Sorry for the error, Davo. I wouldn't want to be known as an Amill either (can Ebenezer take a joke?). I am not saying that there are no reformed baptist. I am just saying that to me it seems contradictory to be baptist and hold to reformed theology. I would think one would leave the baptist distinctive of immersion and begin paedobaptism (I have met a few by the way).

Perhaps for another thread ...

I see no Biblical reason for "the baptist distinctive of immersion." I have always understood the baptist distinction to be baptism of believers. Affusion is a Scriptural method of baptism, is evident from the various baptisms of Hebrews 9.

Affusion corresponds to the sprinkled blood & the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Immersion is inferred from burial with Christ, but is not specifically taught. We have not been given a specific procedure for baptism, as we have with communion.

This should not distract this thread.

Tue Jun 03
Ebenezer, I am going to respond to your last post, but I want to give other the chance to speak up if they want to.
We're waiting.

Davo, I often am wrong so it doesn't surprise me. And don't get me wrong, I am glad that you aren't sprinkling infants. It is just rare, at least here in the states for Amill's. My point, however, was that I believe Reformed Theology usually comes in a package deal - Covenant Theology, hyper-Calvinism, allegorical hermeneutic, preterism, and paedobaptism. Eventually, if allowed to run its course, it leads to the entire system including paedobaptism.

"Hyper-Calvinism, allegorical hermeneutic, preterism" are not integral to the Reformed faith. Hypercalvinism is an aberration from Calvinism, & the Reformers were not preterists, as they took a historical line & saw the Pope as the antichrist.

Personally, I think the concept of a Reformed Baptist church or the likes is a contradiction (half tongue & cheek). Any form of replacement theology, displacement theology, realized eschatology, and the likes seems most likely to take what was in the OT (circumcission) and transfer it to the NT (baptism). That is the primary arguement for most Amill's & all Covenantalist who hold to paedobaptism. Again, I am glad you folks have got that one right . If only you could apply the same hermeneutical principles that you employed to your view of baptism to the rest of Scriptures, you would be a Dispo in no time (gotta have a little fun w/ ya )!

There is no possibility of the hermeneutical principles that lead to Covenant Theology & believers' baptism leading to Dispensationalism. We are guided by Scripture, so we do not led imagination run riot. As you have seen (I hope) in the discussion on the so-called "rapture" we need first to see how Gabriel's 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled in 490 years. Davo & I have shown you from Scripture that there is not the slightest reason for inserting a 2,000 year gap so making 70 weeks 350+ weeks.

The reasons given are that Jesus did not finish his saving work on the cross. He did.

Jhn 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Edited only for colour.

This post was last modified: Fri Jun 06, 2008 07:33 AM by Ebenezer.

It sounds like you are letting culture dictate your ministry practices. Does that seem backwards to anyone else? Ministry practices should be based on a solid theological foundation built from the Word of God. I understand what you are saying. But why do we think that our methods are superior to God's? It sounds a lot like your philosophy of baptism of families are 'the ends justify the means.'

Leave it - it was an aside. Scripture does record household baptisms (though I would argue against paedobaptists that there is no indication that babies were included (nor excluded) & that evidence of faith was shown by said households. Paul circumcised Timothy for "cultural reasons." He even got involved with temple sacrifices, though the Lord had him arrested before he could make them.

I don't think you can build a case for cultural reasons by comparing circumcision of Timothy to baptism. One is a church ordinance and the other is being all things to all men. As Brother Tim likes to say, apples and oranges.

I didn't mean to offend though. I will leave it at that. We can discuss the Amill issue again.

I was really hoping someone else would speak up and get in the conversation. I don't mind it being only 2 ways, but it is more fun with more interaction from others. Jim made a good point in the past - it seems that talking about the Bible is more interesting to people than talking about things found within the Bible.