Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 97
Joined: April 2013
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,296
Posts53,247
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,043
Tom 4,044
chestnutmare 3,086
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 22
Tom 9
Robin 5
Johan 3
Readin 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
The Nick-name Calvinism
by Robin - Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:11 PM
Natural Theology
by Anthony C. - Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:47 AM
Wilderness Wealth
by NetChaplain - Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:57 AM
Your opinion please
by Johan - Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:03 AM
True of False
by NetChaplain - Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:26 PM
Natural Theology 2
by Pilgrim - Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:41 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 10 of 11 1 2 8 9 10 11
J_Edwards #14177 Mon May 10, 2004 8:28 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Hi Joe,
Sorry for not replying sooner; I missed your post.
What I would like to see are answers to Gerry's posts of May 6th, 8-16; May 7th 6-17 and May 7th 9-50. It may be that you feel that these have already been answered (and the thread has grown so large and unwieldy that I may have missed it), but I'd be obliged if you'd humour me by dealing with Gerry's points. It does seem to me that he has put his finger on the weakness of the PB covenant structure.

Every blessing,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
Pilgrim #14178 Mon May 10, 2004 9:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Hate to jump in here, but I couldn't ignore the logic in this post.

Quote
Pilgrim said:
For example, one of the situations I am thinking of is one of the "signs" posted down at the hydro plant; KEEP OUT - High voltage. Now, the placard seen is the "outward sign" (no pun intended) of an "inward reality" (the high voltage). But again, using but not pressing in any way whatsosever, your "logic", to the one who believes that there is serious danger involved with that equipment, the sign truly signifies the reality of that high voltage. But if one refuses to believe there is danger, then the sign is "effectively void", i.e., what the sign says is untrue.

No it isn't. If I see a sign that says "High Voltage," I'm going to assume that there's high voltage back there. If I randomly refuse to accept that there is high voltage back there, does that in any way affect the real facts? If, however, I have good reason to doubt that there was high voltage back there (i.e. lets say my friend worked for the power co. and told me it had been shut down), I might start to doubt the sign, but only because I doubted the "inward reality" first. This is fair.

Quote
Or we could look at it in another way and see the same illogic of it. If the sign says there is High Voltage and there is indeed high voltage there, then the sign is true; i.e., it is an "outward sign" of the "inward reality". But if there is no high voltage, then the "outward sign" is no sign at all for there is no "inward reality".

Yes, it's still a sign, just a lying sign. If I were to baptize Howard Stern in his present state, all the phycicalities of the sign would be there- the water, etc.- but it wouldn't mean anything. It would be a sign that said "High Voltage" when none was there. In this case, I would call up the guy who hung the sign, and complain, because it isn't telling the truth and is misleading.

Quote
The problem isn't with the sign and its inability to communicate a truth; a reality, but with your understanding of how a sign functions. Baptism IS a sign of a reality. But that reality is not to be found in the SUBJECT(IVE) realm, e.g., the recipient of the sign but in the OBJECTIVE truth; i.e., God saves believing sinners by the washing away of their sins in Christ's blood. The sign is ALWAYS and FOREVER true, regardless of who receives the sign, for the reality is the promise of God which can never change. The application of what the sign signifies does vary dependent upon whether or not the person being baptized has faith. But again, the "sign of the covenant" does not change since it does not find its meaning and/or significance in the subjectivity of the recipient, but rather in the immutable promise of God and the reality of Christ's accomplished substitutionary atonement in behalf of the elect. In short, Baptism IS "an outward sign" but of an "outward reality", which may demonstrate what belongs to the person being baptized should they have faith.

Now you're taking a huge leap, by saying that "High Voltage" signs aren't a sign of the subjective reality of that one particular station having high voltage, but of the objective reality that all real power stations everywhere have high voltage. If this were the case, I could hang a "High Voltage" sign over my bedroom door, or the neighbour's doghouse, and it wouldn't be a problem. Hey, we could hang 'em everywhere- at every street corner! In every restaraunt! It would be awesome, because it would continue to proclaim to everyone the objective reality that all real power stations have high voltage. What would be more wonderful?

And what it does, is makes the signs in front of real power stations mean absolutely nothing anymore.


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Henry #14179 Mon May 10, 2004 9:51 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Quote
Henry quips:
Hate to jump in here, but I couldn't ignore the logic in this post. . . .
I see another one can't seem to grasp what is so simple: Baptists define baptism in such a way that it is no definition at all because the definition changes depending upon the recipient of baptism. Thus, in plain English, Baptists have no definition that is valid to describe what baptism MEANS. You all adamantly say baptism IS, "an outward sign of an inward reality". Okay fine... so by DEFINITION when I see the sign there MUST BE that "inward reality" existing in the person being baptized. If there is no reality, then baptism is NOT "an outward sign of an inward reality". Thus the definition is false.

It's a universal maxim: "Something cannot be and not be at the same time!" grin

I think I have gone through this simple little lesson far too many times at this point. If you or any other Baptist doesn't "get it" now, then I fear nothing I could say further on this particular point will be worth the effort. This is mostly due to another maxim: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I already have my mind made up!" rofl

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Henry #14180 Mon May 10, 2004 11:32 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Henry:

Thanks for pointing out the glaring errors in the reasoning of Pilgrims post.

It is comforting to know that someone else sees them and has the courage of their convictions to say so.

In Him,

Gerry

grace2U #14181 Mon May 10, 2004 5:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
[/quote]
Quote
grace2U said:
Hi Joe,
Sorry for not replying sooner; I missed your post.
What I would like to see are answers to Gerry's posts of May 6th, 8-16; May 7th 6-17 and May 7th 9-50. It may be that you feel that these have already been answered (and the thread has grown so large and unwieldy that I may have missed it), but I'd be obliged if you'd humour me by dealing with Gerry's points. It does seem to me that he has put his finger on the weakness of the PB covenant structure.

Every blessing,
Steve
Steve,

Please give me the specific questions you desire answered. Begin a separate post for them that way we do not have go through 200 posts to determine what you desire??? Dates like May 6th, 8-16; May Th 6-17 and May 7th 9-50 are no help at all. I am assuming that by 8-16 you mean 8:16 a time, but I see no posts matching with with those times. Thus, please if you have a specific question begin a new thread and ask the question.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Pilgrim #14182 Tue May 11, 2004 12:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Quote
Pilgrim said:
I see another one can't seem to grasp what is so simple: Baptists define baptism in such a way that it is no definition at all because the definition changes depending upon the recipient of baptism. Thus, in plain English, Baptists have no definition that is valid to describe what baptism MEANS. You all adamantly say baptism IS, "an outward sign of an inward reality". Okay fine... so by DEFINITION when I see the sign there MUST BE that "inward reality" existing in the person being baptized. If there is no reality, then baptism is NOT "an outward sign of an inward reality". Thus the definition is false.

It's a universal maxim: "Something cannot be and not be at the same time!" grin

I think I have gone through this simple little lesson far too many times at this point. If you or any other Baptist doesn't "get it" now, then I fear nothing I could say further on this particular point will be worth the effort. This is mostly due to another maxim: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I already have my mind made up!" rofl
In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

With all due respect (because there's a lot!) please go back and read my post and the arguments I made. If I didn't know better, it would appear that your doctinal position was blinding your ability to see plain logic, at least in this instance.


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Henry #14183 Tue May 11, 2004 8:27 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Quote
please go back and read my post and the arguments I made. If I didn't know better, it would appear that your doctinal position was blinding your ability to see plain logic, at least in this instance.
You are right about this one thing, brother.... it is plain logic (common sense even) that is behind and consistent with my doctrinal position which is firmly based upon my understanding of the Scriptures. I do not have a presupposition which bifurcates Israel and the Church, the Covenant(s), etc., into neat little separate discontinuitous compartments (aka: Dispensational hermeneutic). My biblical theology is linear and progressive. grin

My argument is sound. If it were not, then we could know nothing with certainty for everything would exist in a state of flux depending upon certain mutable conditions. So, by definition, I may be a man today but not tomorrow, depending if certain conditions are present. rolleyes2 The onus is upon Baptists to show how their "definition" of baptism can be and not be a "sign" of a "reality". It simply doesn't make any sense... sorry

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #14184 Tue May 11, 2004 9:07 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Quote
The onus is upon Baptists to show how their "definition" of baptism can be and not be a "sign" of a "reality". It simply doesn't make any sense...

I clarified this misunderstanding quite clearly in my post when I talked about the "High Voltage" signs hung on a power station where there was none at all- i.e. the Howard Stern example. I'm suprised that didn't make sense- it sure does to this anylitical mind.

I would say there is an onus upon you, or any other paedobaptist, to answer the subtle challenge here:

Quote
Now you're taking a huge leap, by saying that "High Voltage" signs aren't a sign of the subjective reality of that one particular station having high voltage, but of the objective reality that all real power stations everywhere have high voltage. If this were the case, I could hang a "High Voltage" sign over my bedroom door, or the neighbour's doghouse, and it wouldn't be a problem. Hey, we could hang 'em everywhere- at every street corner! In every restaraunt! It would be awesome, because it would continue to proclaim to everyone the objective reality that all real power stations have high voltage. What would be more wonderful?

And what it does, is makes the signs in front of real power stations mean absolutely nothing anymore.


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Henry #14185 Tue May 11, 2004 12:03 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Quote
I would say there is an onus upon you, or any other paedobaptist, to answer the subtle challenge here:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you're taking a huge leap, by saying that "High Voltage" signs aren't a sign of the subjective reality of that one particular station having high voltage, but of the objective reality that all real power stations everywhere have high voltage. If this were the case, I could hang a "High Voltage" sign over my bedroom door, or the neighbour's doghouse, and it wouldn't be a problem. Hey, we could hang 'em everywhere- at every street corner! In every restaraunt! It would be awesome, because it would continue to proclaim to everyone the objective reality that all real power stations have high voltage. What would be more wonderful?

And what it does, is makes the signs in front of real power stations mean absolutely nothing anymore.
One last comment and then igiveup

Your remarks above simply illustrate my point, and thanks for doing so, that Baptists want to DEFINE baptism on the a foundation of shifting sand, i.e., the subjective, the spiritual state of the individual. This is impossible due to the very nature of the case. In your illustration, you balk at the truth that "High Voltage" means just what it says... HIGH VOLTAGE. The fact that the "sign" is misplaced doesn't diminish what the "sign" means. Paedobaptists are more correct to DEFINE baptism by what it truly is; a "sign" of the redemption of sinners secured by the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Christ. Regardless of who the recipient is, it always and forever means the same. You are confusing the reality of that which baptism signifies with the application of that reality to individuals. In so doing, as averagefellar has many times tried and failed to communicate, one must be able to know incontrovertibly that the person being baptized in fact does possess that which baptism signifies; i.e., the "inward reality" of faith. However, few if any Baptists, will ever agree that this is possible. That can clearly be evidenced from the comments made by Baptists on this Board throughout these discussions. They all admit that there are false professors who receive baptism. Thus the definition given to baptism is untrue, false, meaningless, spurious, useless.... agnostic. One simply cannot know the meaning of baptism as Baptists are want to define it because, 1) it depends upon a variable, 2) the variable is impossible to know infallibly.

So, now I must make my leave of this discussion as I cannot see where anything I could add would be of any benefit. Having studied at a Baptist seminary, I am fully aware of the position and how it is derived. It never did ring true to me and I would venture to say, it never will. And, as I have often said, I find errors on both sides. Consequently, I am targeted by both and thus I have found it most prudent just to sit back and watch the two sides throw stones at each other and expend my energy in more fruitful endeavors. grin

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Henry #14186 Tue May 11, 2004 1:44 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Henry,
I think that the better question is about Who are the "worthy recipients" of baptism, instead of the matter of how we define it . Your point made sense to me and I cannot understand why it doesn't to others.
A wedding ring is a sign that a vow has taken place between a man and a woman who have become one flesh in God's sight. This sign could be worn by an unmarried woman or man in order to give an appearance that they are married, even if they are not. It could also be given to a man by his homosexual lover at a "civil ceremony" yet, in both these instances, the sign means nothing at all about the person's state of being truly married. There is nothing wrong with the sign, but the ones who are wearing it are "unworthy recipients" and it communicates a lie about their state. To the worthy recipients, the sign of the wedding ring given as a token of their commitment shows their true condition, that they are truly married. To Abraham whose heart was circumcized, circumcision was a seal of righteousness. To Ishmael whose heart was uncircumcised, it was not a seal of righteousness to him. If a person was not circumcised at heart, their circumcision meant nothing. Likewise baptism given to someone who is a false professor means nothing like the instance of Simon the sorceror.

Pilgrim #14187 Tue May 11, 2004 6:27 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
So what about this Pilgrim?
Baptism, for the worthy recipient, is a sign and seal of an inward reality.

Can we all agree with that definition? We will still disagree about what a "worthy recipient" is though and could discuss that till the cows come home. argue

#14188 Tue May 11, 2004 6:54 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Quote
Susan said:
So what about this Pilgrim?
Baptism, for the worthy recipient, is a sign and seal of an inward reality.

Can we all agree with that definition? We will still disagree about what a "worthy recipient" is though and could discuss that till the cows come home. argue
[Linked Image] For the very reason you state after the question. rolleyes2 Why? This is insufficient to qualify as a definition because you simply cannot know the spiritual state of the "worthy recipient". What I will agree to is this: "Baptism is a sign and seal of an inward reality to and of a true believer." grin This qualifies because it is OBJECTIVELY true in any and all cases.

As a paedobaptist; one who rejects all forms of presumption of the salvation of covenant children, who I believe are "worthy recipients", what you propose would mean that every single infant/child who is baptized is saved. This is nothing more than the same error Baptists make in their insistence that baptism IS "an outward sign of an inward reality"! rofl

Now, I violated my own decision to further my involvement here. stupidme This is my final response .... honest! :laugh

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #14189 Tue May 11, 2004 7:03 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
"Baptism is a sign and seal of an inward reality to and of a true believer."
Yes, I see the problem with my definition when applied to the paedo view. Yours sounds fine to me! BigThumbUp

Anonymous #56546 Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:11 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Pedo Baptists claim infant baptism replaces circumcision in the OT. If this is true, why can't we say if you are baptized as an infant, Christ will profit you nothing? Just as Paul, when he says says “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” Galatians 5:2 (KJV 1900)

042Dave #56547 Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:18 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,043
Likes: 13
Perhaps you are not understanding what circumcision actually signified in the OT? scratchchin The Judaisers in the NT made a fundamental error in assuming that circumcision was inextricably bound to one's salvation, aka: justification by faith + works. Nowhere in Scripture can it be found that "infant baptism replaces circumcision". What Scripture says is:

Quote
Acts 7:8 (ASV) 8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so [Abraham] begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac [begat] Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.

Romans 2:25-28 (ASV) 25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. 26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? 27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:

Galatians 6:13-15 (ASV) 13 For not even they who receive circumcision do themselves keep the law; but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. 14 But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Colossians 2:11-14 (ASV) 11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, [I say], did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; 14 having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;
You are new here and have no clue as to what some of us paedobaptists believe in regard to the definition/meaning of baptism. It does NOT signify the actual salvation of ANYONE. It is rather a symbol; visual representation of the Gospel, i.e., that just as the water of baptism removes the dirt from the body, so does Christ's blood cleanse one's soul of sin... TO ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH!. Thus, baptizing an infant does NOT indicate the infant is saved or will be saved. And no less true, an adult who is baptized, that baptism does NOT indicate the salvation of that individual. IF one wishes to disagree, then the incontrovertible argument is... EVERYONE without exception who is baptized IS infallibly saved. Capisce? grin

NOTE: There are two perspectives that one MUST take into account on this matter: 1) the objective, and 2) the subjective. The first is "what is" and the second is "what applies to an individual".

Do a search on this Board and on the website for discussions on baptism if you like and articles at the latter for a thorough informed presentation. Because of the nature of that topic and the 'heat' which typically results, I have made it clear here over the years that debates on this subject should not be encouraged.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 10 of 11 1 2 8 9 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 113 guests, and 24 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
October
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,293,957 Gospel truth