With all the discussion going on about whether Presbyterians are biblical churches because of infant baptism, I would like to ask if we believe that Arminian Baptist churches are legitimate churches? If a Baptist Church, regardless of their affiliation if any, believes in a universal, insufficient atonement by Christ, issuch Baptist Church really a biblical church? And if so, how can we say that it is when it involves the very heart of the gospel in the atonement. Further, how can we say that those Presbyterian churches that believe in a particular, sufficient atonement yet infant baptism are not biblical, yet those that believe in a universal, insufficient atonement yet believers baptism by immersion are biblical churches.
Inquiring mind wants to know ;- ). Thanks.....
P.S. Still Baptist and thank the Lord for it!
Inquiring mind wants to know ;- ). Thanks.....
P.S. Still Baptist and thank the Lord for it!
Comments
That is a good question. Of course, if we just went with strictest meaning, it means "a calling out." Since "a calling out" can only mean those who have been regenerated and saved, such people would have to believe those essential doctrines that show they are saved. So that brings is back to the baptism issue. Is water baptism an essential doctrine that must be believed and done biblically to show that a person is saved. If a person was baptized as an infant, and continues to believe that, does that mean they are proving they are not saved? Of course you and I have already shown that we believe this is not the case. That we believe our paedobaptist brethren are wrong, but indeed saved, and such church are biblical churches.
To the anonymous poster: I have not completely resolved in my mind that arminian baptist churches, churches that for one believe in a universal and insufficient atonement of Christ are not biblical churches. If you noticed, they were put in question form. One of the points I was trying to make with that post, is that the doctrine of Christ's atonement is much more important than the doctrine of baptism. If Christian that hold to infant baptism are not biblical churches, what about those that hold to an insufficient sacrifice? The extent of Christ's sacrifice is of infinite more importance than baptism, is it not?
So I'm not saying that a person who is currently an "arminian baptist" is not saved. I'm not saying for sure at this point that I believe they are not a biblical church. But I would like to ask you, if you believe Christ's sacrifice/atonement was not sufficient? Do you believe Jesus failed to save all those He paid the penalty of sins and satisfied the wrath of the Father for? What does it mean in Mt.1:21 which says "and you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins."? Thank you for your comment.
Would you mind elaborating? Thanks!
The vearcity & authority of the scriptures is whats at stake & it is clear to me that one who departs from the clear teachings of scripture(especislly when the issues are addressed multiple times in the same fasion)is NOT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST.Their statement is in fact "We will NOT have this man to reign over us".
Cleraly as well BOTH organizations are guilty of the denial of the plain sense of the scriptures.
BTW.......its extremely poor hermenutics to bulid a doctrine on the definition of a word only.The lazy man will never come to the truth in regards to any doctrine that is biblical.See 2 Tim 2:15.
Time needs to be taken to study the AT LEAST 102 references, in context, that have to do with baptism.Time has to be taken to familiarise oneslf with the 115 references,in context, that have to do with The Lord's Ecclesia.Until that is done what is engaged in is "unlearned questions that do gender strife.
Im done.
Michael
Acts 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused: and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
Acts 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
Acts 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
Hmmmmm... wander what tht word "assembly" is in the Greek. Why surely it's not ecclessia, because that just means called out ones for salvation or regeneration, right? Interesting that it just happens to be the same word we see translated church and churches. Funny how it no longer means people called forth from their homes to assemble together. Wander who changed it's meaning, and when they changed it.
Rock
You are more than welcome to continue to discuss these issues, if you can learn how to discuss. maybe you can learn from Joey's comments? You are so sure that you are correct (which in of itself is fine) about what a biblical church and ecclesia is, and yet as much as you think you havem you have yet to prove the case beyoind a shawdow of a doubt. Unless I am misunderstanding you, you have now said directly or by implication that I and/or my brother that has responded on the Blog from my church are "intellectuals." The statement: " The vearcity & authority of the scriptures is whats at stake & it is clear to me that one who departs from the clear teachings of scripture(especislly when the issues are addressed multiple times in the same fasion)is NOT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST.Their statement is in fact "We will NOT have this man to reign over us".
Cleraly as well BOTH organizations are guilty of the denial of the plain sense of the scriptures" is not as clear as to whether you are referring to Presbyterians, us, or both.
In my earlier post, I told Tyson that the "technical" meaning is "called out ones." I hope you both will agree that other terms are used in more than one way. I believe this is the case with ecclesia. Netiehr Michael or Joey has convinced me that the word is used in the sense of the local church every time. How can Jesus be referring to one local church when He says that He will build His church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it? How can it be said that only one local church is in mind when Luke pens that God purchased the church with His own blood? So to use brother Joey's term "hmmmm," I say hmmm, wander if the word "assembly" always means the local church? I don't think so. I agree it does mean that most of the time, but it seems to me it is not all of the time.
Michael has gone from his arguement that Tyson and I believe to be circular, to now saying it is not about Baptism or the Atonement. Of course we agree that it's about churches that hold to the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures. But we all agree that no church ahs it right all the way down the line. Where in the Holy Scriptures does it tell us what doctrinal errors have to exist to make the church not a biblical church at all? In the beginning it was said to be credobaptism. now Michael says it is neither baptism or the atonement. I'm gald you think you are being clear, because this sure proves I'm not an intellectual, because I am now lost ;-). I respect you both as Christian individuals. Michael, I do disagree with how you deal with the differences we're discussing regarding some of your statements. I know this doesn't make it so, but I know that I'm not alone on this "church issue" among my many reformed baptist pastor brethren. Perhaps Michael is right, and we are done :-). One day we'll know. Soli Deo Gloria
You are more than welcome to continue to discuss these issues, if you can learn how to discuss. maybe you can learn from Joey's comments? You are so sure that you are correct (which in of itself is fine) about what a biblical church and ecclesia is, and yet as much as you think you havem you have yet to prove the case beyoind a shawdow of a doubt. Unless I am misunderstanding you, you have now said directly or by implication that I and/or my brother that has responded on the Blog from my church are "intellectuals." The statement: " The vearcity & authority of the scriptures is whats at stake & it is clear to me that one who departs from the clear teachings of scripture(especislly when the issues are addressed multiple times in the same fasion)is NOT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST.Their statement is in fact "We will NOT have this man to reign over us".
Cleraly as well BOTH organizations are guilty of the denial of the plain sense of the scriptures" is not as clear as to whether you are referring to Presbyterians, us, or both.
In my earlier post, I told Tyson that the "technical" meaning is "called out ones." I hope you both will agree that other terms are used in more than one way. I believe this is the case with ecclesia. Netiehr Michael or Joey has convinced me that the word is used in the sense of the local church every time. How can Jesus be referring to one local church when He says that He will build His church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it? How can it be said that only one local church is in mind when Luke pens that God purchased the church with His own blood? So to use brother Joey's term "hmmmm," I say hmmm, wander if the word "assembly" always means the local church? I don't think so. I agree it does mean that most of the time, but it seems to me it is not all of the time.
Michael has gone from his arguement that Tyson and I believe to be circular, to now saying it is not about Baptism or the Atonement. Of course we agree that it's about churches that hold to the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures. But we all agree that no church ahs it right all the way down the line. Where in the Holy Scriptures does it tell us what doctrinal errors have to exist to make the church not a biblical church at all? In the beginning it was said to be credobaptism. now Michael says it is neither baptism or the atonement. I'm gald you think you are being clear, because this sure proves I'm not an intellectual, because I am now lost ;-). I respect you both as Christian individuals. Michael, I do disagree with how you deal with the differences we're discussing regarding some of your statements. I know this doesn't make it so, but I know that I'm not alone on this "church issue" among my many reformed baptist pastor brethren. Perhaps Michael is right, and we are done :-). One day we'll know. Soli Deo Gloria
Lets begin with my statement on the other thread having my believing that the scriptures teach that in order for a baptism to be valid it must include all of at least 3 things...1. A scriptural mode(Immersion)..2.A Scriptural subject
(Believer) & 3.A Scriptural Authority(A Legitimate Church).
Maybe the reason that the argument seems circular is that the order in which i have placed these things is deemed to be an order of necessary succesion.That would be either, assumption on your part or, a lack of clarification on mine.These three things stand as a unit.With any one lacking, as i stated, the baptism is illigitimate.
Now.We are agreed, i believe, in all but one....Authority.How does one cease to be a legitimate church & thereby lose the authority to baptise making the baptism illigitimate?Answer:When one departs from THE CLEAR TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE.
Now."But we all agree that no church ahs it right all the way down the line." Agreed.But we are not dealing with vauge scripture here.As well these things have been set forth time after time, year after year, but still the plain sense is denied concerning this issue.That is willful dis-obediance.When one denies the CLEAR TEACHING of God's word they remove themselves from the rule of Christ & are therefore not under the authority of Christ & are therefore not the representative of Christ but are the representatives of themselves.
The arminian does the same thing with the denial of savation by grace.
is not as clear as to whether you are referring to Presbyterians, us, or both.
Presbyterians & Arminians.
It would probably have been better if i had used the statement "In actuality the heart of the issue is not the doctrine itself at all but the authority."
I hope this clears it up & makes my position better understood.Again this is not about personality or bein just plain old mean.Its about "how much does truth cost & at what price will it be sold?"
Guys, baptism & The Lord's Supper are ordainances handed down by Christ to His Church.They are His ordinances not men's ordinances & they have a purpose.That is the issue.Paul praised the Corinthian Church, "1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
Would paul make the same statement to anyone who did not?
Now as for the issue of ignorance of scripture & the Presbyterian position.I need not condemn them.They do that themselves in their own staement of faith.
Chapter 29 The Lord's Supper
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,[15] or be admitted thereunto.[16]
Yours in Christ
Michael
To God be the glory!!!!