RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Please elaborate...
Give the supper to everyone who is Baptized.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please elaborate...
I thought it was Paedobaptism leads to FV, not paedocommunion? I am a former Reformed Baptist and I am not FV. Nor do I hold to paedocommunion. Most of the paedocommunion guys I know were former Presbyterian who went FV.
Isn't that how the FV came to the conclusion of Baptismal regeneration?FV reject the inner/outer distinction of the Covenant. Baptists are somewhat similar since everyone who is elect is in the New Covenant simpliciter.
Give the supper to everyone who is Baptized.
Isn't that how the FV came to the conclusion of Baptismal regeneration?
Give the supper to everyone who is Baptized.
Did you understand his response to you? Both Baptists and PC advocates say something very similar, at least on the surface: Give the Supper to all the baptized. Referencing a PC advocate arguing that there's logic to his position (as flowing from PB) is merely confirmatory.That's too simplistic and a non sequitur, as witnessed by the fact that the vast, vast majority of baptists are not PC (are there any?), while virtually all PC are peadobaptists, regardless of any former affiliations. To even begin to establish your claim it would have to be statistically substantiated that "most" PC are in fact former baptists. Then it would further need to be established that your proposed rationale was indeed the basis for those particular PB's reasoning on the matter. You can actually read a PC argue there is a logical connection between PC and PB here (starting with question 2).
We allow those who have been saved and walking in the light with the Lord, having confessed their sins, to partake of the ordinance with us. Believers Baptism required for membership, but not to partake at the Lords Supper.That is most certainly not a Baptist position.
The "Standard Baptist Position" on the Lord's Supper and who should get it is pretty much the same as the non-FV Presbyterian position:
1. Baptized person who is
2. capable of self-examination.
If that is NOT the non-FV Presbyterian view of who should take the Supper, please correct me.
there is no Baptist view on BR, as we would all deny it as being in the scriptures.Sort of, but the difference between the FV definition of Baptismal Regeneration and the Reformed Baptist definition of Baptismal Regeneration is like the difference between creamy peanut butter and sour cream.
Did you understand his response to you? Both Baptists and PC advocates say something very similar, at least on the surface: Give the Supper to all the baptized. Referencing a PC advocate arguing that there's logic to his position (as flowing from PB) is merely confirmatory.
You can actually read a PC argue there is a logical connection between PC and PB
Perhaps I didn't. I took the interaction to be as follows:
1 The original assertion was "most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal."
2. I asked for elaboration, assuming a response would pertain to both aspects of the assertion, which in my reading seem to be connected - 1) those who hold the position (mostly former baptists) and 2) why they hold the position (per the response, because they follow the paradigm of "giv[ing] the supper to everyone who is Baptized.")
3. Hence my response.
I'm certainly open to being shown any possible disconnects in my understanding here.
Ipso facto, there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists.
there is no Baptist view on BR
I agree that we have a definition of it, but you seemed to imply that we hold somehow to it. Sorry if I misunderstood you.This is simply not true. You think Baptists are totally lacking in any kind of definition for what Baptismal Regeneration is and what it looks like???
Just because Baptists don't hold to the doctrine doesn't mean we don't have a definition for it.
And, as an aside, you are totally not helping even one bit.
If PC was actually persuasive to men with a clear and firm grasp of the historic Reformed-covenantal hermeneutic, we would have long since seen serious church splits and reconfigured Standards. Where are those examples?I just don't see this as an ipso facto result. Your logic provides a plausible theory, and perhaps its accurate, but I guess I would need to see some substantiation of the quantitative part of the assertion. Do we really know that there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists? That's the part that's throwing me. It's a central aspect of the original assertion, but as of now it's entirely unsubstantiated.
I agree that we have a definition of it, but you seemed to imply that we hold somehow to it. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
As to the logic of my theory, you may brush it off as mere rationalism.
I didn't mean by my language to come across as peeved. Your language seemed dismissive, largely on the basis of a lack of counted noses, doubled checked for accuracy. Empiricism vs Rationalism. Let's agree that it would be ideal to bring together reason and test data. I'll repent if you will.How does this even accord with my saying your logic has theoretical plausibility and might even be correct? Seems a bit testy.
I'll repent if you will.
Jacob has lived experience at AAPC. I have my own anecdotal engagements. So, you do have the witness of two men, that of those acquaintances we've known who have tested the PC stance or gone all in, to the degree we've known their backgrounds/trajectories most such people had not spent very long settled in confessional P&R convictions (re. sacramentology).
The Baptist paradigm views both sacraments (or ordinances) as confirmation: baptism as a personal faith affirmation, just as much as it may initiate the baptized into formal membership followed by future confirmations by the LS.
If your hermeneutic already reads the sacs/ords as indivisible, then those who adopt PB and persist in the a priori that the sacs/ords are indivisible could reasonably come to the conclusion that consistency presumes the validity of PC.
Well,It is objected that paedobaptists are strangely inconsistent in dispensing baptism to infants and yet refusing to admit them to the Lord’s table … At the outset it should be admitted that if paedobaptists are inconsistent in this discrimination, then the relinquishment of infant baptism is not the only way of resolving the inconsistency. It could be resolved by going in the other direction, namely, that of admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper. And when all factors entering into this dispute are taken into account, particularly the principle involved in infant baptism, then far less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism. This will serve to point up the significance of infant baptism in the divine economy of grace. (Christian Baptism, P&R, 1980, pp. 73-74)
Covenant overload.In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.
Duh in my other post is facetious referring to the Wright bit, not you or your ignorance of the FV beliefs. I used it for rhetorical effect.In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.
Apologia (as Baptists) partnering with FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues
I am concerned, not because I think Apologia is necessarily embracing neonomian FV, but because they are looking to neonomian FV to understand the kingdom of God and its relation to culture... which necessarily has ramifications, intended or not, manifested yet, or not.
I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.
In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.
It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).
I'll leave it at that for now.
Sarah,In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.
Joe Boot founded and heads the Ezra Institute in Grimsby, Ontario. Andrew Sandlin is involved with that group as a faculty member of the Evan Runner International Academy for Cultural Leadership.I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.
In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.
It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).
So they see the NC installed in Eden?I am concerned, not because I think Apologia is necessarily embracing neonomian FV, but because they are looking to neonomian FV to understand the kingdom of God and its relation to culture... which necessarily has ramifications, intended or not, manifested yet, or not.
I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.
In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.
It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).
I'll leave it at that for now.