Skip to comments.
The Polemics of Infant Baptism
The Polemics of Infant Baptism ^
| posted to FR as of October 5 2001
| Benjamin B. Warfield
Posted on 10/05/2001 11:02:13 PM PDT by Uriel1975
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-162 next last
To: Uriel1975
Uriel, none of us are anabaptists.
I don't recognize the authority of "elders" who preach the gospel of Christ by calling those who profess Christ "lying whores" using nasty FRmail tricks. Among many other novel evangelization techniques.
I think you should reconsider your association with them but you're a man of sober judgment. I'm confident that you'll recognize your duty sooner or later.
Even within your own denomination, Uriel, you would be mistaken to kowtow to those in obvious error. And we Baptists are far far more independent. I can't quite understand how you fail to grasp this. It makes the offenses committed by the "elders" you mention all the more inexcusable. They would laugh at the notion that any such rule should apply to them. Actually, by your suggested standard, I should respectfully kowtow to Jimmy Carter when he advocates sodomy and abortion as a Baptist. Sorry, it don't wash.
Maybe you've never quite grasped exactly how independent Baptist churches really are. It makes us fractious. But we can never be hijacked by a liberal clergy or committee. A timely observation, I think.
Besides we're all tired of talking about Hebrews 10 anyway. It ultimately became merely a pretext.
I would say that you are not truly fundamentalist in your outlook. That's not necessarily a criticism, merely an observation. There was something underlying, Uriel, that you never did quite grasp, largely because, I suspect, of your own denominational background.
I would enjoy returning to the paedobaptism discussion. It was actually just starting to get interestng when people starting posting about what baptism meant to them and the devotional implications. That was the part I liked best since neither you or I were arguing paedobaptism as free agents.
To: George W. Bush; Uriel1975; the_doc; RnMomof7; CCWoody
I, for one, will
never tire of Hebrews 10:14, one of the great Scriptural supports for the doctrine of the perseverence and preservation of the saints.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. - Hebrews 10:14
142
posted on
11/02/2001 6:02:58 PM PST
by
Jerry_M
To: Jerry_M; George W. Bush
I, for one, will never tire of Hebrews 10:14, one of the great Scriptural supports for the doctrine of the perseverence and preservation of the saints.Incidentally, this is (as you know) my preferred terminology for the "P" in TULIP, the Synod of Dordt and the incomparable Mr. Boettner notwithstanding.
Psalm 37: 28 -- For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
Those whom the Lord does of His own power covenant Himself to preserve, do then, by His grace, in their own daily sanctification most surely persevere. (Sola Dei Gloria)
To: Uriel1975
Ah...
If you guys want to return to Hebrews 10, perhaps a new thread would be better than this one.
Funny how Hebrews 10:14 was so meaningful to a few people that they never mentioned it or quoted it prior to a certain disagreement.
Merely an observation.
To: Jerry_M; George W. Bush; Uriel1975; the_doc; CCWoody
To my brothers in Christ..
I pray that any division that exists is taken to the cross.
I believe God speaks to each of us in His time and His way..the difference between milk and meat and in being tossed to and fro,and standing firm.
I don't know do Calvinists worry that the devil could divide or is that covered by predestination?
All be blessed..
me
To: Uriel1975
persevere.Thought that was the P???
To: Don'tMessWithTexas
I think the Sacrament of Confirmation takes care of this; an infant is baptized but when the child becomes old enough to choose, Confirmation strenghtens Baptism. At least that's how we explain it in RCIA.
To: c. l. coffman
Thanks. I needed a smile. It was a long day.
To: Uriel1975
Serious question Uriel...not conversational.....are two words interchanged or interchangable? Perseverence / preservation of the saints.seems two differen meanings a bit..or are they seen as the same?
To: RnMomof7; Uriel1975
I think that Uriel covered it quite well with his earlier statements. Those who are
preserved will
persevere.
Preserved by His grace, persevering by His grace.
Is this so difficult to understand?
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. - Hebrews 10:14
150
posted on
11/03/2001 7:41:12 AM PST
by
Jerry_M
To: Jerry_M
Just thinking of perserveing as something some one does as opposed to something some one does for you,or to you..just a different "feel "to the language...didnt intend to get ya mad..it was a honest question! Won't bother ya again!
To: Uriel1975; George W. Bush
Bump for the lack of sleeping dogs...
152
posted on
11/03/2001 9:46:56 AM PST
by
CCWoody
To: George W. Bush; Jerry_M; the_doc
Besides we're all tired of talking about Hebrews 10 anyway. Well, I haven't; used it a few minutes ago. I shall never tire of any of His Words; they are sweeter than honey to my taste and a lamp for my feet. I also do not tire of any of His spiritual Gifts; they are all such blessings.
153
posted on
11/03/2001 9:53:51 AM PST
by
CCWoody
To: CCWoody
I'm a little surprised that you seem to think another discussion of Hebrews 10:14 is needed, given your previous remarks about letting sleeping dogs lie. I am assuming here that your statements were intended to be read at face value.
Do you honestly think that discussing Hebrews 10 again in our little circle (what remains of it anyway) would be of any use? I can't quite imagine it. For one thing, I don't think any of us can be persuaded of another's position. If that is true, then we could only expect rancor from such a profitless discussion, something Paul warned Timothy to avoid. I genuinely doubt that anyone has any fresh material./Well, I guess I actually do but it's only more of the sort of evidence already rejected by you Fourteenists so it would be of little use to post it.
To: George W. Bush
I'm a little surprised that you seem to think another discussion of Hebrews 10:14 is needed, given your previous remarks about letting sleeping dogs lie. I am assuming here that your statements were intended to be read at face value. Discussion is not what I had in mind. This is why I am in support of not having any sleeping dogs and in agreement with Uriel1975.
155
posted on
11/03/2001 10:39:32 AM PST
by
CCWoody
To: CCWoody
You say such nice things, Woody.
I doubt that you are actually are in agreement with Uriel in the way you indicate but he can speak for himself if he wants.
Comment #157 Removed by Moderator
Comment #158 Removed by Moderator
To: Faith_j
Points well-taken. However, modern Baptists of whatever doctrinal stripe are not considered anabaptist. But thank you for your posts; they were very interesting. I like discussions of church history very much.
To: Faith_j
anabaptist means someone who baptises again.I was baptised as an infant and rebaptised as an adult believer..althought I belong to a Wesleyan church one poster said I was an anabaptist..I have no problem with that!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-162 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson