What denomination would you be?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Or should this go to another thread? I don't think the subject deserves a thread on its own though.

 

[Dustin]

My point is that as a Baptist you MUST have seen clearly that all examples in the Bible are of believers baptism EVEN in cases of "households" (which we don't have many examples of in scripture) the "Household HEARS the Word of God accepts it and is baptized". (Acts 11 comes to mind).

In Romans 2 it is the 'NEW BIRTH" that is compared to circumcision stating that this is the REAL spiritual event to which circumcision-of-males was simply a physical type pointing to something very different as the promised event.

In 1Pet 3 we are told "Corresponding to that Baptism NOW saves you NOT the magic touch of sacramental waters but the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" that is done by the believer.

You would already have known accepted and believed all of this as a Baptist. What I am trying to get to is -- what was the strength of Bible "sola-scriptura" argument that could possibly have turned you away from it??



The assumption is not that there were no infants - the assumption is that the text qualifies those who were baptized as being those who heard and accepted the Word of God preached.



Even the historians of the RCC who are very married to the teaching of infant baptism freely admit that baptism was very much full water immersion and baptism of believers only in the NT.

If THEY are going to admit to that glaring historic fact - who am I to try to refute both those who lead the practice of that tradition and the Bible that makes no mention at all either of infant baptism OR of sprinkling of believers??

Why would I even start down that path if I was already a baptist??




I agree that when the believer "Appeals to God for a clean conscience" and is burried with Christ in baptism once - they do not need to do it again just because they have accepted a better doctrinal position.

I agree with the original statement that infants BEFORE baptism are covered under the gospel just as they are after the ceremony of sprinkling. BUt it is NOT because of any re-invention of the Bible doctrine of baptism that they are covered.

In Christ,

Bob

Long story short, when I finally got it that dispensationalism and pentecostalism were errors, everything changed, I had a theological overhaul. I never really suscribed to those things, but that's what I was being fed. I was a newborn infant in Christ, I was all over the place. I was hungry for truth and I was searching. In fact, if you search hard enough, you can find my dispy-period posts in the Baptist-only part of the board. Somewhere during that time, I first heard of predestination on the rapture ready bulletin board, of all places.

That and Dan Corner's Pelagian rantings on his web site got me to studying Calvinism and Arminianism. Also the fear of having committed blasphemy of the Holy Ghost (that was a dismal and drawn out period), moved me to really study it. So after reading all that in the Bible, finally realizing that I hadn't, then I became very interested in the issue. Basically, my theology was changing at a decent rate. I mean, one after another, my old beliefs were proven wrong and cast away. Some easier than others. I went on a 6 month hiatus from BB and started going to a Presby church. I consequently fully embraced Calvinism, renouced my UPC baptism, gradually being Biblically convinced of Reformed theology, and it just so happens that the last holdout from my free-will Baptist days (full emmersion credobaptism, multiple baptisms) is what I'm searching out now.

It's not that I wanted to get away from Baptist beliefs, it's just all this study is convincing me more and more that it's not fully consistant or exactly correct. The proof is in Scripture. That's why I'm a Calvinist Presbyterian Amillenial as opposed to a free-will Baptist dispensational charismatic.

As the old saying goes, I'm Reformed, and always reforming.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

P.S. I said it before but it bears repeating. Baptist Board, among other things, got me to studying, so that in effect, I became a Presbyterian because of the Baptist Board. Go figure. ( I really believe it was God's grace though.)

 

[BobRyan]

I notice that there are a number of Calvinist baptists on this board. And while I find that the Calvinist position is refuted by God's Word -- still I find it hard to believe that one has to give up on the Bible teaching of Baptism of believers as seen in Romans 10 and 1Peter 3 in order to be a Calvinist. It seems to be that you can easily be a Baptist AND be a Calvinist.

I also do not see where you came across any proof that the 1000 years listed in Rev 20 is not true.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Melanie]

If I could not attend my denomination, I probably not attend any other........OR maybe I would very occasionally

 

[Dustin]

If I could not attend my denomination, I probably not attend any other........OR maybe I would very occasionally

\

For those who'd rather stay home, how would you truly fellowship and take the Lord's Supper, and hear the Word preached? How would you be discipled?


Sol Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Long story short, when I finally got it that dispensationalism and pentecostalism were errors, everything changed, I had a theological overhaul. I never really suscribed to those things, but that's what I was being fed. I was a newborn infant in Christ, I was all over the place. I was hungry for truth and I was searching. In fact, if you search hard enough, you can find my dispy-period posts in the Baptist-only part of the board. Somewhere during that time, I first heard of predestination on the rapture ready bulletin board, of all places.

That and Dan Corner's Pelagian rantings on his web site got me to studying Calvinism and Arminianism. Also the fear of having committed blasphemy of the Holy Ghost (that was a dismal and drawn out period), moved me to really study it. So after reading all that in the Bible, finally realizing that I hadn't, then I became very interested in the issue. Basically, my theology was changing at a decent rate. I mean, one after another, my old beliefs were proven wrong and cast away. Some easier than others. I went on a 6 month hiatus from BB and started going to a Presby church. I consequently fully embraced Calvinism, renouced my UPC baptism, gradually being Biblically convinced of Reformed theology, and it just so happens that the last holdout from my free-will Baptist days (full emmersion credobaptism, multiple baptisms) is what I'm searching out now.

It's not that I wanted to get away from Baptist beliefs, it's just all this study is convincing me more and more that it's not fully consistant or exactly correct. The proof is in Scripture. That's why I'm a Calvinist Presbyterian Amillenial as opposed to a free-will Baptist dispensational charismatic.

As the old saying goes, I'm Reformed, and always reforming.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

P.S. I said it before but it bears repeating. Baptist Board, among other things, got me to studying, so that in effect, I became a Presbyterian because of the Baptist Board. Go figure. ( I really believe it was God's grace though.)

GE:

Amen, brother! Christ be with you!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

\

For those who'd rather stay home, how would you truly fellowship and take the Lord's Supper, and hear the Word preached? How would you be discipled?


Sol Deo Gloria,
Dustin

GE:

A formidable challenge only those really faced by it know how formidable.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There's nothing as victorious sounding as a good, pure, tenor's high C. That's how I now feel after having read Dustin's post.

God saw fit to give His Church - besides (or after) its Essence and Object of Faith Jesus Christ the Lord - two things whereby it shall live in "the Body of Christ's own" (Eph2:17), the Lord's Day and the Lord's Supper. Without these there cannot be Congregation, and without Congregation, there cannot be all the life of the Body - no Preaching, no Proclamation, no Worship, no Praises, no Prayers, no Charity, in short, no Feast of the Lord's Victory (Eph2:15-16). These two gifts are the only two essentials after the Essence, "The Head, from which all the Body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God". (How beautiful are thy ways, o Lord!)

 

[Melanie]

\

For those who'd rather stay home, how would you truly fellowship and take the Lord's Supper, and hear the Word preached? How would you be discipled?


Sol Deo Gloria,
Dustin

,

It is more about not getting involved in debate over theolgy ( I loathe arguments). I have met some truely wonderful folk from other denominations but their theology is very different .....

 

[Dustin]

I notice that there are a number of Calvinist baptists on this board. And while I find that the Calvinist position is refuted by God's Word -- still I find it hard to believe that one has to give up on the Bible teaching of Baptism of believers as seen in Romans 10 and 1Peter 3 in order to be a Calvinist. It seems to be that you can easily be a Baptist AND be a Calvinist.

I also do not see where you came across any proof that the 1000 years listed in Rev 20 is not true.

In Christ,

Bob

It's a hermanuetical issue. How you read the Bible has a lot to do with what you think it says.

I didn't have to give up being a Baptist to become a Calvinist. Indeed, it is very possible for one to be a Baptist and a Calvinist. After I was firmly and Biblically convinced on soteriology, I just moved on to different aspects of theology. I just read the Bible more and learned more. That's why I'm not Baptist anymore. I don't have anything against Baptists, I'm just convinced that some traditional Baptist doctrine and practice doesn't fit well with Scripture. Church order is probably the biggest issue, aside from some doctrinal aspects that were taught in my old Baptist church.

Now I must give credit, not ALL Baptists are of the free-will "walk the aisle to make a decision" types, but there's a lot of that going around.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[JGrubbs]

For those who'd rather stay home, how would you truly fellowship and take the Lord's Supper, and hear the Word preached? How would you be discipled?

My family is part of a house church with some other families in our area. We have more TRUE fellowship than we did at the church we were working at before, we observe the Lord's Supper every week, have in depth Bible studies and have learned what one on one discipleship and accountability is all about.

 

[Dustin]

My family is part of a house church with some other families in our area. We have more TRUE fellowship than we did at the church we were working at before, we observe the Lord's Supper every week, have in depth Bible studies and have learned what one on one discipleship and accountability is all about.

I didn't really think about house churches, but if you're in one that faithfully expounds God's word, administers the Lord's Supper, and practices biblical discipline then that is great.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Watch this new thread, 'Not defiled with women ....'