I JUST HAVE TO GO PRESBYTERIAN

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The only group I'm familiar with that practices foot washing is a cult (started by a now-dead man claiming to be Elijah, and has millions of of low-profile followers).

Foot-washing was a real thing of humility and service, back when people didn't have socks, and walked all day long, and didn't have showers. Now, it's an anachronistic sacrament for those who practice it.

I don't think this has any relevance to the topic. Neither Baptists nor Presbyterians practice foot-washing.

Wrong......Primitive Baptists practice it. BTW , none other than the RC Pope also does it on Maundy Thursday. It is a symbol of humility.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am a Baptist through and through. I believe biblical baptism is on a credible profession of faith and the biblical mode is immersion. I believe my Presbyterian brethren are wrong on this critical ordinance. That said, to label them a "synagogue of Satan" (as one board member did) is so outrageous that it deserves a sharp rebuke.

I am thankful for the many faithful Presbyterian churches that preach the Gospel. They have done much to further godliness among Christians and to defend the faith from wolves. I gladly stand along side them for the cause of Christ. Of course, there are liberal Presbyterian churches and denominations that have forsaken the Gospel, as there are Baptist churches. But to insinuate that those that faithfully preach Christ are in league with Satan is appalling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is appalling..., but if you look at what they are doing as rejecting clear biblical teaching do you not see that as equally (or more) disturbing?

 

[The Biblicist]

So you baptize them twice, first as infants and then again as adults? Do you sprinkle or pour the first time as infants and the immerse them as adults? Of course you realize this is unbiblical to administer water to infants at all for anything one might call baptism?

Where there is no scriptural baptism there is no congregation of Christ. Moreover, like faith and order is the Biblical preprequisite for authority to even administer baptism. Hence, no New Testament church would ever do what you describe and so what you might call a church is not a church and has no authority to administer any of the ordinance.

Here is some Biblical evidence to support what I just asserted. In Matthew 28:19-20 the command is to "make disciples" (verb in verse 19). A disciple is one who follows, who is like faith and order with Christ in the three areas identified in Matthew 28:19-20 (1) Same gospel; (2) Same baptism; (3) Same faith and order. Only those who are like faith and order with Christ are authorized administrator of baptism. Notice that baptism precedes "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." You can't teach what you have not been taught. Those being authorized have already been through this disicpleship process and so they are like faith and order with Christ in the same gospel, same baptism and same faith and order. These three things characterize true New Testament churches as this is the process for not only making disciples but for constituting churches as churches are composed of such scriptural baptized believers where like faith and order can be taught and observed.

Presbyterian, Lutheran, Assembly of God, Methodist, Episcopalian are simply man made institutions which have no authority to administer baptism and who are not like faith and order with Christ or the New Testament churches. True, they may contain saved people but so does the Great Whore (Rev.19:4) and she has no authority from Christ to administer the ordinances or constitute churches.

If you want to discuss circumcision equal to baptism the start a thread on it and I will be more than happy to pursue that issue with you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So you baptize them twice, first as infants and then again as adults? Do you sprinkle or pour the first time as infants and the immerse them as adults? Of course you realize this is unbiblical to administer water to infants at all for anything one might call baptism?

Where there is no scriptural baptism there is no congregation of Christ. Moreover, like faith and order is the Biblical preprequisite for authority to even administer baptism. Hence, no New Testament church would ever do what you describe and so what you might call a church is not a church and has no authority to administer any of the ordinance.

Here is some Biblical evidence to support what I just asserted. In Matthew 28:19-20 the command is to "make disciples" (verb in verse 19). A disciple is one who follows, who is like faith and order with Christ in the three areas identified in Matthew 28:19-20 (1) Same gospel; (2) Same baptism; (3) Same faith and order. Only those who are like faith and order with Christ are authorized administrator of baptism. Notice that baptism precedes "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." You can't teach what you have not been taught. Those being authorized have already been through this disicpleship process and so they are like faith and order with Christ in the same gospel, same baptism and same faith and order. These three things characterize true New Testament churches as this is the process for not only making disciples but for constituting churches as churches are composed of such scriptural baptized believers where like faith and order can be taught and observed.

Presbyterian, Lutheran, Assembly of God, Methodist, Episcopalian are simply man made institutions which have no authority to administer baptism and who are not like faith and order with Christ or the New Testament churches. True, they may contain saved people but so does the Great Whore (Rev.19:4) and she has no authority from Christ to administer the ordinances or constitute churches.

Well Mark, "The Great Whore" as you refer to it....IE the Roman Catholic Church did look at it (Baptism) a bit differently...... and from there prospective set in motion the infant (proxy) baptism sacrament (that has evolved to what it is today) & practiced by most "Protestant" churches. Originally it was really an EXORCISM more than anything else. How do I know this .....its because Ive got RC books & catechisms (prior to the Vatican 2 modifications implemented by Pope John 23) In short, because you were born in & of sin, then that sin on the soul had to be es-ponged so you could be made clean of it & it was all done by proxy (Godfather & Godmother). Heaven forbid you should die with that sin on your soul......you would not go to Heaven. BTW, if you are RC & you don't go to Mass/Church and you die w/o being remorseful (either saying an Act of Contrition &/or telling it to a priest in a Confessional) then your soul is again in jeopardy. See how crazy & UN-biblical this all is. And the protestants (for the most part anyway) emulated this UN-biblical practice. Oh sure they modified it a bit & shaped it to fit their own twisted beliefs, But it wasn't Johns baptism......the one you find in the bible.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you want to discuss circumcision equal to baptism the start a thread on it and I will be more than happy to pursue that issue with you.

first define for me what baptism is

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sprinkle as babies, dunk as adults.

Im not on the same page ..... dont understand why you would have to go through the process of sprinkling. Is it in the bible?

 

[The Biblicist]

first define for me what baptism is

You and I know that entrance into heaven is secured in a moment of time we call regeneration (cause) and conversion (consequence). That is the first aspect of the Great Commission. Heaven is obtained. From that moment of conversion to the end of your life is all about SERVICE or serving God "acceptably" and that begins with the first step of service - baptism. Baptism is the second aspect of the Great Commission.

The Great Whore (Catholicism) and her harlot daughters (Reformed catholicism) all repudiate the first step of service. The church is all about service not about salvation. The first Biblical prerequisite for church membership, thus church constitution is Biblical baptism. Where there is no Biblical baptism there is no church of Christ. Institutions that repudiate baptism are synoguoges of Satan, meaning they are unbiblical substitutes for the churches of Christ. Sure they have saved people among them in spite of populating their institutions with unregenerate members (infants).

Where there is no Biblical baptism there can be no true church of Christ - period. Moreover, ALL pedobaptist institutions HAVE BEEN state churches and persecutors of true Christians. Presbyterians, Lutheranism, Congregationalism, Episcopalianism have all been MARRIED to the State (Rev. 17:1-5) or in Biblical metaphorical terms "committed fornication" with the kings of the earth. All other paedobaptist institutions have originated from these state institutions.

The only reason such state institutions are friendly with Baptists now, is because they no longer dominate in a state church nation and we have won the battle in most parts of the world for separation of church and state. But these are still the ancient foes of New Testament Christianity as they still cling to the initial state church inclusion of citizens of the state by infant baptism.

I don't care if other members of this forum disagree with what I am saying. There disagreement shows they are not true Baptists in doctrine or history but in name only. They cannot produce one example in Scripture where a group of unbaptized believers constitute a true church of Christ or is called a church of Christ, simply because such an institution of unbaptized people is no church of Christ, but as a institution is a synoguoge of Satan because it is supplanting, counterfieting, and pretending to be the true churches of Christ.

I don't care how much good they are doing in the world, becuase the old whore has hospitials, orphances, charities glaore but she is still the Great Whore and she is the mother of these harlot daughters and I don't care how much good they are doing or how many saved people are within them they are still metaphorical "harlots" that have the nerve to supplant the Lord's true churches and call themselves churches of Christ when they oppose the very first step of Christian service, and the absolute essential for church constitution.

 

[The Biblicist]

first define for me what baptism is

Baptism has four essentials to be called Scriptural baptism:

1. Right candidate - one capable of bringing forth fruits of repentance - Mt.3:6-8 - believers

2. Right mode - immersion only - the Greek has terms for sprinkling (rantizo) and pouring (ephicheo) which are NEVER used for this ordinance of Christ.

3. Right Purpose - a "figure" (1 Pet. 3:21) that publically identifies with Christ's gospel (Rom. 6:4-6) Christ's church (Acts 2:41) and Christ's doctrine (Mt. 28:19-20).

4. Right Authority - churches that are like faith and order with Christ - Mt. 28:19-20 - a "disciple" as defined by Matthew 28:19-20 which is impossible outside of membership in a N.T. Church.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well Mark, "The Great Whore" as you refer to it....IE the Roman Catholic Church did look at it (Baptism) a bit differently...... and from there prospective set in motion the infant (proxy) baptism sacrament (that has evolved to what it is today) & practiced by most "Protestant" churches.

I don't believe this is quite true.
Infant baptism as practised by good Reformed paedobaptist churches means something entirely different to that which the Church of Rome teaches. To lump them all together is entirely unfair.

In Britain, the majority of Baptist churches I would not touch with a bargepole (I say that with the deepest sorrow). All 'Baptist' means is that the church doesn't baptize babies; it says nothing about what they believe or preach other than that. Here is a command from the Lord for you: 'not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as is the manner of some' (Hebrews 10:25). This is not a suggestion, it is a command. If you do not assemble together with other believers on the Lord's day, you are breaking the command of God. If there is a Bible-believing Baptist church near you, you should be there. If there isn't, find another church where the word is preached and go there. Do not attend a Baptist church where the word is not preached faithfully just because it is Baptist; that will do you no good at all.

A couple of other quick thoughts. Obviously a Federal Vision church is not a 'good' church. Equally obviously, no one should allow their infant children or grandchildren to be sprinkled.

I'm very sorry to be in disagreement with my brother Biblicist, the great majority of whose posts I appreciate greatly, but I do believe that he is overstating the case here.

 

[The Biblicist]

All 'Baptist' means is that the church doesn't baptize babies; it says nothing about what they believe or preach other than that. .

Brother, I think you need to study this more. It stands for a lot more than merely rejection of infant baptism. It includes the whole theological foundation for not administering baptism to infants. It does not merely refer to mode and subjects, but includes purpose and authority.

For example, consider where the command to baptize occurs in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20. Consider where it occurs in the practice of the Great Commission in Acts 2:41-42. Baptism does not stand isolated from the rest of the commission. Baptism does not stand isolated from the very constitution of a true church.

For example, suppose you claimed to be a believer and you invited everyone on this forum to your baptism at the Methodist church. You asked the Methodist minister to immerse you. Everyone watching identifies the act with the theology of the administrator and would assume you are now a Methodist.

Likewise, in the New Testament, Christ positions baptism between the administrator who preaches the right gospel AND teaches the right doctrine in Matthew 28:19-20. It is so placed in Acts 2:40-41. Christ never authorized or commissioned anyone to go preach ANOTHER gospel, nor administer ANOTHER baptism, no teach ANOTHER faith and order. Those who preach "another gospel" are "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). Those who administer ANOHTER baptism "reject the counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29-30). Those who teach another faith and order have "departed from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1). Not one of these Great Commission aspects STANDS ISOLATED from the other.

Baptism is designed to identify you with the right gospel and right doctrine and right church as baptism is doctrinally interelated with all of these aspects.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Brother, I think you need to study this more. It stands for a lot more than merely rejection of infant baptism. It includes the whole theological foundation for not administering baptism to infants. It does not merely refer to mode and subjects, but includes purpose and authority.

For example, consider where the command to baptize occurs in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20. Consider where it occurs in the practice of the Great Commission in Acts 2:41-42. Baptism does not stand isolated from the rest of the commission. Baptism does not stand isolated from the very constitution of a true church.

For example, suppose you claimed to be a believer and you invited everyone on this forum to your baptism at the Methodist church. You asked the Methodist minister to immerse you. Everyone watching identifies the act with the theology of the administrator and would assume you are now a Methodist.

Likewise, in the New Testament, Christ positions baptism between the administrator who preaches the right gospel AND teaches the right doctrine in Matthew 28:19-20. It is so placed in Acts 2:40-41. Christ never authorized or commissioned anyone to go preach ANOTHER gospel, nor administer ANOTHER baptism, no teach ANOTHER faith and order. Those who preach "another gospel" are "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). Those who administer ANOHTER baptism "reject the counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29-30). Those who teach another faith and order have "departed from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1). Not one of these Great Commission aspects STANDS ISOLATED from the other.

Baptism is designed to identify you with the right gospel and right doctrine and right church as baptism is doctrinally interrelated with all of these aspects.

Guys, I have no plans to join these people in anything but a Sunday Service. If allowed to, I will slowly ask them questions about baptism in order to get their wheels spinning....I think I will start with those who are professing Baptists and inquisitively ask them why they are not going to a Baptist Church....that would be my entrance in....but will have to do this with discretion so as not to have them ask me to leave the premises. We have a dead Baptist Building in the area that would be a good place to meet on Saturdays for bible study.... perhaps then we could influence others to join in & develop a real true Christian Church in the area.

 

[Reformed]

Infant baptism presents a problem on many fronts, one of which is presumptive salvation. But Baptists need to be careful in making that accusation because we have our own presumptive salvation problem. The easy believism that is rampant in Baptist churches creates plenty of false converts.

I could not join a Presbyterian church because of the baptism issue. My conscience would object. However, if providence placed me in a situation where the only gospel preaching church available was Presbyterian, I would attend but not become a member. If there was an infant baptism as part of a worship service I would quietly leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Infant baptism presents a problem on many fronts, one of which is presumptive salvation. But Baptists need to be careful in making that accusation because we have our own presumptive salvation problem. The easy believism that is rampant in Baptist churches creates plenty of false converts.

The church should institute a test to distinguish between real and false.

I could not join a Presbyterian church because of the baptism issue. My conscience would object. However, if providence placed me in a situation where the only gospel preaching church available was Presbyterian, I would attend but not become a member. If there was an infant baptism as part of a worship service I would quietly leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely

 

[Reformed]

The church should institute a test to distinguish between real and false.

The only test is the evidence of faith displayed over time.

 

[annsni]

Im not on the same page ..... dont understand why you would have to go through the process of sprinkling. Is it in the bible?

It is a baby dedication. Is that biblical?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Brother, I think you need to study this more. It stands for a lot more than merely rejection of infant baptism. It includes the whole theological foundation for not administering baptism to infants. It does not merely refer to mode and subjects, but includes purpose and authority.

In your mind it may mean all that, and that's a good thing! But if you go at random into a 'Baptist' church in Britain (and I suspect it may be the same in America) you have absolutely no idea what you're going to get other than that it won't be a baby sprinkling. It may be charismatic, it may be word-faith, it may be liberal, fundamentalist or Reformed.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is a baby dedication. Is that biblical?

I don't see it in the bible. Do you believe as some Presbyterians do that children are automatically a member & have salvation because the parents are members?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My only real question is what do you do with the people who want a local church persence & have been regenerated & are now looking to have more instruction & be a part of a Bible Believing Church? Obviously & cant steer them in the direction of the myriad Cult Churches in New Jersey......nor can I advise a Presby Church. Questions, Questions

 

[The Biblicist]

In your mind it may mean all that, and that's a good thing! But if you go at random into a 'Baptist' church in Britain (and I suspect it may be the same in America) you have absolutely no idea what you're going to get other than that it won't be a baby sprinkling. It may be charismatic, it may be word-faith, it may be liberal, fundamentalist or Reformed.

That is why the name "Baptist" means nothing as it is now an unbrella term for every heretical group under the sun. The Assembly of God call themselves "Baptists" because the immerse. The Church of Christ (Campbellite) could call themselves "Baptist" because they immerse - the term "Baptist" means nothing unless it corresponds with the Biblical characteristics found in the doctrine and practice of John the Baptist and Christ who submitted to the Baptist ministry.

 

[The Biblicist]

My only real question is what do you do with the people who want a local church persence & have been regenerated & are now looking to have more instruction & be a part of a Bible Believing Church? Obviously & cant steer them in the direction of the myriad Cult Churches in New Jersey......nor can I advise a Presby Church. Questions, Questions

You are limiting God. You can move "by faith" trusting God to honor your obedience. You can drive at least once a month to what is a reasonably sound church and convey your need and ask them to pray that your need will be supplied. You seem capable to conduct Bible study with your own family until God answers that prayer. You can witness and ask God to bring to your home Bible study other like minded believers so that eventually your own resources may be sufficient to aid a sound church to help provide a missionary to further develop and constitute a church. All of this requires some patience and perserverance in doing what is right depending on God to honor that obedience even though it comes with costs and sacrifices.

Where do you live exactly - what city and I will see if some of our churches are in the vicinity and would undertake a mission outreach .