The term "Reformed"

[The Biblicist]

My church likewise practises open communion which I'm sure is correct. I think though that this is a matter for each individual church to decide upon.

I am sure you do think it is correct. However it is not correct and a reasonable exegetical based interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5 and 11 will demonstrate it is not. And, yes, I realize we debated that point before, and I think objective readers can see your position was wrong.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

They were an "open communion" in two senses. They freely admitted paedobaptists as sprinkled and poured persons as members. In addition, and they were open communion with regard to the Lord's Supper.

I have no problem with those who were baptized as infants and who are not yet persuaded that they should be Scripturally baptized, becoming members upon their declaration of faith in Christ and their acceptance of the church constitution. It is very likely that they will be persuaded of Believers' baptism once their eyes are opened to it. The practical problem would come if such people wanted their children baptized; in such instances it would be clear that they would be better off in another church.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You still have not grasped it. The church is the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER irregardless of false professions. There are multitudes of sound NT churches witnessing, sending missionaries, and great worship services, sound teaching. You are either looking in the wrong places or you area simply is void of such.

Since Ive visited with most of them..... I'm voting for void. Does that dishearten you, it does me. I also use my brother, a former IFB Pastor as a reference point (so I know I am not crazy) & he thinks the area is void. So now what?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My church likewise practises open communion which I'm sure is correct. I think though that this is a matter for each individual church to decide upon.

Steve, I am referring to the Lords supper, not baptism. In order to be a member you must be Believer Baptized. What 'The Bib' is referring to was a practice of The Calvinistic Methodists (referring to Baptism). I personally believe that that practice eventually worked against them and contributed to their demise.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Steve, I am referring to the Lords supper, not baptism.

So am I.

 

[The Biblicist]

What 'The Bib' is referring to was a practice of The Calvinistic Methodists (referring to Baptism). I personally believe that that practice eventually worked against them and contributed to their demise.

No, I am not! John Tombs and then after him John Bunyan were mixed membership churches and they called it "open communion" in the Associational records. Both were condemned by the Seven churches of London and the associational churches. Toombs complained because the Baptists associations stood opposed to him. So opposed, that any church that practiced mixed membership was not recognzed as a true church and when converted were reconstituted.

 

[Yeshua1]

You bear one similar mark with all enemies of Baptists in history. They intentionally slander by a variety of means. By comparison with cults, by willful perversions. You have been consistently comparing Landmark Baptists with J.W's which is a total slander and you know it but keep perpetuating it. Our separation is not based upon some false gospel,but it is due to being consistent with the true gospel. Our churches demand that which is consistent with true Biblical salvation equally characterize both the profession, baptism, Lord's Supper and membership of churches in order to be considered true "gospel" churches. If anyone ought to be compared to J.W.'s it your view as it demands mixture of truth and error as a basis for VISIBLE communion and as part of defining true "gospel" churches.That is oxymoronic and inconsistent with the gospel of grace.



That is not true. You pervert the gospel of Christ by demanding its mixture with KNOWN unregenerate infant membership as true "gospel" churches.

Martin and I are both Baptists, same as you, so how can we be slandering the name of Baptist?
True Gospel churches are those that preach the true Gospel, have the true Jesus!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is very likely that they will be persuaded of Believers' baptism once their eyes are opened to it.

Persuaded by whom......By the people in the church, by the Pastor, by God! Its Gods job to enlighten...no amount of persuasion will suffice if the Lord isn't interested----and there in lies the problem, "Brothers we are bringing into our churches people who are not going to be persuaded." And that is changing the whole dynamic. Instead of making disciples who are spreading the word, we are attempting to reach people who are probably reprobates.

 

[The Biblicist]

Since Ive visited with most of them..... I'm voting for void. Does that dishearten you, it does me. I also use my brother, a former IFB Pastor as a reference point (so I know I am not crazy) & he thinks the area is void. So now what?

while I was a missionary in Montana I had one member drive 200 miles one way and was hardly ever absent from Sunday services. I know of others who simply moved to the locality where a good church existed. I know of others who sought out a church and ask for a missionary to be called in. It is just a matter of how bad a person wants to be in a true church. Excuses are merely skins of a reason stuffed with a lie. You will do what is necessary if your convictions are strong enough. On the other hand, NT churches are not going to send a missionary to a place if that person is unsound in the faith and will only be a source of trouble.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, I am not! John Tombs and then after him John Bunyan were mixed membership churches and they called it "open communion" in the Associational records. Both were condemned by the Seven churches of London and the associational churches. Toombs complained because the Baptists associations stood opposed to him. So opposed, that any church that practiced mixed membership was not recognzed as a true church and when converted were reconstituted.

OK well for the most part, I have not studied Bunyan...in part because of what you just mentioned & I personally detest allegories.

However I have studied the Welsh Calvinists & their Methodist movement which allot of my family were a part of, so my commentary was a shortcut to that movement & their disappearance & yes I know that they morphed into Presbyterianism but I believe much of it had to do with breakdowns in church organization.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

while I was a missionary in Montana I had one member drive 200 miles one way and was hardly ever absent from Sunday services. I know of others who simply moved to the locality where a good church existed. I know of others who sought out a church and ask for a missionary to be called in. It is just a matter of how bad a person wants to be in a true church. Excuses are merely skins of a reason stuffed with a lie. You will do what is necessary if your convictions are strong enough. On the other hand, NT churches are not going to send a missionary to a place if that person is unsound in the faith and will only be a source of trouble.

Ahhh BS......I live in New Jersey not Montana. We are the most populated state in the USA. I have 5 Catholic Churches within 1 mile of here & another 8 within five miles. So what is wrong with you guys?

See I am concerned with my area.....I have been apart of this community for 60 years and Im not going to go to other areas (out of my community) just cause Baptists are to lazy to make the effort.

What you are unable to understand is these people need Christ also.

 

[Yeshua1]

So if I am clear, you are saying that regeneration plays very little or zero part in the life of a Baptist....however his or her getting baptised and jumping through the daily rituals of The Baptist Church is? Don't you have it backwards? Shouldn't a genuine Baptist have to be Born Again before you can invite him to become a member? It appears your stressing induction into church (with or without) a genuine regeneration experience first.

Water Baptism /communion are done after salvation, contribute NOTHING to salvation!

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is the crux of you misunderstanding! No, we deny the church is salvational! We demand the church is ADDITIONAL to salvation but that which is ADDITIONAL must be consistent with salvation its VISIBLE ORDER. The ordinances, membership and order as to its OUTWARD FORM must be consistent with the gospel or else it is no "gospel" church at all. Church discipline is the means for not allowing the visible gospel order to corrupted.

Paedobaptist "churches" are gospel oxymoronic as they are inconsistent with the true VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER and therefore, are not true "gospel" churches and yet may contain true gospel believers who are not existing in true visible GOSPEL ORDER! The Great Commission demands a true visible gospel ORDER which is void in paedbaptist assemblies.

So again, you woul d major on things such as modes of Baptism.meaning of communion, which are minor issues, and neglect the all important one, that a real church teaches real Hospel and real Christ?

 

[Yeshua1]

THE NT CHURCH IS THE VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER

The gospel church is about the VISIBLE FORM OF THE GOSPEL. The gospel church is not about obtaining salvation but about the VISIBLE PROFESSION OF SALVATION ACCORDING TO VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER.

The New Testament church IS the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER in its membership requirements,its ordinances, its message, its discipline and its mission. New Testament Baptist churches require GOSPEL CONSISTENCY in their VISIBLE ORDER as churches. The visible profession must be consistent with the gospel. The professing membership must be consistent with the visible gospel order. Their ordinances must be visibly consistent with the visible gospel order. Their preaching must be consistent with the visible gospel order and church discipline is designed to remove all VISIBLE INCONSISTENCY with the true visible gospel order. The N.T. church IS the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER.

Paedbaptist congregations are APOSTATE in their VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER. They are apostate in their VISIBLE requirements for membership.They are apostate in their VISIBLE application of the ordinances. They are apostate in their VISIBLE administration of the commission. The paedbaptist assemlby IS NOT the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER and therefore not true NT. churches.

You require that whicjh is not proscribed in the scriptures though!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have expressed your opinion but you opinion is not Biblical as the Bible is extremely clear that the church is not merely the gospel but rather the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER as expressed in Matthew 28:19-20 and paedobaptist congregations do not express the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER but repudiate the gospel by their VISIBLE ORDER - their visible membership, their visible application of the ordinances, their visible "covenant" teaching and preaching. As a visible order they are reprobates even though many are truly saved and godly individuals.

Their chirches are reprobate by believing other than what you believe than?

 

[Yeshua1]

I am sure you do think it is correct. However it is not correct and a reasonable exegetical based interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5 and 11 will demonstrate it is not. And, yes, I realize we debated that point before, and I think objective readers can see your position was wrong.

Communion in the scriptures is allowed to any Christian who is not living in a state of known disobedience to the Lord, correct?

 

[The Biblicist]

OK well for the most part, I have not studied Bunyan...in part because of what you just mentioned & I personally detest allegories.

However I have studied the Welsh Calvinists & their Methodist movement which allot of my family were a part of, so my commentary was a shortcut to that movement & their disappearance & yes I know that they morphed into Presbyterianism but I believe much of it had to do with breakdowns in church organization.

The welsh Calivnistic Baptists moved whole churches from England to the USA in the early 18th century.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Persuaded by whom......By the people in the church, by the Pastor, by God! Its Gods job to enlighten...no amount of persuasion will suffice if the Lord isn't interested----and there in lies the problem, "Brothers we are bringing into our churches people who are not going to be persuaded." And that is changing the whole dynamic. Instead of making disciples who are spreading the word, we are attempting to reach people who are probably reprobates.

Persuaded by the Holy Spirit no doubt, but through the ministry of the people, church, Pastor etc. Look EWF, I am not proposing that anyone brings unconverted people into membership and nor was Bunyan. You've gone off on a tangent of your own.

Let me give a little testimony. I and my wife were saved in our late 30s in a church that had been Plymouth Brethren but is now described as a Free Evangelical Church. A little while after we were approached about being baptized. We both said at first, "No way! We've already been baptized as babies in the Church of England and we're no going to do it again". But after reading through the relevant chapters in the Bible, we came to realise that what we had undergone as infants was not true baptism, and therefore gladly submitted ourselves to Believers' Baptism.

My experience is that most people who leave a paedobaptist church don't leave it because of the question of baptism, they leave because they come to realise that they are not being fed with the Scriptures. Like my wife and me, they don't give the baptism question a thought. If they are born again and gently instructed on the matter, they will come quite quickly to the realisation that infant baptism is not Scriptural. If they are not born again, they shouldn't be being baptized at all or brought into membership, should they?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, I am not! John Tombs and then after him John Bunyan were mixed membership churches and they called it "open communion" in the Associational records. Both were condemned by the Seven churches of London and the associational churches. Tombs complained because the Baptists associations stood opposed to him. So opposed, that any church that practiced mixed membership was not recognzed as a true church and when converted were reconstituted.

John Tombs, although he wrote more on the subject of baptism than any 17th Century Baptist, remained in the Church of England all his life and never founded any churches. [Mike Renihan has written an interesting biography of him]
If the earliest Baptist churches were so opposed to mixed membership, how come Spillsbury remained within a paedobaptist church for some years up until 1633?

I have a suggestion to make as to a possible answer to my last question.
During the 1630s and until the start of the English Civil War in 1642, Archbishop Laud was persecuting all Dissenting churches, and indeed any Anglicans who did not conform to his ultra-Arminian regime. At this time the dissenting churches tended to have good relations with each other as they were all in the same boat. As the Parliamentarians gained the upper hand in the war, the Presbyterians became the dominant party and they became as intolerant and persecuting as the Anglicans. The Congregationalist poet John Milton wrote, "New presbyter is but old priest writ large." It was at this time that the Baptists, not without justice, became very hostile to paedobaptists in general and Presbyterians in particular.

However, after a brief period of religious freedom under Cromwell, the Monarchy was restored in 1660, and shortly after, the persecution began again, of all dissenters, the Presbyterians as well as the others. Once again, in their distress, the dissenters began to grow more together, and when the Baptists came to compile a new confession in 1677, they were not too proud to base it on the Presbyterian WCF. They also dropped their insistence on Closed Communion and left the individual churches to decide for themselves on that matter. Even Kiffin and Knollys, who were such staunch closed-communionists signed up to the new confession when it was finally published in 1689.

 

[rsr]

But they were already apostate by then.