tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post112900155850928055..comments2024-02-15T12:08:49.940-05:00Comments on Sojourner: Drawing the LineBrad Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00197301845256854051noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1129153526984168282005-10-12T17:45:00.000-04:002005-10-12T17:45:00.000-04:00I never said baptism was a non-essential for churc...I never said baptism was a non-essential for church membership, only a non-essential for salvation.<BR/><BR/>In our church if somebody wanted to become a member they would need to have been baptised already or to get baptised. If they were baptized in a credo-baptism (as I was) that is acceptable-as long as that view of baptism does not deny the gospel.<BR/><BR/>So basically we should not put up barriers to Church Membership that the Bible does not-and that means we can allow for differences in credo vs paedo baptism beliefs-if those views are held with conviction based on the Bible.<BR/><BR/>This is what mosr paedo-baptist Chirches do, and this is what Bethlehem has done.<BR/><BR/>I'll pray for your trip to India--sounds interesting.pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06341946961084387134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1129124423503304162005-10-12T09:40:00.000-04:002005-10-12T09:40:00.000-04:00Pilgrim,I appreciate your comments very much. Tha...Pilgrim,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your comments very much. Thank you for staying and giving us your point of view.<BR/><BR/>In your last comment, you touched upon part of the reason that this entire debate bothers me: When, in the entire history of the church, has baptism been considered a non-essential for church membership? The Reformers certainly did not think like this! This used to be an issue that men and women stood and died for.<BR/><BR/>I agree that baptism is a non-essential in the sense that you do not have to be baptized to be saved. But a non-essential for local church membership? This is a new invention.Brad Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00197301845256854051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1129098876850196412005-10-12T02:34:00.000-04:002005-10-12T02:34:00.000-04:00The more I read the Bible, the more I see the trut...The more I read the Bible, the more I see the truth of covenantal theology.<BR/>And part of my point was that a covental approach shows why a church can accept as members those who believe differently oon baptism, as long as those beliefs do not deny the gospel. Leaders are held to a stricter accountability, so restricting those who hold them to a denominational distinctive is Biblical. But to deny membership on the basis of a non-essential is adding a condition that scripture itself does not. That is dangerous.<BR/><BR/>colinm said, "However, we cannot be content with relegating a bad theological position to something God will just forgive."<BR/><BR/>Read what I just wrote -I hope that clarifies my comment-my point is not to be cavalier towards sin.pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06341946961084387134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1129091736981380342005-10-12T00:35:00.000-04:002005-10-12T00:35:00.000-04:00My wife and I were discussing this just tonight. ...My wife and I were discussing this just tonight. I remarked how we all, as Christians who are now indwelt with the Holy Spirit, are aware of certain things having not learned them through scripture, but through experience. For example, we want to live lives that are pleasing to God. No one who is born of God's Spirit has to be instructed in this - it is a byproduct of the indwelling Spirit.<BR/><BR/>Yet we are careful to not let our experience stand in a vacuum, and so we examine the scriptures and demonstrate from the Holy writ what our experience has already shown us to be so.<BR/><BR/>That is all fine and good when our experience is correct, and when our theology is correct. <BR/><BR/>The trouble begins when we have a truth that we know is true, and we go to scripture to prove it, and the path we take through scripture to prove it is skewed somewhat - but we accept it as pure because we know for certain that the conclusion is correct.<BR/><BR/>In such a case, we presume that every step on the ladder is as sure as the conclusion - and in the strength of that kind of reasoning, even godly men can swallow a camel.<BR/><BR/>A Covenantal approach to scripture interpretation will produce some very correct conclusions.<BR/><BR/>A non-Covenantal approach to scripture interpretation will likewise produce some very correct conclusions.<BR/><BR/>The danger, as I said is that we presume that because we are standing on the roof, that ever step in the ladder is sound. <BR/><BR/>I discuss this a bit <A HREF="http://doulogos.blogspot.com/2005/09/house-of-cards.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, where I discuss what sort of foundation our faith ought to be resting on.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, I am inclined to reject covenant theology. I do not have a profoundly better theology. In fact, I only reject it because I do not think it wise to accept a theology on the basis that it comes up with some right sounding conclusions. I am as interested in a right journey as I am in proper destination, the covenant route, to me at least, seems to presume more than I think it wise to presume.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06734845463331170748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1129090510728057242005-10-12T00:15:00.000-04:002005-10-12T00:15:00.000-04:00Pilgrim:You make some valid points. However, we c...Pilgrim:<BR/><BR/>You make some valid points. However, we cannot be content with relegating a bad theological position to something God will just forgive, not to minimize in any way the greatness and magnificence of that forgiveness. Brad is right that there are serious consequences to error in either position. His point must be well taken, lest you not heed the warning of Scripture that sin clearly has consequences.<BR/><BR/>In fact, no sin goes unpunished. We like to think of our sin as wiped clean in a way that it just disappeared. Well, it didn't. It was paid for- on the Cross by Jesus Christ- as is all the sins of the believers. Furthermore, there are earthly consequences we must acknowledge. For this reason, we cannot ever be content on just letting it work out in the end. We must earnestly strive for the truth, ask the hard questions, and take the stance, however uncomfortable or unpopular it may be.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04852203994400117805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1129061226579390602005-10-11T16:07:00.000-04:002005-10-11T16:07:00.000-04:00Well as I mentioned in another comment in our cong...Well as I mentioned in another comment in our congregation we are well aware of the danger of equating "baptized" and "saved" so we do not. The youth are still ministered to, and taught, and evangelized.<BR/><BR/>We believe as we do for many reasons-especially Biblical ones.<BR/>We see a covenant in Scripture that continues forward from Adam & Eve to now and to the future.<BR/>In some ways I should say from eternity past, as the Trinity agreed to act as they do in salvation.<BR/><BR/>On Pentecost, Peter told the people listening the promise was for them and their children, just as it was in the OT (in fact he quotes lots of OT in his sermon.)<BR/><BR/>We are told households were baptized--this fits with circumcision as households were circumcized when the head of the houshold believed-starting with Abraham. The covenant continues and all believes are included in it, even if they do not hold it properly--as none of us do.<BR/><BR/>This short summary probably won't convince you, but I put it here to explain why, as a Presbyterian, I can still include Baptists in fellowship beyond a degree you have started to doubt is proper.<BR/><BR/>It's because of that covenant--the most important part of is the forgiveness of sins and being made right with God.<BR/><BR/>If we are truly God's people, then He has and will forgive all our sins-including an incorrect view of non-regenerational baptism. (and possibly an incorrect view on regenerational baptism depending on how one views Lutheran and Anglican beliefs on baptism).<BR/><BR/>So Baptists are welcome to attend and join our congregation. They could not be deacons or elders, but could tech if what they are teaching does not concern baptism.<BR/>If they are truly part of Chrust's church--how could we exclude them, and how could we withhold communion from them?<BR/><BR/>That's what I see as a reformed covenantal perspective.pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06341946961084387134noreply@blogger.com