IF believer In Doctrines of Grace, Why baptists and NOT presby?

The neo-Calvinist innovation crosses denominational lines just like the Charismatic movement did.

The Reformed "Gospel Coalition" Network, for example, runs the gamut from Presbyterian to Assembly of God to United Methodist to Evangelical Free to Anglican, and yes, some Baptists.

 

There is your logical progression & conclusion right there.

 

Almost being the operative word.

 

We are getting along! And I did call that WOF...er.. stuff heresy!

:wavey:

 

Do you think I'm going to turn into one of those kooks because I'm a non Cal?

 

you personally, no.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Generally its because you usually get better lunches with the Baptists then you do with the Presbys. Plus Presbys pretty much act like yuppies with their noses in the air so I stick with the down home folks.

 

Because my understanding of the New Covenant that is "in His blood" (1 Cor. 11:25) is that it is vastly superior to the Old Covenant (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 10:1-10). In the New Covenant, all know the LORD "from the least to the greatest" (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:7-12).

This is why I believe that all members of the New Covenant are elect. Only the elect comprise the New Covenant. It is not a "mixed" covenant of regenerate and unregenerate like the Old. It is not an earthly/familial covenant like the Old, but a heavenly/individual covenant. The New Covenant is "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers," which to me proves its distinctiveness from the household nature of the covenant of circumcision. If, in the New Covenant, "all shall know the LORD from the least of them to the greatest of them" and it is "in His blood," then it must be a full and present reality.

In an effort to maintain "harmony" among the covenants, Presbyterians try to turn the New Covenant into a "mixed" covenant like the Old, and therefore, turn Baptism (as a sign of the covenant) into much like circumcision (paedo/oiko). Out of necessity, they have to argue that the New Covenant, then, exudes an "already but not yet" nature, because it could not be a "mixed" covenant if "all shall know the LORD" is the here and now.

 

Baptists who hold to the DoG still have differences with our Presbyterian brethren on doctrine and ecclesiology. The doctrinal differences center on the temporal nature of the New Covenant and who it applies to; believers only or believers and their yet unbelieving children. Ecclesiology is another point of disagreement because we believe in local church autonomy.

 

could you embellish on these points a little more for the sake of us un-churched Cretins? thanks

 

Good morning, Cretin. LOL

Presbyterians believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. They believe it applies to children of believers today. But instead of circumcision they perform baptism, just like we do. Unlike Baptists they also baptize their unbelieving children, believing that that the sign of the New Covenant is to be applied to all members of their household. In their view the temporal administration of the New Covenant (here on earth) includes both believers and unbelievers, just as being a member of the covenant community of Israel did not necessarily mean you were a spiritual child of Abraham by faith. Baptists disagree with that. We do not believe in a temporal and eternal New Covenant; we believe in one New Covenant that is made up of believers only. Yes, there are false professors in our churches, but they are not members of the New Covenant. Baptists believe that that the sign of baptism is to be applied only to those who have made a credible profession of faith.

Presbyterian church polity removes the autonomy of the local church. Ecclesiastical power includes the local church, but that power also rests in governing bodies outside of the local church; typically called presbyteries which are made up of ministers from a number of churches. Above presbyteries are synods and then the general assembly. Depending on the issue at hand a local church matter can make its way all the way up to the general assembly. Trials can be held and binding decisions made upon local churches and members.

Baptist polity is much different. Matters are handled at the local church level. There may be cooperation between churches of like faith, but those churches have no ecclesiastical authority over another church.

 

John Reisinger:

"Historically Baptists have taken the congregational form of government. They have resisted both the idea of a Presbytery past the local church and putting the final authority of the local church into the office of eldership. Baptist congregations in the past have had elders but always those elders were subject to the rule of the congregation. The pastor and elders functioned as leaders of the congregation, and as such, their views (rightly so) have great influence. But ultimately, the congregation chose whether or not to accept the recommendations of the pastor and elders."

 

Here is some more history to add to the mix:

Read the rest of the story here:

http://www.christianity.com/ChurchH...com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=11/17/2011/

 

And, so, what are we to make of that?

Are you with the Methodists, who carried the torch of Arminianism after virtually everyone else left it lay for dead?

 

Not historically. If you look at the confessions from Baptists, history shows we are closer to Presbyterians on this issue until somewhere between the 1920's and 1950's.