ironic thing is that many of them have a real hard time accepting RB as realy being "Reformed" as we deny infant baptism and their view on equating water baptism to circimsionWhat can you expect from people that think they are in a Family Covenant (like the Jews), baptism=circumcision, and whole families join the church at once (including infants)?
Presbyterians … we just have to be patient with them, they still have all this baggage from ROME that they just can’t let go of.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptism Rome vs Protestant
- Thread starter Christforums
- Start date
Then I’m glad that my own chosen church, the Primitive Baptist’s do not adhere to anything but the scriptures to inform us. I agree though that somewhere in Cristforms past there was a Presybterian tradition that holds to WCF. I see that progression.
Again this is a progressive journey that might even go so far as becoming agnostic…perhaps even non belief ( if there is no regeneration experience ). Our youth today ticks all these boxes but atheism is the complete rejection of all of it. After all, without a very genuine ‘Born Again’ experience there is no God in any of it.What can you expect from people that think they are in a Family Covenant (like the Jews), baptism=circumcision, and whole families join the church at once (including infants)?
Presbyterians … we just have to be patient with them, they still have all this baggage from ROME that they just can’t let go of.
Now there is a phenomenon that doesn’t get discussed on BB all that much but is prevalent in the USA Today worth examination…ie the birth of Christian Nationalism. I’m not sure this thread is the place but it’s interesting nonetheless.
What is RB…I think you are referencing REFORMED BAPTIST. If so, What’s Reformed about Baptists? What are we Baptists reforming from? Would you consider Roger Williams a RB?
Christforums
Active Member
Incredible how @atpollard understands and explains to you accurately what I conveyed. I said it before to another member here on this board, don't blame me for your lack of comprehension.
Another member here rejected anything from any creed (and I do believe the creeds serve as a litmus test). I do not believe in anything but Scripture or the bible only wasn't the method or what the Bereans were commended for.
Last edited:
What are you trying to tell me?
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Interestingly, it was the Sadducees that adopted a “Scripture Only” in Jesus’ day and defined scripture in the narrowest possible terms … only what God personally dictated to Moses can be trusted as TRUE scripture and they would not even test any later writing against it (because God did not dictate it to Moses on the Mountain). Sola Scriptura means that EVERYTHING must be measured against scripture, not that NOTHING but scripture contains truth.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Creeds are useful.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
So the Primitive Baptists reject “the Trinity” as a doctrine … embracing the truth as a collection of cobbled together verses without daring to summarize the concept with words not found in scripture?
Is the HOLY SPIRIT really God? Why or why not (using only ‘scripture’)?
Christforums
Active Member
Not suggesting anything towards Earth Wind and Fire or the Primitive Baptists. I personally use the early Creeds to serve as a litmus test for the church body in question. Because I studied the Creeds and agree the essentials to our faith are contained in the Creeds and point to Scripture.
Whenever anybody individually rejects the Creeds or any truth contained in the Creeds I make the educated assumption: 1) the individual or body are not edifyable 2) the individual or body is better categorized as sect or cult. Of course, if I wanted to take time to understand the individual or body I might listen. However, that seldom happens anymore because, again, the early Creeds serve as a litmus test the individual or body failed at when put to the test.
There is an exception, if for example I asked an individual or body are these essential truths in the Nicene Creed true? and the individual or body says, I or we do not know. I can live with that, but I choose not to partake of a body which is represented or taught by that ignorant of a Pastor or Teacher for that particular body.
Christforums
Active Member
What @atpollard is also suggesting is that inference is an acceptable method of interpretation. As well, your question requires inference if were to expound further. Often times I remind myself when here that I am talking to the choir and there's no need to expound on everything comprehensively. Of course, that's an assumption I do not mind for the sake of brevity, practicing.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
The faculties of man as the image bearer of G-d grants us the ability to perceive or comprehend; therefore, understand.
If I were speaking of the essentials of the faith to a new convert, then that requires a different approach than speaking to theologians which too rather put the elementary topics and subjects of the faith behind to move onto "meat" or something deeper.
Last edited:
Christforums
Active Member
What can you expect from people that think they are in a Family Covenant (like the Jews), baptism=circumcision, and whole families join the church at once (including infants)?
I have no objections to what you stated interestingly re-termed "Family" Covenant. And I'm glad you didn't convey replacement theology.
Are you for hire to interpret or be my acting liaison?
Have a good day @atpollard.
so are the various Confessions, but need to avoid the 2 extremes on seeing them as not useful at all, to seeing them as pretty much extra scriptures
I hold to using the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, but only as a helpful reference back to the scriptures, never as add on to them, since they put scriptures listings for doctrines cited together, are a useful tool, but seems like too mant reformed quote from and use scriptures more so than the bible itself
Christforums
Active Member
For myself, it is easier. Especially when providing scriptural verses, if the person won't reference the Scriptures or consider what is said why take any more time?
For example, the WCF was painstakingly articulated, sometimes a single sentence took months to compile. The sentence was considered and debated before being written. Reformed right in the first chapter of the WCF believe as what is stated on the topic of Sola Scriptura:
IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.a
a. 1 Thes 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19, 21; 1 John 5:9.
X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.a
a. Mat 22:29, 31; Eph 2:20 with Acts 28:25.
The Westminster Confession
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646-1647) with Scripture Proofs
thewestminsterstandard.org
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I think you and I may have had the discussion about Acts 2 following a formula for establishing a “covenant” (contract) parallel to the steps God followed to establish a contract with the nation of Israel. It was fascinating and enlightening. Thus while I may still disagree with Presbyterian “covenant theology” and their reasons for baptizing “Paedo” (families) … which is a good thing since I am a Baptist who embraces a “Credo” (professing belief) baptism … I at least have a working understanding of WHY they believe WHAT they believe.
Christforums
Active Member
I agree, and I have no objections against adult credo baptism. However, I do not agree children should be excluded from the promise of G-d. It's when some whether Baptist or not try to convince somebody their baptism was always void and they need to be rebaptized. I do respect my new church and membership at my Lutheran church. Children when they reach the age of reason confirm their faith rather than being rebaptized. Needlessly said, consider some of the opposition to the Christian faith in general (atheist) who'd go so far to suggest post birth infants are not persons and promote infanticide. That's because they define person in secular terms according to Descartes, Freud, or Jung, none of which would be correct defining person of the topic of the divine.
The whole thing to remember, when observing us Reformed Protestants, we are a bunch of do nothings. Martin Luther said that, and what he meant to convey was soteriology is monergism.
I miss our time together, we spent what almost a decade online sometime near every day?
Also, as I'm sure you are aware, the first Baptists were not attempting to reform the Church of England - it was the Presbyterians who were hoping for that - but were themselves convinced Independents and were simply seeking to organize independent churches that practiced Believers' Baptism.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Henry Jacob
“The Particular Baptists stemmed from a non-Separatist church that was established in 1616 by Henry Jacob at Southwark, across the Thames from London. In 1638 a number of its members withdrew under the leadership of John Spilsbury to form the first Particular Baptist Church.” - Encyclopedia Britannica
To whom?
RE: THE HOLY TRINITY
We believe in one God, and that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are One, eternal, immutable, infinite in wisdom, power, justice, holiness, mercy, and truth. (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19)
Last edited: