We have known men to glory in their liberty, as they called it, who could take part in Christian service on Lord's Day morning and spend the afternoon golfing, or in some other more worldly way, and this on pretence of a higher spirituality than that of those who are supposed to be legal, because they use the hours of the entire day either for their own spiritual upbuilding or for the blessing of others.
It is strange that many, who insist that there are no ordinances or commandments connected with the dispensation of pure grace, should take up collections in their services and urge people to give as unto the Lord to support their ministry. The passage already referred to in 1 Corinthians 11 makes it clear that though the apostle Paul did not receive his instruction concerning the observance of the Lord's Supper from the twelve, it was given to him by special revelation from heaven, thus indicating what an important place it has in this age. Surely one is guilty of gross perversion of Scripture who dares to teach that since Paul's imprisonment, the Lord's Supper should no longer be observed, when the Holy Ghost has said, 'As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.
We may be thought legal, because we refuse to surrender such precious privileges at the behest of some of our self-styled expositors of pure grace, but we remember 'that the grace of God salvation bringing for all men, hath appeared, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,' and until He come, by His grace, to remember Him in the way of His own appointment.
I would like to add that while I do not hold to dispensational theology I consider this rebutal to be of the highest order. I do not think so! Yet J. I Packer includes this verse as a 'defense' for water baptism today. How can the Spirit baptism be a 'figurative expression' of the 'literal water baptism'? I do not think so. Everytime we see 'baptism' in the Scriptures, we cannot just automatically think the writer is speaking of water. I never said that 'the Lord's Supper should no longer be observed'; besides, we are talking about baptism now. Ahh there's the last refuge. I had hoped that someone of your particular style of theology could perhaps clear up some misunderstandings you were having.
I see that I was wrong, and instead of re-examing your position your mind is made up, so perhaps it useless to confuse you with the facts. I will state them none the less: Yes it is true we are made members of the Body of Christ by our baptism of the Spirit. But baptism of the Spirit does not negate the ordinance institued by Christ. If you will carefully examine the commision in Matt. Indeed Acts is a perfect example of this as they were first baptized by the Spirit and then Peter called for water so that the ordinance of Christ would be fulfilled.
Indeed if anything this would prove the opposite that the evidence of the baptism of the Spirit shows the need for the ordinance of water baptism. Let's be consistent now shall we? If what you believe was true, then the Lord's Table should not be administered either, for it too is a proclamation of God's saving grace in Christ Jesus and the cleansing from sins in His blood. If so, then why drink a glass of wine [grape juice for our Fundamentalist brethren] repetitively at the Lord's Table? Is not the communion we have with Christ effected by the indwelling Spirit? Then why partake of the bread at the Lord's Table?
Why have communion at all? This same sacrament was instituted before Pentecost and with only Jewish disciples. But perhaps you DO view the Lord's Table as superfluous to the Gentile portion of the Christian Church and was restricted to a by-gone dispensation during the first century among Jewish converts? As an aside, and not meant to carry any weight of argument, I would love to see you stand face to face with Calvin, or Edwards, or Owen or Spurgeon and tell them that they are in serious error and have misinterpreted the Scriptures in regards to the truth of Baptism.
And then open your Bible and show them 'a better way'! Also, we do not have to answer to these great Bible scholars that you mentioned, but only to the Lord Himself whom we will meet face to face. Just because 'we have always done it that way' should not be our reason for keeping or holding on to a certain practice in the church.
Possibly Related Articles
I did not say that these men were in 'great error'; they served their time very well in all the Light God gave them. Are you serious? Again, with great similarity that within all Christendom there are many differences of dogma, yet Predestination, until the last years, was universally held by the overwhelming majority of denominations and individual Christians, including Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, between whom there was chasmic disagreement.
The same holds true for Baptism. Sure, we may differ as to the mode immersion, effusion, aspersion. We may indeed differ over who are legitimate recipients adults only or including infants. We may even differ as to the exact meaning of Baptism. But one thing which has not been disputed is the perpetuity and practice of it within the Christian Church, even in it's broadest meaning. I would encourage you to consider the implications of what you are embracing at this point in your pilgrimage.
Plus while you posit that Rom.
Family Life at Cornerstone
In fact church history says quite the opposite. In fact you can not find this teaching either in Scofield who originated this specific style of theology or any of his modern contemporaries such as Ryrie, Walvoord, or Chafer. In fact I believe that the only person who did hold to this was E. Bullinger the father of hyper-dispensationalists. It is so full of significance and import for us all to embrace the principle contained, that I wanted to bring it to prominence: 'IF I even suspected that you or anyone else was becoming a 'yes man' in my regard, I would immediately be burdened with guilt for possibly being a substandard teacher of God's Word and perhaps much worse.
If I have succeeded in attracting 'followers' whose eyes are focused upon me rather than the LORD Jesus Christ, then I am at best a miserable failure both to men and before God. May this never be true. A late, but still well-known radio Bible teacher relates a story of his very early preaching days when he delivered a message and the last person out of the little country church was a small boy, who shook his hand and exclaimed, 'Ain't Jesus wonderful!
Vernon McGee claimed that he regarded that as the greatest compliment he ever received for his preaching. The temptation to want to impress people with knowledge and devotion to the Lord is empty and vain. Thank God for those who have such a heart and a heart of devotion to share it. They made for interesting reading. I am relatively new to this forum and am still learning how to use it. I have responded to some of your responses. Please check them out.
I am still working on some of the verses offered regarding this issue. I am still not convinced that infant baptism is the best Biblical position. If you haven't done so, I would direct you to the 'Guidelines' of the Forum which you can read by clicking the link in the Forum's introductory header.
Come Unto Me, All You Who Are Heavy Laden
It is important that you understand how this Forum is set up and what rules it operates by. As to your questions concerning Baptism, which seem to be becoming more of a 'challenge' to Paedobaptists rather than an honest inquiry by one who is seriously studying the issue and seeking answers, :- ; and since you probably have missed the previous discussions on this topic, I would like to ask you, as one who seems to embrace Credobaptism, if you would be so kind as to give me your brief Definition of what Baptism means. When I asked this question before, it went no where actually, but perhaps you would be willing to engage me at this point by simply doing this?
I became a believer when I was about 13 years old. I attended a several baptist churches for the next twenty years. The pastors were all dispensational with two of my former pastors from Dallas Theological Seminary. I stated going to a presbyterian church several years ago and was first introduced to reformed theology. I think that reformed theology is much more Biblical than what I was taught in the baptist churches I attended in earlier years, except at the point of infant baptism. Thus my question for this forum.
I did not mean to be secretive about my 'honest inquiries. You seem to say that if I challenges a particular position then the inquiries are not honest and I am not seriously studying the issue. I do have an opinion on the subject which I briefly confessed in my first post but I am willing to admit that I am wrong if sufficient Biblical proof is given. Be assured that the reason I entered this forum was a sincere desire to know God's mind on this issue. My inquiries are honest and I am seriously studying this issue. I read the article, 'The Means of Grace: Baptism' as you advised.
I must confess the 4th point was new to me.
Anyway, when I am speaking of baptism this is what I am saying. The article listed the chief arguments that paedobaptists used and there is one argument that I do not understand, that being, infants were circumcised in the old covenant, baptism replaces circumcision in the new covenant; therefore, infants should be baptized. The problem I have with this is the very first assertion, 'infants were circumcised in the old covenant. MALE infants were circumcised in the old covenant. Of course female infants couldn't be circumcised Do I need to say this?
To me this is a significant point but I have heard very many people address it. Thanks for the note regarding the rules for the forum.
I will read them directly. But I may be wrong. OK ;- Tom P.
- Der wilde Planet: Roman (German Edition).
- 5 Things Anyone Can Do to Lead Effectively (You Can!)!
- Silhouetted by the Blue.
S Do I ever feel funny that I am somewhat in disagreance with you on this issue. But somehow I don't think you want me to be a yes man. First, Prestor John didn't really give a definition as much as he rightly corrected someone else's response that did not define Baptism. This has always been the most difficult thing for Baptists to do, for as I see it, their error in restricting baptism to only 'believing adults' prohibits them from being able to have a definition period.
I remember debating John Reisinger on the topic of Baptism publicly over 15 years ago when I was younger and had lots of 'vim and vigor', hehehe. At the conclusion of that debate, which was a 'draw', we embraced as brothers in Christ and realized that we shared far more in common on this issue of Baptism than we differed on.
I think that the main reason that the debate was able to be 'spirited' but never harsh, heated or hateful is because there was a solid grasp of the whole of Scripture on both sides. We both realized that neither view had an advantage but rather both views could be plausible.
Related Jesus Tears for Jerusalem Sermon on Luke 19:41, 42 (Turretins Sermons)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved