[Uriel1975]

Boy, this is certainly a "no win" situation. On the one hand, I find myself at variance with a brother-in-Christ (you), while on the other I find myself on the same side of this issue with a wolf in sheep's clothing (GWB). Yes, I am a Baptist, yes I believe in the practice of "believer's baptism" by immersion administered only to those who have already professed faith in Christ. However, the fact that a "fellow" Baptist would bring this up and use it as a tool for divisive schism is troubling. What is interesting is the fact that you see very little Baptist condemnation of paedobaptists. This is primarily due to the fact that Baptists do not see baptism as essential to salvation, but view it as a symbolic remembrance of what has already occured in the believer's life. To try to use this issue as a stumbling block between Christians is an abomination. You will excuse me if I choose not to participate in this discussion. 26 Posted on 10/06/2001 07:27:14 PDT by Jerry_M

I completely agree.

As I said in another post (above), I generally don't get into this fight, as my own Orthodox Presbyterian teaching elder is pleased to, several times a year, leave his flock under the care of a Reformed Baptist pastor when he is travelling. And, as this pastor is a duly-ordained presbyter of the church of Jesus Christ (albeit one with a slightly different view of sacramental practice), the congregation treats him with all the respect and consideration which is rightly due an Elder. We even feed him 'n stuff.

I generally do not address the matter unless Presbyterian sacamental practice is termed a "silly superstition". In that instance, I respond.

However, Jerry, I'm going to use your post as an opportunity to make a few points:

I think that any believer who wants to argue theology has to decide which battles he is going to fight. There is a reason why the_doc, for example, believes in a great measure of ecumenical unity among people of Reformed Faith, whether anabaptistic or presbyterian in sacramental practice. The Gospel of Salvation itself -- the monergistic doctrine that God Alone saves -- is under attack outside of Reformed circles. Is there such a danger to Salvationist Gospel itself within the Reformed Camp? No, there is not.

Consider baptistic sacramental practice:

When a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believer claims that Infant Baptism itself regenerates the subject, then Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they have made Salvation a matter of Works. Likewise, when an anabaptistic "Disciples of Christ" believer claims that Believer's Baptism itself regenerates the subject, Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they, too, have made Salvation a matter of Works.

But both the Orthodox Presbyterian and the Refromed Baptist would agree as to the symbolic character of their own Baptisms, and each would deny any regenerative efficacy in the act itself. So their differences over ecclesiological practice ought to be subordinated to their common ground over Salvationist doctrine, as salvationist doctrine (heresies against which are spiritually fatal) is by far the more critical ground under attack in the modern, all-too-apostate Church.

The same goes for modest expressions of "charismaticism".

If we find claims, as we find in extreme Charismatic circles, that one must be "sealed" by "speaking in tongues" to know that one is *truly* saved, Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they, too, have made Salvation a matter of Works. Likewise, if we find claims, as we find in extreme Charismatic circles, that the Spirit is introducing new Revelevation, then Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they have rendered the very Scriptures themselves vulnerable to alteration and perversion.

But if one merely maintains the possibility of gaining illumination from private "visions" or dreams, and holds a strictly orthodox and Biblical doctrine of Salvation, and acknowledges that any illumination of understanding ought be tested against the bar of unchanging Scripture, he's hardly a "charismatic" at all, at least in the modern sense. At best, he's a "continuationist" or Non-Cessationist -- and while most Reformed Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians today are cessationists, there have been several important saints in Baptist and Presbyterian history who have allowed for the "continuing" (post-apostolic) validity of private visions and illuminating dreams. One was the greatest of Baptist preachers, Charles Spurgeon. Another was the founder of the Presbyterian denomination, John Knox.

IMHO, to rebuke a duly-ordained Elder for suggesting that these subjects are not proper grounds for theological warfare....
....is simply fractious.

1 Timothy 5:1 -- Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

[Campion]

When a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believer claims that Infant Baptism itself regenerates the subject, then Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they have made Salvation a matter of Works.

What utter garbage.

No Catholic or Orthodox believes anything remotely like this. If you would stop believing what your Protestant teachers say about us, and actually READ what Catholics and Orthodox believe IN THEIR OWN WORDS, you would do yourselves an immense service.

Fact: It is Catholic dogma that Christ is the priest in every Sacrament. The ordained minister is there as his visible representative, but it is Christ the High Priest who sanctifies through the human priest, and the form and matter of the sacrament.

Fact: It is Catholic dogma that it is God's grace -- the Divine Life of the Trinity -- which regenerates, not "infant baptism itself".

Fact: It is Catholic dogma that God is perfectly free to act outside the sacraments. He is free to declare anyone, anywhere, regenerated and justified at his sovereign pleasure.

Fact: Scripture directly calls baptism "the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) and says that all who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:27). If that doesn't mean that baptism regenerates, not "by itself," but as an invocation, by the Church of Christ, of the mercy of God upon the baptizand, I don't know what it means.

You guys must think Catholics are absolutely stupid and Biblically illiterate as well, to seriously post garbage like this. Au contraire, mon frere!

[RnMomof7]

But if one merely maintains the possibility of gaining illumination from private "visions" or dreams, and holds a strictly orthodox and Biblical doctrine of Salvation, and acknowledges that any illumination of understanding ought be tested against the bar of unchanging Scripture, he's hardly a "charismatic" at all, at least in the modern sense. At best, he's a "continuationist" or Non-Cessationist -- and while most Reformed Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians today are cessationists, there have been several important saints in Baptist and Presbyterian history who have allowed for the "continuing" (post-apostolic) validity of private visions and illuminating dreams. One was the greatest of Baptist preachers, Charles Spurgeon. Another was the founder of the Presbyterian denomination, John Knox.

I find this of interest as most Charasmatic churches would tend to be free will and synergistic in belief system.

I would be interested in the Charismatic history of Knox and Spurgeon..is there a site ?