What Doctrines should we separate over?

[Iconoclast]

Molinism is complex nonsense --I have listened to William Lane Craig expound on his "take" and it's utter gibberish. He refuses to let the Scriptures have their say. It is mind-numbingly muddled thinking.

:wavey::thumbs::applause::wavey:

 

[Rippon]

That is a good list. The reasons I changed from Presbyterian to Baptist some 36 years ago was Baptism mainly, but on a lesser degree, the type of local church government and a hierarchy. However, what does connect the two faiths in a major way is the sovereignty of God, eternal security, and covenant theology instead of dispy.

Being a conservative Presbyterian and a conservative Baptist is not a matter of two faiths. There is only one faith,and one Gospel. Two denominations would be much more accurate.

 

[SolaSaint]

:wavey::thumbs::applause::wavey:

I have tried many times to listen to Craig on Molonism but I too find it mind numbing. I think he is trying very hard marry God's soveriegnty with free will. Very hard to do. We need to let God be God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Being a conservative Presbyterian and a conservative Baptist is not a matter of two faiths. There is only one faith,and one Gospel. Two denominations would be much more accurate.

I would challenge your statement. Presbyterian preaches "another gospel" in their ordinances when they not merely pervert the form of baptism (which perverts the truth it typifies - the gospel), but pervert the gospel when applying it to unregenerate infants and incorporating them into the membership of the metaphorical body of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

What are doctrines that we should separate with people over and what are the essentials that we need to be agreed upon to be able to fellowship and serve God together?

Calvinism?

Bible Translation?

Eschatology? (Timing of Rapture?)

Gap Theory?

What are your thoughts?

Separation should be observed from those institutions that pervert/deny the doctrine of God, the inspiration of the scriptures, the gospel and gospel ordinances, and all other doctrines that the Scriptures explicitly assert to be essential or explicitly assert must not be denied.

 

[Rippon]

I would challenge your statement. Presbyterian preaches "another gospel" in their ordinances when they not merely pervert the form of baptism (which perverts the truth it typifies - the gospel), but pervert the gospel when applying it to unregenerate infants and incorporating them into the membership of the metaphorical body of Christ.

Are you saying that conservative Presbyterians are unregenerate? I abhor their practice of infant baptism --yet would consider them members of the houseshold of faith.

If you consider them of another faith altogether i.e. outside of Christ I reject your claim forcefully.

 

[Rippon]

That is a good list. The reasons I changed from Presbyterian to Baptist some 36 years ago was Baptism mainly, but on a lesser degree, the type of local church government and a hierarchy. However, what does connect the two faiths in a major way is the sovereignty of God, eternal security, and covenant theology instead of dispy.

Again,what you call "two faiths" is nothing of the kind --you mean two denominations. But even that is not quite the right term because there are many Presbyterian denominations and many more Baptist denominations.

You claim there is a connection between Presbyterians and Baptists when it comes to covenant theology. How did you come to that conclusion? Most Baptists are dispensational --most Presbyterians hold to covenant theology. There is no linkage between the two in that respect whatsoever.

Since Baptist are such a diverse lot --how can you claim that the two parties connect when it comes to the sovereignty of God? Most Baptists would not agree with,for example A.W.Pink's understanding of the subject --yet most conservative Presbyterians would.

You see commonalities where none exist.

 

[saturneptune]

Again,what you call "two faiths" is nothing of the kind --you mean two denominations. But even that is not quite the right term because there are many Presbyterian denominations and many more Baptist denominations.

You claim there is a connection between Presbyterians and Baptists when it comes to covenant theology. How did you come to that conclusion? Most Baptists are dispensational --most Presbyterians hold to covenant theology. There is no linkage between the two in that respect whatsoever.

Since Baptist are such a diverse lot --how can you claim that the two parties connect when it comes to the sovereignty of God? Most Baptists would not agree with,for example A.W.Pink's understanding of the subject --yet most conservative Presbyterians would.

You see commonalities where none exist.

As usual, you are wrong. Studying and living the experience does not equal cut and paste. The Presbyterian Church I went to AND the Baptist church I go to are covenant. Do you even know the difference? Have you ever read one book on the subject? There is a strong linkage, and your lack of understanding is the problem, not doctrine.

You have never been a Presbyterian, for that matter, with the thoughts expressed, I wonder if you are a Baptist.

The problem is you are commonality challenged as well as theologically.

In relation to your other misguided post, how can you abhor infant baptism when you have no idea of the doctrine behind it, relating to a covenant relationship?

 

[Rippon]

Studying and living the experience does not equal cut and paste.

I did no cut-and-paste.

The Presbyterian Church I went to AND the Baptist church I go to are covenant.[sic]

Your particular congregation holds to the 2000 BFM. It is not covenantal.

Do you even know the difference?

Between what and what? You're missing nouns.

Have you ever read one book on the subject?

Several Sonny.

There is a strong linkage, and your lack of understanding is the problem, not doctrine.

Do you acknowledge that most Baptist churches tend to be Arminian in their theology? You have admitted that Calvinistic soteriology is in the minority in your congregation. I doubt that the average pew sitter in your church has even heard of covenant theology.

You have never been a Presbyterian, for that matter, with the thoughts expressed, I wonder if you are a Baptist.

Why lie? Just deal with specifics and drop your constant drumbeat of ad homs. You have called me a Universalist and a Roman Catholic before --nothing inhibits your conduct.

In relation to your other misguided post, how can you abhor infant baptism when you have no idea of the doctrine behind it, relating to a covenant relationship?

Lying is not becoming of a Christian Mike ---especially one who claims to be a deacon.

Now for some quotes.

You have said regarding the subject of the covenant:

"This is a subject that I would appreciate any insight on." (5/23/12)
"Baptists are still working out election and covenant theology,and it may never be settled." (1/21/13)
"I will admit,Calvinists would most likely be covenant and Arminians dispy. I do not have as good of a handle on the difference [sic] of dispy and covenant." (1/16/13)

Herald (now known as Reformed) told you "You will be hard pressed to find many Arminian churches embracing Covenant theology." (7/20/13)

preachingjesus informed you that you have "a limited understanding of the differences between covenant theology and dispensational theology." (1/15/13)

Back on 1/18/14 you made a post trying to stress significant differences between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. You acknowledged that Reformed Baptists hold to Covenant theology. Of your Theopedia article --7 of the 9 points evidenced common-ground between conservative Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists --definite commonalities. But despite all the evidence to the contrary you dug your heels in and basically used ad homs to deal with me --your m.o.

Now you want to present the novel theory that most Baptists hold to Covenant theology as conservative Presbyterians do. Give it up Mike. Your thesis has no more weight than the novel theory of DHK's that hyper-Calvinism is running wild in Presbyterianism,or TND's absurd idea that there is no such thing as good discrimination.

 

[saturneptune]

I did no cut-and-paste.

Your particular congregation holds to the 2000 BFM. It is not covenantal.

Between what and what? You're missing nouns.

Several Sonny.

Do you acknowledge that most Baptist churches tend to be Arminian in their theology? You have admitted that Calvinistic soteriology is in the minority in your congregation. I doubt that the average pew sitter in your church has even heard of covenant theology.

Why lie? Just deal with specifics and drop your constant drumbeat of ad homs. You have called me a Universalist and a Roman Catholic before --nothing inhibits your conduct.


Lying is not becoming of a Christian Mike ---especially one who claims to be a deacon.

Now for some quotes.

You have said regarding the subject of the covenant:

"This is a subject that I would appreciate any insight on." (5/23/12)
"Baptists are still working out election and covenant theology,and it may never be settled." (1/21/13)
"I will admit,Calvinists would most likely be covenant and Arminians dispy. I do not have as good of a handle on the difference [sic] of dispy and covenant." (1/16/13)

Herald (now known as Reformed) told you "You will be hard pressed to find many Arminian churches embracing Covenant theology." (7/20/13)

preachingjesus informed you that you have "a limited understanding of the differences between covenant theology and dispensational theology." (1/15/13)

Back on 1/18/14 you made a post trying to stress significant differences between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. You acknowledged that Reformed Baptists hold to Covenant theology. Of your Theopedia article --7 of the 9 points evidenced common-ground between conservative Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists --definite commonalities. But despite all the evidence to the contrary you dug your heels in and basically used ad homs to deal with me --your m.o.

Now you want to present the novel theory that most Baptists hold to Covenant theology as conservative Presbyterians do. Give it up Mike. Your thesis has no more weight than the novel theory of DHK's that hyper-Calvinism is running wild in Presbyterianism,or TND's absurd idea that there is no such thing as good discrimination.

Nothing else to post except this post was reported. You know nothing of Presbyterians or covenant theology. You do not care. You are here to disrupt and divide, not discuss. The moderators and administrators job is to take care of posters like you. Your statement that most Baptist churches are dispy is false, and you have no evidence to the contrary. In fact you have no idea what Presbyterians are.

The last thing on this earth I care about is your opinion of my character. Good to see you back in China. Stay there this time. You fit right in.

 

[Rippon]

Nothing else to post except this post was reported.

Yes,I have noted your latest hobby.

You know nothing of Presbyterians or covenant theology.

That's a lie.

You do not care.

That's a lie.

You are here to disrupt and divide, not discuss.

That's a lie. You have no desire to discuss specifics that I brought to your needed attention.

Your statement that most Baptist churches are dispy is false, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

Do a little survey Michael. Most Baptists are Arminian,and most Arminians are dispensational. Don't get so upset about facts.

In fact you have no idea what Presbyterians are.

That's another lie. Why is it such a chore for you to tell the truth?

Good to see you back in China. Stay there this time. You fit right in.

Thanks for your heart-felt blessings. It's a wonder that you can sleep at night. Does your conscience ever bother you?

 

[saturneptune]

Yes,I have noted your latest hobby.

That's a lie.

That's a lie.

That's a lie. You have no desire to discuss specifics that I brought to your needed attention.

Do a little survey Michael. Most Baptists are Arminian,and most Arminians are dispensational. Don't get so upset about facts.

That's another lie. Why is it such a chore for you to tell the truth?

Thanks for your heart-felt blessings. It's a wonder that you can sleep at night. Does your conscience ever bother you?

Post reported......................

 

[Rippon]

Post reported......................

Mike,as a reporter,do you find it important to be faithful to facts?

 

[saturneptune]

Mike,as a reporter,do you find it important to be faithful to facts?

Post reported...................

 

[Rippon]

Post reported...................

There seems to be a sameness to your posts lately.

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you saying that conservative Presbyterians are unregenerate? I abhor their practice of infant baptism --yet would consider them members of the houseshold of faith.

If you consider them of another faith altogether i.e. outside of Christ I reject your claim forcefully.

You are confusing doctrine with persons and institutions with persons. There are no doubt saved people in most all denominations. I am not making any judgment upon the personal salvation of Presbyterians or Catholics. Personally I can have fellowship with any true Christian in any denomination. However, as an institution, the gospel is perverted by the Presbyterian institutional church in their ordinances. As Baptist churches, we will have no fellowship with the Presbyterian institutional church for many reasons but the most important reason is they preach "another gospel" in their institutional ordinances.

 

[Rippon]

You are confusing doctrine with persons and institutions with persons. There are no doubt saved people in most all denominations. I am not making any judgment upon the personal salvation of Presbyterians or Catholics. Personally I can have fellowship with any true Christian in any denomination. However, as an institution, the gospel is perverted by the Presbyterian institutional church in their ordinances. As Baptist churches, we will have no fellowship with the Presbyterian institutional church for many reasons but the most important reason is they preach "another gospel" in their institutional ordinances.

You would not consent to have a solid Presbyterian preacher in a Baptist pulpit for a special visit? I can think of a few men that would be excellent: Ligon Duncan,Michael Barrett,Sinclair Ferguson,Joseph Pipa,and R.C.Sproul. Toss in a non-Presbyterian,yet Reformed --Joel Beeke. If James M.Boice was still around would you deny him?

Baptist stalwart Charles H. Spurgeon had many non-Baptists in his Metropolitan pulpit. You don't doubt his credentials do you?

I think it would be worthwhile to have some sound Presbyterian preachers in Baptist pulpits and vice versa in an exchange. Baptists should not be insular-minded. Of course parameters can be set. Certain topics --and you know what I mean --would be off-limits.

 

[Revmitchell]

Everything that posters find themselves disagreeing with is not a lie. It may be incorrect but it is not always a lie. Grow up.

 

[Rippon]

Everything that posters find themselves disagreeing with is not a lie.

If you want to completely redefine what a lie is then devise your own dictionary. Grow up RM.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You would not consent to have a solid Presbyterian preacher in a Baptist pulpit for a special visit? I can think of a few men that would be excellent: Ligon Duncan,Michael Barrett,Sinclair Ferguson,Joseph Pipa,and R.C.Sproul. Toss in a non-Presbyterian,yet Reformed --Joel Beeke. If James M.Boice was still around would you deny him?

Baptist stalwart Charles H. Spurgeon had many non-Baptists in his Metropolitan pulpit. You don't doubt his credentials do you?



I think it would be worthwhile to have some sound Presbyterian preachers in Baptist pulpits and vice versa in an exchange. Baptists should not be insular-minded. Of course parameters can be set. Certain topics --and you know what I mean --would be off-limits.

I certainly would be discerning. I was almost taken down the wrong path by Presbyterians who hold to wrong doctrine......that included one Reformed Pastor who walked lock step with them so I know 1st hand that I would not want them providing doctrinal instruction to my son and wife. But lets take an example .... one that I know all too well. One of these esteemed Reformed types comes to your church and provides a compelling sermon to the church and gets interest from some pew sitters.......lets say its on Andrew Fuller's teachings......or lets say it is on the importance of the sacruments and infant baptism! And brother, it does happen ..... and for those reason's, I am opposed to it.