Featured A. W. Pink

You are forgiven.

I became a dispensationalist by personal study many, many years before teaching it in college.

 

I became a non-dispensationalist by personal study many, many years....

 

Thank you. I listened all the way through. All I will say is that the idea of infant baptism is the last thing on my mind when I teach about covenant theology. It's a minor issue in the differences between the theologies.

 

And neither of us are likely to change at our age.

 

John, but it is a huge issue in the Covenant Theology world. Since you are looking at Covenant Theology from a different perspective, the paedobaptism issue is a minor issue. However, Presbyterians who subscribe to Westminster Federalism view infant baptism the same way Dispensationalists view a pre-wrath rapture of the church: they are critical to the system. Westminster Federalists believe that infant baptism makes the recipient a member of the new covenant community. Baptist Federalists reject that assertion. In fairness, Westminster Federalists do not believe baptism saves. However, they consider a baptized infant saved unless they repudiate their faith later in life. I think both Baptist Federalists and Dispensationalists would reject that notion.

 

Thanks for the clarification. However, I'm not sure what you mean with your reference to a the pre-wrath rapture, a position held by very few Dispensationalists--unless you mean a pre-trib rapture (not the same).

 

Thanks. You are absolutely correct.

 

Thank you for the correction. That is exactly what I meant.

 

I sometimes wonder if our bethrens view regarding infant baptism is held due to not just seen in the scriptures by them, but also they know if not supporting in Bible, would have to join us Reformed Baptist!

 

Just spend 3 hours studying it and the weekend on your face begging God for what He Wants you to Understand.

 

What he means is that it is rude to sidetrack a thread by posting huge, long posts that have nothing to do with the OP (opening post). One does not need 3 hours of prayer to understand that. It is basic Internet forum ethics.

 

OH, I see the brief outline I posted.

The content would take take far more than 3 hours.

Pink or anybody else who is ignorant of The Bible, to the extent of bragging about an association with dispy or 'Covenant Theology' is going to need the Holy Spirit, too.

That may be why being on your face begging God for an understanding would cause you self-pity.

I can not be held responsible for keeping you from feeling sorry for yourselves by wanting to boast that skipping God's Teachings is something to brag about.

 

Brief??? You call that being brief?? "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin" (Prov. 10:19).

All of this is completely irrelevant. And be assured, I do not wallow in self pity when I pray or any other time.

 

The extremely condensed outline represents 4,000 relevant Scriptures relating to God's Covenant of Eternal Salvation.

Have you even seen any of them in relationship to your understanding of 'Covenant', and your ability to comprehend PINK'S works?

Have you even been exposed to the brief statements in the truncated, abbreviated partial outline?

There are Bible Teaching that God has Given.

No reason for you and others to agree to not argue over which false religions you don't want to bring you kids up in, or teach.

Pink and Gill and Boyce happen to be three men that handled the Depths and Riches, and dismissed man's concoctions anytime they saw them.

I see a new Herminutic on this board of ' boast about skipping what God' s Word SAYS, and make up finite error to keep occupied'.

Cool, man. Don't take that silliness before Jesus.

 

You know what? You don't know me in the slightest. All you can judge me by is what I've posted here on the BB. And you're doing a mighty poor job of that, since we have interacted only twice (3 times with this post, and that will probably be all).

I have now rebuked you twice for unethical behavior here on the BB. I've just done this as a fellow believer, since I am not on the administration here. The Bible says to rebuke twice, and I've done that now.

"Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee" (Pr. 9:8). As my dear mother used to say, "A word to the wise is sufficient."

(And by the way, I don't have to "bring my kids up", as you seem to think. Our son is 39 now, and a Ph.D. We have a ball teaching together.)

 

John, in our conversations you have always conducted yourself as a man of honor and integrity. That speaks volumes to me.

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

When I was converted, the UK agent for "Sovereign Grace Publishers" was assistant Pastor of the local church - Tom Watson, author of "Baptism - not for Infants" in which he quotes the paedobaptist Puritans against each other.

He introduced me to Pink, the Banner of Truth & the Puritans. I went to the 1957 "Puritan Conference" at Westminster Chapel, chaired by Martin Lloyd-Jones.

The resultant emphasis on the "Doctrines of Grace" gave me a notoriety at University.

 

I have a far easier time dialoging with you brother, even with your "dispy" theology than many who claim to be in my own camp!!

 

We all MUST understand that since none of us here are Apostles, NONE of us have the final last word on scripture doctrines!