The basis behind founding a denomination upon "baptism" and seeking to identify with and in, this, is to provide a greater human participation, than paedobaptism allows or is perceived to secure.
This is why profession and immersion emerged in recent centuries, in *OPPOSITION* to covenantal infant baptism.
It is as if there was a kind of reactive resistance against the historic church sacrament. Even as we have seen down to changing the term sacrament itself. But reaction does not make for theologically or Biblically correct. It simply implies another method was brought to bear upon the ceremony, and support elicited from theology for it. Hence the establishing of a new denomination.
Hidemi Williges wrote: Name calling again. I rebuke Arminianism, just as I would calvinism. Why not believe the Holy Bible (the very words of God) first, Quoting Scripture instead of spouting the fallible words of fallen men.
You are either one or the other there is no other way. As for those who reject this and call themselves Bible only without theology - There is no such reality.
Eventually we observe sufficient proof in there posts to categorise them.
1] Total Depravity - Man in his natural estate and cannot make any spiritual decision towards God. 2] Unconditional Election - God perceives nothing in all mortals worthy of saving. 3] Limited Atonement - Jesus died only for the elect of God chosen before the world began. 4] Irresistible Grace - God alone draws people to Christ. There is nothing in the mortal to prevent this and mans decision about it, either way, is irrelevant. 5] Perseverence - God brings the elect sinner to heaven from start to finish.
These are Bible doctrines. All five are indicative of how God saves His elect in Christ. A change to any of the above brings an Arminian (free will) solution.
Isn't that the Arminian method you are agreeing with John??? In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)
Biblicist wrote: You notice that PF (facts indeed. cough!) does not cite his source
Biblicist wrote: "In defining what a sacrament is...."
Try and remember that we are not Roman Catholics. (You're not one are you?) Sacrament-baptism is a SIGN not actual grace! So don't be afraid of the word Sacrament. Thats why we call it "sign and seal" of the Covenant. Also try and realise that a great deal happened by grace in GOD's Reformation in the 16th century.
Edifying you guys is proving to be an uphill struggle. English comprehension as well as theology. Phew!!
Mike wrote: Looks a bit sideways to me. I was under the impression that first one becomes a believer indwelt by the Holy spirit, thus is ALREADY in communion with Christ, THEN comes baptism and the Lord's supper. Never heard of it the other way around before.
No! Election was first and that was back at the beginning of creation. Faith is the gift of God which is the Holy Spirit working in the heart of those predestinated to salvation IN Christ. Baptism is for the children of Covenanted parents, or adults who were not born to covenanted parent, but who subsequently come to Christ, by the Gift of God.
Eph 1:4 "According as he hath CHOSEN us in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having PREDESTINATED us unto the ADOPTION of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of HIS WILL"
Biblicist wrote: "sacrament" conveys the notion that grace is mechanically transmitted to the person taking the sacrament
You really should not LIE to achieve your ends. Satan is the father of lies. It would be a far more Christian witness if you didn't fully understand a word or concept to either leave it to others or ask! If you want to win friends and influence Christians then lying is not the way.
In point of fact it is more YOUR type of Arminian influence to believe in a "mechanical" transmission of grace.
SACRAMENT; "A religious rite or ceremony instituted or recognized by Jesus Christ. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were given a prominent place in the fellowship of the early church (Acts 2:41 - 42; 10:47; 20:7, 11), along with the proclamation (kerygma) and teaching (didache). Both rites were regarded as means appointed by Jesus Christ to bring the members of the church into communion with his death and resurrection, and thus with himself through the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19 - 20; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3 - 5; 1 Cor. 11:23 - 27; Col. 2:11 - 12)."
Witsius: ".. the native signification of the words baptein and baptizein is to plunge, to dip."
As history states the Reformers sprinkled babies. The only different group was Anabaptists and they were known to Reformers as heretics.
As for Witsius
"In discussing Christian baptism we begin with the mode of baptism. Some immerse and some sprinkle. Arguments for immersion are that Christ and the Apostles used this mode as seen by the example of the ancient church. "Baptize" often refers to immersion linguistically and there seems to be a more full likeness between the sign and the thing signified in immersion. In terms of those who sprinkle, the example of the three thousand (Acts 2:41) in one day and of Cornelius, Lydia, and the jailer exclude the possibility of immersion. "Baptize" can refer to sprinkling or pouring linguistically. And the thing signified by baptism is explained in the Old Testament and New Testament in terms of sprinkling and pouring (Isa. 52:15; Ez. 36:25; Heb. 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2; Heb. 9:13-14). Immersing or sprinkling once or three times is indifferent though. It is to be done in the name of the Triune God." (H.Witsius Economy of the Covenants)
Question wrote: I heard that some pastors were made to leave the Free Presbyterian Church because they were paedobaptists. Is this fact or rumour? what happened?
Have not come across that one yet. However it may depend on which countries FPC was involved. Being from Scotland, our FPC is pure presbyterian therefore completely paedo. In point of fact the Baptist Church did not take off that big in Scotland over these centuries since God's Reformation. I think it came north from the sassenachs in the 18th century, via some soldiers. In my local town we did not have a Baptist Church until the early 1990's.
I believe the current situation is....
FPC North America - have both paedo and credo.
FPC Ulster -Ditto- But it is said... "On account of their additional adherence to the Articles of Faith, and because of their baptismal views, some regard the church as only nominally Presbyterian, and actually nearer to the Baptist Church" #(NB Ian Paisley's denominational background was Baptist)
Biblicist wrote: a] You can pride yourselves in keeping to your Roman Catholic beliefs and practices in relation to infants!!
b] And if you want to quibble, when did Preby. church government come about? Now let me think? Oh yes, it was an innovation at the time of the Reformation!! Just enough of Romanism was left in the system to suit Presby taste buds.
a] No we don't. Baptism means something quite different to them as I'm sure you know.
b] Roman church is epicopalian not presbyterian. Romanism developed over centuries until *GOD* brought His Church out from under and they protested about the non-Biblical practices setting up the Protestant Church in the process, by the grace of God. Since then we have observed that sinful man still continues to err! Denominationalism is just as much a sin as anything else around here. But GOD is still in charge of HIS Church!
As for Baptism? It does not contribute to salvation and the essential doctrines of Scripture, by grace and the Holy Spirit, are in a sense not up for debate.
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
Roman Catholic doctrine and Liberal doctrine come from the same source. The difference between the two is only a temporary one. One antichrist is much the same as the next in the context of worldliness, just that each serve a different purpose for Satan. But all have a common aim. (and end)
John UK wrote: FR, I know I've raised this point before, but it bears repeating. The Eunuch had a very long journey back, across desert wastes, with an entourage of folks and animals. It makes complete sense that, being wealthy, he would have had a huge amount of water on board for the trip. So if the baptism that Philip preached to him was by pouring or sprinkling, why on earth did he wait until he spotted a muddy water-hole full of 'creatures' before mentioning baptism? Why not just get out one of his bottles? And why did Philip accede to his request, when he knew the eunuch had plenty of clean water on board more suited to baptismal sprinkling? A few drops would have been sufficient and hardly would have dented his supply.
He did not need to use his drinking water supply since the Holy Spirit was in complete charge. And provided the water by the side of the road.
= Beginning with... Acts 8:29 Then the SPIRIT said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. = Ending at.... 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the SPIRIT of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
John Calvin. One of the greatest theological minds God has ever graced His Church and ministry with.
Calvin's genius lives on in the Church thanks be to the grace of God. Praise the Lord!
I pray that those who have not yet perceived the Biblical Doctrines of Grace and the Truth taught therein, may be brought to know them by grace, through faith.
As Spurgeon stated in his sermon
"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."â€”C. H. Spurgeon
[URL=http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm]]]C.H.Spurgeon's Sermon on Calvinism IS the Gospel.[/URL]
Also on SA at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126071345112
If you refer to Prof. Donald Macleod of the court case fame, (accused of putting his hands where he should not have) - he is in the Free Church of Scotland. His case led to the split in the FCOS and the forming of a new church the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) Macleod is a Liberal and some say that was the real reason behind the split.
My church is a different one, "Free Presbyterian Church" formed in 1893.
Hidemi Williges wrote: 1. though, it does not absolutely state the depth of the water, it can be inferred by the wording of the text that (being the Jordan river) there was an abundant amount of water available. The words "coming up" seems to indicate that Jesus was dunked. Otherwise the the phrase would have said "stepped out of" which it doesn't. 2,3. I see many good things but having listened to Alister Begg and Ian Paisley, and am in disagreement to the following; calvinism, political activism and fellowship with catholics. I do agree with their stand on the KJV. I can say that that not every Baptist Church follows Scripture, but that each Church is independent, has the liberty to follow as led by the Holy Spirit. I, myself belong to an Independent, Fundamentalist, Separatist, Baptist Church. 4. I agree with you here.
Well we can agree in a few things. Thats good.
BTW FPC Scotland, not Ulster. Sorry I should have mentioned. We have a few differences with them too. But hey debate is good.