So I guess I'm a presbyterian now

[inchristalone221]

I was raised in a non-denominational home. Looking back we much better fit the description of reformed baptist (Spurgeon-esque in every way, and also very reformed). Now that I've had some time and have developed my own opinions and views of scripture, I've discovered something. I read the official doctrinal statement of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and I believe I agree with them on every point.

I'm considering studying one of the confessions now, and I'd like to know what you would recommend for me first, the London Baptist Confession or the Westminster Confession.

 

[Nse007]

LBC by far. Paedobaptism is an error in covenant theology. I am RB and am covenantal. You do not have to believe in infant baptism, and for that matter their view of church ecclesiology to be reformed or covenantal. The key question is this...when Scripture talks about the covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, it describes it as a New covenant. Ask yourself how is it different? Calling baptism the new covenant equivalent of circumcision just jumps too many steps with out a scriptural bridge.

I'm not saying that you should leave your church, but you can definetly leave some of their doctrine. A good resource would be the debate between R.C Sproul, and John MacArthur on this subject. You can get it from www.ligonier.com I believe.

Nse007

 

[mlqurgw]

I personally wouldn't reccomend a study of any confessions. But if you must I think, being a Baptist, that the London is what you ought to read. Of course it is only a Baptized Westminster.

 

[Nse007]

I personally wouldn't reccomend a study of any confessions. But if you must I think, being a Baptist, that the London is what you ought to read. Of course it is only a Baptized Westminster.

You know ofcourse that the First LBC was written before the WCF. 1644 vs. 1646...just so you know.

 

[inchristalone221]

I personally wouldn't reccomend a study of any confessions. But if you must I think, being a Baptist, that the London is what you ought to read. Of course it is only a Baptized Westminster.

Well, while I would say I was raised Reformed Baptist, I would hardly call myself a Baptist. To me, Baptist has a terrible connation. They have their own variation on "touch not, taste not, handle not" and it goes something like "drink not, smoke not, dance not." I may put off studying confessions for now and spend more time on systematic theology.

 

[edie19]

Well, while I would say I was raised Reformed Baptist, I would hardly call myself a Baptist. To me, Baptist has a terrible connation. They have their own variation on "touch not, taste not, handle not" and it goes something like "drink not, smoke not, dance not." I may put off studying confessions for now and spend more time on systematic theology.

Depends on the Baptist (she says as she uncorks a nice bottle of Australian Shiraz). Some have lots of "rules," but the ones I know are just plain folks (with lots of flaws) who love the Lord and love His Word. For me, being a baptist means that I recognize the sacrament of credo-baptism - nothing more. Being a Reformed Baptist means I hold the 5 solas near and dear to my heart and beleive the tenets of reformed theology as presented in Scripture.

I, too, hold the LBC with high regard. Since I was raised Presbyterian I also studied the Westminster growing up and see no problem with being familiar with both as they both serve a purporse. I believe that creeds and confessions are an important part of the Christian's study life - they are great summaries and provide specific answers to specific topics. I think everyone here would agree that anytime a confession conflicted with Scripture then the confession should be disregarded.

edie

 

[inchristalone221]

Depends on the Baptist (she says as she uncorks a nice bottle of Australian Shiraz). Some have lots of "rules," but the ones I know are just plain folks (with lots of flaws) who love the Lord and love His Word. For me, being a baptist means that I recognize the sacrament of credo-baptism - nothing more. Being a Reformed Baptist means I hold the 5 solas near and dear to my heart and beleive the tenets of reformed theology as presented in Scripture.

Well, on that definition, feel free to call me a Reformed Baptist!

 

[Jon_]

LBC by far. Paedobaptism is an error in covenant theology. I am RB and am covenantal. You do not have to believe in infant baptism, and for that matter their view of church ecclesiology to be reformed or covenantal. The key question is this...when Scripture talks about the covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, it describes it as a New covenant. Ask yourself how is it different? Calling baptism the new covenant equivalent of circumcision just jumps too many steps with out a scriptural bridge.

Oh boy, the new guy is trying to start something. Somebody hold me back!!

Have a look at Monergism's articles on paedobaptism. They address the issue quite well: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/babtism.html.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

You know ofcourse that the First LBC was written before the WCF. 1644 vs. 1646...just so you know.

That's great. Nevertheless, it was the WCF1646 that directly influenced the LBC1689, not the other way around. Have a look at this article, which clearly details the extensive borrowing the authors of the LBC1689 did with the WCF1646. Not that we Presbyterians are offended. Quite the contrary.

http://www.rblist.org/1689vWCF.html

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I was raised in a non-denominational home. Looking back we much better fit the description of reformed baptist (Spurgeon-esque in every way, and also very reformed). Now that I've had some time and have developed my own opinions and views of scripture, I've discovered something. I read the official doctrinal statement of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and I believe I agree with them on every point.

I'm considering studying one of the confessions now, and I'd like to know what you would recommend for me first, the London Baptist Confession or the Westminster Confession.

I definitely recommend you study the Westminster Confession of Faith and both catechisms (do the small one first). They are, in the sum, the definition of orthodox Christianity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[edie19]

Oh boy, the new guy is trying to start something. Somebody hold me back!!

Have a look at Monergism's articles on paedobaptism. They address the issue quite well: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/babtism.html.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Jon, I keep telling you that credobaptism is covenantal. Now there's someone else here saying the same thing. Maybe one of these days you'll come around to the correct way of thinking

Seriously - while I recognize that neither my pastor nor you will necessarily agree with me, in the grand scheme of reformed theology - infant vs. believer baptism isn't anything to get one's pantyhose twisted over. If we agree on everything else (i.e. the 5 solas and those things that fall into the TULIP acronym) then I think we can safely agree to disagree on baptism. It isn't like we're talking heresy after all.

edie

p.s. - I'd still introduce you to my daughter anytime.

 

[Nse007]

Oh boy, the new guy is trying to start something. Somebody hold me back!!

Have a look at Monergism's articles on paedobaptism. They address the issue quite well: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/babtism.html.



Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

The debate between John MacArthur and R.C Sproul addresses it well, too. Also Baptism for Disciples Alone by Fred Malone is a source text. We may be in the minority view, but people that are right usually are. And, please, please don't hold back.

 

[mlqurgw]

Jon, I keep telling you that credobaptism is covenantal. Now there's someone else here saying the same thing. Maybe one of these days you'll come around to the correct way of thinking

Seriously - while I recognize that neither my pastor nor you will necessarily agree with me, in the grand scheme of reformed theology - infant vs. believer baptism isn't anything to get one's pantyhose twisted over. If we agree on everything else (i.e. the 5 solas and those things that fall into the TULIP acronym) then I think we can safely agree to disagree on baptism. It isn't like we're talking heresy after all.

edie

p.s. - I'd still introduce you to my daughter anytime.

Real men don't wear pantyhose we wear panties.

 

[edie19]

Real men don't wear pantyhose we wear panties.

thanks for clarifying - now I know.

edie



p.s. - I guess Joe Namath isn't a "real" man. And I'll say it before anyone else does - yes, I'm showing my age.

 

[Erinwilcox]

Well, while I would say I was raised Reformed Baptist, I would hardly call myself a Baptist. To me, Baptist has a terrible connation. They have their own variation on "touch not, taste not, handle not" and it goes something like "drink not, smoke not, dance not." I may put off studying confessions for now and spend more time on systematic theology.

Okay, whenever I say that I'm a Reformed Baptist, unbelievers always look at me with pity and say, "Oh, you're a BAPTIST? They're weird. You can't do X, Y, or Z." But, I always smile sweetly at them and reply, "No, I'm not a Baptist. . .I'm a Reformed Baptist and there is a BIG difference."

As for Nse opening the can of worms regarding paedo verse credo, can you tell we're from the same church? Nse, I've hashed this issue out many times on SR. With the help of some of my friends here, I've studied covenant theology and must confess that SOME of it seems biblical. Now, don't go reporting me to the pastors yet!. . .I'm stuck on the baptism issue and I think I probably always will be. Christ was baptized as an adult (and, by the way, He was dunked ), He and John baptized those who first believed. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention infants being baptized. It does, however, speak of those believing and then being baptized. However, I won't get into this issue right now.

 

[mlqurgw]

thanks for clarifying - now I know.

edie



p.s. - I guess Joe Namath isn't a "real" man. And I'll say it before anyone else does - yes, I'm showing my age.

I remember because I am older than dirt.

It takes a real man to be comfortable in whatever he wears.

 

[Nse007]

Okay, whenever I say that I'm a Reformed Baptist, unbelievers always look at me with pity and say, "Oh, you're a BAPTIST? They're weird. You can't do X, Y, or Z." But, I always smile sweetly at them and reply, "No, I'm not a Baptist. . .I'm a Reformed Baptist and there is a BIG difference."

As for Nse opening the can of worms regarding paedo verse credo, can you tell we're from the same church? Nse, I've hashed this issue out many times on SR. With the help of some of my friends here, I've studied covenant theology and must confess that SOME of it seems biblical. Now, don't go reporting me to the pastors yet!. . .I'm stuck on the baptism issue and I think I probably always will be. Christ was baptized as an adult (and, by the way, He was dunked ), He and John baptized those who first believed. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention infants being baptized. It does, however, speak of those believing and then being baptized. However, I won't get into this issue right now.

Hey Erin,

You CAN believe in covenant theology without believing in paedobaptism. It's the nature of the covenant that we disagree with. For instance, you and I are in the covenant together because we are baptized believers. Covenant theology should be properly understood in recognizing that the Church is the True Isreal of God. We believe that, therefore we are covenantal, we just don't use incorrect signs of the covenant like others do.

On your side,

Nse

 

[Erinwilcox]

Hey Erin,

You CAN believe in covenant theology without believing in paedobaptism. It's the nature of the covenant that we disagree with. For instance, you and I are in the covenant together because we are baptized believers. Covenant theology should be properly understood in recognizing that the Church is the True Isreal of God. We believe that, therefore we are covenantal, we just don't use incorrect signs of the covenant like others do.

On your side,

Nse

If only the paedos would dedicate their children and then baptize when they are believers. . . I just see again and again in scripture that people first believe and then are baptized, not baptized before salvation. Baptism is the symbol of conversion. When we are converted, our old man dies and our new man rises with Christ. So also, in baptism (the proper way, that is ), when we go under the water, it symbolizes our old man dying; when we are raised out of the water, our new man rising with Christ is symbolized. Where is that in infant baptism or even in sprinkling?

Nse, Bryce Bauer was baptised last Sunday. I cried, of course. I always cry at baptisms and weddings (and I cried buckets at Sonya and Danny's wedding today). Also, Mr. and Mrs. Leubecker joined the church. It was such a blessing. . .

If you want some real fun, go to the General Theology section of CF!

 

[PapaLandShark]

Or, if you enjoy jousting with dragons, GA.

Welcome Nse.

 

[edie19]

If you want some real fun, go to the General Theology section of CF!

Or if you've been missing that migraine. . . .