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

[Ruiz]

So "reformed' baptists were quite close in theology to Presby Christians, while those of us Not "reformed" , not adhering to formal creeds/confessions were distinct even back at that time?

No, every group seems to have not embraced the dispensational line of thinking until the 1920's-1950's. Both sides saw that we were a result of the Abrahamic Covenant. The view that we are distinct from the promises of Abraham, a parenthesis, is a new belief in history.

BTW, every Baptist was confessional until around and after the Revolutionary War. John Leland (who was reformed) condemned those who held to confessions, but he was unique in Baptist history. The anti-creedal movement was really an American movement. There are some great confessions in Baptist History, both among the General and Particular Baptists. To me, the anti-creedal movement is philosophically unattainable and self contradictory.

 

[JesusFan]

No, every group seems to have not embraced the dispensational line of thinking until the 1920's-1950's. Both sides saw that we were a result of the Abrahamic Covenant. The view that we are distinct from the promises of Abraham, a parenthesis, is a new belief in history.

BTW, every Baptist was confessional until around and after the Revolutionary War. John Leland (who was reformed) condemned those who held to confessions, but he was unique in Baptist history. The anti-creedal movement was really an American movement. There are some great confessions in Baptist History, both among the General and Particular Baptists. To me, the anti-creedal movement is philosophically unattainable and self contradictory.

Think that 'anti creedal" to me does NOT mean against use of creeds/confessions, as to me just would be further expansion commentary on a church statement of beliefs, its just we see the Bible as being fully sufficient for all ptactices/doctrines and practices in and by itself!

 

[Herald]

Would you say that presby and baptists view the nature of new Covenant differently then?

That Preby tend to see it as "fleshing out" keeping the Abrahamiac Covenant at the core, while Baptists seeNC as "brand new thing?"

Instead of "fleshing out" I'd say that most Presbyterians view the temporal administration of the New Covenant as something that is renewed or refreshed. They typically do not view the New Covenant as something completely new.

 

[Luke2427]

Think that 'anti creedal" to me does NOT mean against use of creeds/confessions, as to me just would be further expansion commentary on a church statement of beliefs, its just we see the Bible as being fully sufficient for all ptactices/doctrines and practices in and by itself!

You don't believe that for a second.

You use the creedal teachings concerning the Trinity for example.

The Bible IS sufficient.

What is NOT sufficient is any individual's ability to interpret it by himself without the aid of the Body of Christ.

That is woefully insufficient, so we thank God for creeds and helps we get from the Body of Christ- and we use them, recognizing our need of them because we are humble and wise.

The opposite of humble and wise is to pretend as though you do not need help from the Body of Christ to properly interpret Scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

Instead of "fleshing out" I'd say that most Presbyterians view the temporal administration of the New Covenant as something that is renewed or refreshed. They typically do not view the New Covenant as something completely new.

Right.

And I think most of the Christian Church has seen it that way too.

The Presby's are right.

The Covenant is one.

What God said to Abraham was applicable to the seed of Abraham forever.

WE are the seed of Abraham.

Christ came and fulfilled the covenant, that VERY covenant, and we got in on it.

The covenant to Abraham is to us.

 

[Iconoclast]

And incisive observations from his brother John Reisinger:

http://solochristo.com/theology/Church/reiwh.htm



http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index042.htm

Good posts Jerome,
Many a reformed baptist does closely identify with their presbyterian brothers, those who remain faithful to truth. Should it come as a surprise that sometimes they either cross over, or are not nervous to attend a presbyterian church?
The reformers did a good work leaving Roman error. The view of the covenant determines whether you are credo, or padeo.
The padeo sees it from the Ot to the new. The credo sees the NT as over-riding that view.
They correctly see there is a continuity of the covenant, but have a different view of how much of it continues on,and how much has been discontinued.

 

[JesusFan]

Right.

And I think most of the Christian Church has seen it that way too.

The Presby's are right.

The Covenant is one.

What God said to Abraham was applicable to the seed of Abraham forever.

WE are the seed of Abraham.

Christ came and fulfilled the covenant, that VERY covenant, and we got in on it.

The covenant to Abraham is to us.

Think that the new Covenant though supercedes/is a brand new covenant relationship between God and man!

 

[JesusFan]

You don't believe that for a second.

You use the creedal teachings concerning the Trinity for example.

The Bible IS sufficient.

What is NOT sufficient is any individual's ability to interpret it by himself without the aid of the Body of Christ.

That would NOT be the classica; baptist view, as we hold that each individual can and does study and understand the Bible individually, and NOT bound by any particular interpretation as long as does not violate the scriptures!

Individual faith conscience!

That is woefully insufficient, so we thank God for creeds and helps we get from the Body of Christ- and we use them, recognizing our need of them because we are humble and wise.

useful guides to help us study/learn the scriptures, just that we do NOT see them as infallible /as baptist catecachasms!

The opposite of humble and wise is to pretend as though you do not need help from the Body of Christ to properly interpret Scripture.

We beoieve as baptists that we can and should profit from study tools, and from teachers/pastors/theologians God given to the Church, but we still can and must learn as primarily taught by the HS under His illumination of the Bible!

Think that you seem to have right heart in regards to this, but need to realise that we can function fully IF we abide in the HS and His anoiting to pen up the scriptures to our minds!

 

[Iconoclast]

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

:wavey:

be careful AmyG you keep this up and you will be reading the 1689 confession of faith,Arthur Pink, and John Owen...and then others on BB will turn on you
You will know you have "swung over" when ......winman, webdog, skan, robert snow,Aic,and of course Van post against your view,lol

 

[Ruiz]

Think that 'anti creedal" to me does NOT mean against use of creeds/confessions, as to me just would be further expansion commentary on a church statement of beliefs, its just we see the Bible as being fully sufficient for all ptactices/doctrines and practices in and by itself!

We see the Bible as totally sufficient for doctrine and practice too. That is not the issue, the issue is the role confessions play. Do we believe that there should be statements reflecting the teaching of Scripture that clearly outlines our systematic theology on issues like Soteriology, the Trinity, ecclesiology, Bibliology, etc? Of course! JW's say they are "Biblical" and believe the Bible is sufficient, however if you peek into their doctrinal statement you discover their confession is unBiblical. Confessions help clearly state what we believe the Bible teaches. We do not believe the Confessions are over the Bible, but we believe our confessions reflect the Biblical teaching.

 

[Herald]

Right.

And I think most of the Christian Church has seen it that way too.

The Presby's are right.

The Covenant is one.

What God said to Abraham was applicable to the seed of Abraham forever.

WE are the seed of Abraham.

Christ came and fulfilled the covenant, that VERY covenant, and we got in on it.

The covenant to Abraham is to us.

I believe the Presbyterians are wrong. The New Covenant is completely new.

Jeremiah 31:31 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

The Abrahamic Covenant, in some sense, was a republication of the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant of Redemption (Grace). While believers are the spiritual children (seed) of Abraham, they are not Jews. We do not have to submit to the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Grace promised is now grace realized. Whereas the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision) was applied only to Jewish males on the basis of ethnicity, the sign of the New Covenant (baptism) is applied to all believers on the basis of faith.

 

[Iconoclast]

I believe the Presbyterians are wrong. The New Covenant is completely new.

Jeremiah 31:31 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

The Abrahamic Covenant, in some sense, was a republication of the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant of Redemption (Grace). While believers are the spiritual children (seed) of Abraham, they are not Jews. We do not have to submit to the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Grace promised is now grace realized. Whereas the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision) was applied only to Jewish males on the basis of ethnicity, the sign of the New Covenant (baptism) is applied to all believers on the basis of faith.

Yes.....

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

0

Hebrews 8 says......not like....padeos say ........just like

In effect they say we are just like ot believers.:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Right.

And I think most of the Christian Church has seen it that way too.

The Presby's are right.

The Covenant is one.

No, it is two.
Christ came with a better covenant (a new one), with a better sacrifice, based on better promises, and is passed through the heavens, and ministers in a heavenly sanctuary which is "better" than the earthly one.

What God said to Abraham was applicable to the seed of Abraham forever.

WE are the seed of Abraham.

Only in a spiritual sense. There will always remain God's covenant with Israel. God has not abandoned Israel.

Christ came and fulfilled the covenant, that VERY covenant, and we got in on it.

The covenant to Abraham is to us.

Christ fulfilled the Law. There is no possible way that Jer.31:31 applies to us.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (Jeremiah 31:31)
--You cannot allegorize this passage, nor make it figurative. The house of Israel and the house of Judah are both specifically named. Look at history. Ever since the time of King Rehoboam the nation was divided. The ten northern tribes have been Israel: and the two southern tribes, Judah. This is God's promise that Israel and Judah will once again be one nation.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:33)
--God will have a special relationship with His people, Israel, in the Millennial Kingdom. There will be no gospel there, for they will all know the gospel. He will be their God. They will be His people. This promise; this passage is not to the Gentile nations, but to Israel.

 

[Ruiz]

No, it is two.
Christ came with a better covenant (a new one), with a better sacrifice, based on better promises, and is passed through the heavens, and ministers in a heavenly sanctuary which is "better" than the earthly one.

Only in a spiritual sense. There will always remain God's covenant with Israel. God has not abandoned Israel.

Christ fulfilled the Law. There is no possible way that Jer.31:31 applies to us.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (Jeremiah 31:31)
--You cannot allegorize this passage, nor make it figurative. The house of Israel and the house of Judah are both specifically named. Look at history. Ever since the time of King Rehoboam the nation was divided. The ten northern tribes have been Israel: and the two southern tribes, Judah. This is God's promise that Israel and Judah will once again be one nation.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:33)
--God will have a special relationship with His people, Israel, in the Millennial Kingdom. There will be no gospel there, for they will all know the gospel. He will be their God. They will be His people. This promise; this passage is not to the Gentile nations, but to Israel.

DHK,

What continues to amaze me is that the people who attack covenant theology are ignorant of our beliefs.

Take, for instance, your first sentence. There is not a Covenant Theologian who would disagree with what you stated. However, I think you make the statement based upon your misconception and ignorance of our position on that verse, what it refers to, and the ramifications entailed. Thus, when we have to address issues like these, we must first engage in re-education of your misconception.

As for Jeremiah 31, saying this in no way applies to us goes against Hebrews 8 which quotes Jeremiah 31 and applies it to our current situation. The Author of Hebrews personally applies the house of Israel and the House of Judah to the New Covenant. The attack on our position must first go through Hebrews 8 which denotes that Jeremiah believed it was talking about the New Covenant in Christ.

Your two attacks never deal with either issue. First, you attack our belief in complete ignorance of our actual belief and yet, you never did address our actual belief. This shows you do not understand our side of the argument. Secondly, you assume Jeremiah 31 cannot refer to the new covenant, but you never address Hebrews 8 which seems very clear that Jeremiah 31 does refer to this New Covenant.

You may want to pick up some primary source books on our actual beliefs, it would help you to actually argue against our belief system and not some shadow of a system that we don't actually believe.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes.....


Hebrews 8 says......not like....padeos say ........just like

In effect they say we are just like ot believers.:thumbsup:

NO....

OT believers under economy of the Law, while we are under economy of Grace...

They had Moses, while we have Christ...

per hebrews. jesus is the mediator of the better/surer Covenant...

OT shadow/type of the glory to come with Christ...

brand new far superior Covenant!

 

[DHK]

DHK,

What continues to amaze me is that the people who attack covenant theology are ignorant of our beliefs.

Take, for instance, your first sentence. There is not a Covenant Theologian who would disagree with what you stated. However, I think you make the statement based upon your misconception and ignorance of our position on that verse, what it refers to, and the ramifications entailed. Thus, when we have to address issues like these, we must first engage in re-education of your misconception.

As for Jeremiah 31, saying this in no way applies to us goes against Hebrews 8 which quotes Jeremiah 31 and applies it to our current situation. The Author of Hebrews personally applies the house of Israel and the House of Judah to the New Covenant. The attack on our position must first go through Hebrews 8 which denotes that Jeremiah believed it was talking about the New Covenant in Christ.

Your two attacks never deal with either issue. First, you attack our belief in complete ignorance of our actual belief and yet, you never did address our actual belief. This shows you do not understand our side of the argument. Secondly, you assume Jeremiah 31 cannot refer to the new covenant, but you never address Hebrews 8 which seems very clear that Jeremiah 31 does refer to this New Covenant.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (Hebrews 8:7-8)

Who was he writing to? He was writing to Jewish Christians, who because of persecution, were very tempted to go back to the OT. All throughout there is a comparison of the OT covenant to the NT covenant for that reason. Why would they return to something earthly when they have that which is heavenly?
The first was faulty. If it was faultless there would have been no need for another. But another is made.
Consider verse 8. It is both a quote and a promise. It is given to the nation of Israel. You cannot change the names of Israel and Judah without doing a terrible injustice to the text. It is a promise to those two nations that they again will become one in the Kingdom--a fulfillment of Jer.31:31-34. I had no intention of attacking anyone's position. I was simply expounding Scripture the way it ought to be expounded: comparing Scripture with Scripture, and not taking any out of context.

You may want to pick up some primary source books on our actual beliefs, it would help you to actually argue against our belief system and not some shadow of a system that we don't actually believe.

My primary source material is the Bible, and I am currently studying through the Book of Hebrews. What other source material is there besides the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself. I said what I said out of my knowledge of the Bible, not out of anyone else's. The Bible interprets itself.
How do I know what you believe? There are all kinds of Calvinists on this board: some covenant and some not.

 

[Iconoclast]

NO....

OT believers under economy of the Law, while we are under economy of Grace...

They had Moses, while we have Christ...

per hebrews. jesus is the mediator of the better/surer Covenant...

OT shadow/type of the glory to come with Christ...

brand new far superior Covenant!

JF,
I believe you are not correct here. You like Hebrews...look here;

1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Ot had both law and grace ... Nt has both law and grace....

Dispensationalism is a false system that seperates Jew and gentile. God has broken down the middle wall of partition.


DHK....the New Covenant is for gentiles also...hebrews 8 is fulfilled now.

 

[DHK]

JF,

DHK....the New Covenant is for gentiles also...hebrews 8 is fulfilled now.

Are you of the tribe of Dan, Judah, Levi, Asher, Simeon, or just what tribe do you belong to Icono?
The verse specifically says Judah and Israel, the two "tribes" or "nations" that make up the nation. If you are part of that then what tribe do you belong to: one of the ten northern, or one of the two southern? Why do you try to allegorize something that is to be taken literally. These two nations will be come one in the Kingdom. That is the obvious, but certain meaning. He is speaking to Jewish Christians who have a strong desire to back into the OT system of Levitical law and the Levitical priesthood which was being practiced not far from them in the Temple.

Our covenant has been fulfilled in the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ--that has nothing to do with Judah and Israel.

This is the rest of THAT paragraph:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 8:9-12)

The entire passage is written to Israel, and has nothing to do with the Gentile believer.
1. They shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his neighbor. Does this apply to you? Is the Great Commission null and void? Is teaching in your church now discontinued?
2. They shall not teach "know the Lord for all shall know the Lord. Is that right? Does the world population at this time "know" the Lord? Are they fully acquainted with the gospel so that it no longer has to go out. Is the time for the Great Commission and all missionary activity to be stopped? Does everyone now know the Lord, or at least have the complete knowledge to know him so the gospel doesn't have to be preached to a single individual?
3. Every single person--from the least to the greatest.
4. And I will remember their sins no more. That is a promise to Israel.

 

[Iconoclast]

Are you of the tribe of Dan, Judah, Levi, Asher, Simeon, or just what tribe do you belong to Icono?
The verse specifically says Judah and Israel, the two "tribes" or "nations" that make up the nation. If you are part of that then what tribe do you belong to: one of the ten northern, or one of the two southern? Why do you try to allegorize something that is to be taken literally. These two nations will be come one in the Kingdom. That is the obvious, but certain meaning. He is speaking to Jewish Christians who have a strong desire to back into the OT system of Levitical law and the Levitical priesthood which was being practiced not far from them in the Temple.

Our covenant has been fulfilled in the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ--that has nothing to do with Judah and Israel.

This is the rest of THAT paragraph:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 8:9-12)

The entire passage is written to Israel, and has nothing to do with the Gentile believer.
1. They shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his neighbor. Does this apply to you? Is the Great Commission null and void? Is teaching in your church now discontinued?
2. They shall not teach "know the Lord for all shall know the Lord. Is that right? Does the world population at this time "know" the Lord? Are they fully acquainted with the gospel so that it no longer has to go out. Is the time for the Great Commission and all missionary activity to be stopped? Does everyone now know the Lord, or at least have the complete knowledge to know him so the gospel doesn't have to be preached to a single individual?
3. Every single person--from the least to the greatest.
4. And I will remember their sins no more. That is a promise to Israel.

DHK,
You view keeps you from the truth of the gospel. Jesus is the TRUE Israel. Believers are in Him....jew or gentile.....eph2
The great commission is going on now. the kingdom is now....your fawning of physical Israel which is secular and ungodly does not agree with the Nt.

Every single person--from the least to the greatest.
4. And I will remember their sins no more. That is a promise to Israel.

[/QUOTE] This is a promise to all who believe...Jn 3:16...not the Jew only..he is the propitiation for the whole world...not the Jew only.

 

[DHK]

DHK,
You view keeps you from the truth of the gospel. Jesus is the TRUE Israel. Believers are in Him....jew or gentile.....eph2

Jesus is not the true Israel.
What I gather from that statement is either you believe in the heresy of replacement theology, or salvation is for the Jews, and you are lost and excluded from salvation. Which is it?

The great commission is going on now. the kingdom is now....your fawning of physical Israel which is secular and ungodly does not agree with the Nt.

If the kingdom is going on now, according to Jeremiah 31, as quoted also in Hebrews 8, then why haven't all peoples of the earth heard the gospel and have had a chance to respond to it. You don't take this Scripture seriously do you?

This is a promise to all who believe...Jn 3:16...not the Jew only..he is the propitiation for the whole world...not the Jew only.

Yes, that is what John 3:16 and verses like 1John 2:2 teach, as well as many others, but that is not what Hebrews 8 and Jer.31 teach. To take Scripture out of context and torture it as you have is to do a great injustice to the Word of God.