sabellius heresy (no Trinity), John Calvin was defining the threefold office of Jesus Christ (prophet, priest and king) and developing the theory of vicarious atonement.
As for the Bible, we replied already with Belgic Confession, Article 5. But we add Westminster Confession, chap 1, article 10. "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
But alasthat is "ultimately irrelevant."
Confessions will be used; the question is whether the confessions that hold are those of the reformation or such as "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love" as the non-reformed oft confess. We also agree that "what matters is what we find in the Bible." As confessions go, we have to tell you that we find those of the reformation (above) much more helpful.
Again, if the confessions are ultimately irrelevant, so is the doctrine that they articulate. As Seedy includes the Canons in his confessional disclaimer, we feel vindicated for saying that without the confessions, even the Canons will be lost and reformed faith reduced to a shell. We see at least as much cause to spurn as "irrelevant" the recommendation that we spurn as "ultimately irrelevant" the collective wisdom of great teachers of past generations without even reading them!
We have no problem whatsoever with Seedy's issue of conscience on these things. Indeed we commend him for it in the spirit of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20 which states that God has left the conscience free from the doctrines and commandments of men. But to say that our confessions (and by extention their theology) are ultimately irrelevant, to hold as an open question the Biblical commitment those who hold the confessions, that (we believe) breaks from reformed faith. Why would such a one post here? If all confessions are "ultimately irrelevant" (save that one), why would we bother to read them or to give them "careful discussion?"
If that unsettled readers, consider this before granting squatters rights. What will you do when, with Seedys logic, a Wesleyan says that the five points are not Biblical and hold us as outcasts on our own forum? If granted, Seedys argument must cut both ways. Do you want a reformed forum or not? We have Seedys answer. You have ours. We continue to wait for our moderator/owner.
Blessings!
Covenant Heart
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 6,026
- 132
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Covenant Heart said:
Who is the "we" stuff? You are the only one making this an issue.
Your argument is invalid because even my confessions are ultimatelly irrelevant. You say that Sola Scirptura is a confession, and that may be. However, all cofessions must come from Scirpture, so ultimatley only Scripture is relevant--God's word.
We both agree on Sola Scriptura, so we can start form there.
So that we may learn.
And only 5 points make up the entire reformed theoogy?
No moderator here sees reason to step in. It is been over a month since you first posted here.
And why should we hold to the Canons of Dort, even though they should be invalidated? Would that not contradict the philosophy of reformation?
We can discuss doctrine or we can not. If you force people in this forum to hold to the entire canon of Dort, then what would be left?
You speak of the Canons as if they are infallible. If you want to discuss this, then discuss it. If you don't like me posting credobaptist links, then PM the moderators.
Isaiah 40
6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2003
- 6,719
- 469
- 49
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Let me say (NOT as a moderator, but as a fellow Reformed brother) that I agree Scripture is the ultimate authority in this debate. The historic creeds and confessions do not possess equal authority over our consciences and convictions. They DO however provide valuable insight as to the historic understanding of the content of the faith.
I see the issue of paedo vs credo to be a secondary matter...an issue of Reformed tradition vs Reformed faith. There are many other secondary matters which members of the Reformed community disagree on: eschatology, covenant theology vs dispensationalism, sacramentology to a degree, worship methods, etc. We should feel free to discuss and debate these issues amongst ourselves, but at the end of the day we affirm the authority of Scripture above all else, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the sovereignty of God in election, and many other truths.
As a paedobaptist who was formerly credobaptist, I do not have any problem personally with discussion and debate of this matter so long as neither side makes it a test of faith or holds his or her brother or sister in contempt over the matter.
Scripture is our authority, history our tutor. Come, let us reason together.
I see the issue of paedo vs credo to be a secondary matter...an issue of Reformed tradition vs Reformed faith. There are many other secondary matters which members of the Reformed community disagree on: eschatology, covenant theology vs dispensationalism, sacramentology to a degree, worship methods, etc. We should feel free to discuss and debate these issues amongst ourselves, but at the end of the day we affirm the authority of Scripture above all else, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the sovereignty of God in election, and many other truths.
As a paedobaptist who was formerly credobaptist, I do not have any problem personally with discussion and debate of this matter so long as neither side makes it a test of faith or holds his or her brother or sister in contempt over the matter.
Scripture is our authority, history our tutor. Come, let us reason together.
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2003
- 6,719
- 469
- 49
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Two things mainly: my increased exposure to and understanding of Covenant Theology, and my increased knowledge of church history.HopeTheyDance said:
Upvote
0
Thgis was not directed at me...but I'll answer anyway.LynneClomina said:
We babtise babies. We usually spinkle. HOWEVER - we do have a baptism tank..and would 'dunk' a babe if asked. My son is getting baptised in 2 weeks...I was asked if I would like him 'dunked'. As I do not believe the mode matters...I chose to spinkle, as I did with my other 2 children. My dh was sprinkled as a believer (no tank back then), and I was fully immersed. I believe all of us HAVE been baptised!!! Praise God!
Upvote
0
rnmomof7
Legend
- Feb 9, 2002
- 14,503
- 735
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Mod hat on.
I am coming to this discussion a bit late, but I have a general comment to make.
Calvinism is not a religion, it is not a "church" it is a doctrine that seeks to give all the glory to God and none to man. We are in reality a diverse group .
Within Calvinism we have many different positions on things like eschatology or the sacraments ( ordinances as our Baptist family would say.) These are non essentials to our salvation .
All of those differences are welcome here in this forum for discussion , as long as we remember that was are all family in Christ if you accept covenant theology or not .
I am a Bible presbyterian , but I am not a padeo baptist. I live in peace with my credo-baptism church family , I hope that we can all accept that Baptism does not save, and that it is an outward sign of a change, then discuss it from there.
Peace to my reform family
RN
Edited because I said I was a credo baptist , I meant to say I am not a padeo baptist
I am coming to this discussion a bit late, but I have a general comment to make.
Calvinism is not a religion, it is not a "church" it is a doctrine that seeks to give all the glory to God and none to man. We are in reality a diverse group .
Within Calvinism we have many different positions on things like eschatology or the sacraments ( ordinances as our Baptist family would say.) These are non essentials to our salvation .
All of those differences are welcome here in this forum for discussion , as long as we remember that was are all family in Christ if you accept covenant theology or not .
I am a Bible presbyterian , but I am not a padeo baptist. I live in peace with my credo-baptism church family , I hope that we can all accept that Baptism does not save, and that it is an outward sign of a change, then discuss it from there.
Peace to my reform family
RN
Edited because I said I was a credo baptist , I meant to say I am not a padeo baptist
Upvote
0
Greetings.
In regards to infant baptism I hear people saying things like, "it's a sign of the covenant," or, "it's a seal of the covenant." What exactly does this mean in a tangible way? In other words, does baptism DO anything at all for the person being baptized? Does that baby get something non-baptized babys don't get? Since the baby is obvioulsy unaware of what's going on, it seems more of a ritual for the parents. I'm not trying to be combative here, but I just don't see what it really accomplishes. Adult baptism, however, is completely different. There a person makes a decision to follow Jesus' command to be baptised. With infants, it's the parents making the decision. Just my 2c.
blessings...
In regards to infant baptism I hear people saying things like, "it's a sign of the covenant," or, "it's a seal of the covenant." What exactly does this mean in a tangible way? In other words, does baptism DO anything at all for the person being baptized? Does that baby get something non-baptized babys don't get? Since the baby is obvioulsy unaware of what's going on, it seems more of a ritual for the parents. I'm not trying to be combative here, but I just don't see what it really accomplishes. Adult baptism, however, is completely different. There a person makes a decision to follow Jesus' command to be baptised. With infants, it's the parents making the decision. Just my 2c.
blessings...
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 6,026
- 132
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
rnmomof7 said:
I accept covenant theology, even though I'm a credo-baptist. Simply not the same interpretation of the Scriptures
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 6,026
- 132
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
A sign means it represents things to come, while a seal means it represents what has come, such as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a seal of promise.frost said:
now, in this forum (Reformed), we don't believe that baptism has any special meaning other than a symbol. We don't believe that grace is infused through the water and that the Holy Spirit works with it instantaneously as Catholics and Lutherans do.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
