John UK wrote:Got it, ta DJC49Well, I don't know what this 'sign and the seal of their acceptance into the physical church' means.As far as I know, Roger, there is no belief in baptism being a continuation or fulfillment of the OT circumcision.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were "SEALED" with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
John: Even the Baptists that held to the 1649 Confessing accepted the fact that Baptism was the physical act or :SIGN: of one being accepted into the physical church. They beleived that circumcism was the O.T. sign and the seal of the covenent of promise, and Baptism is the sign and the seal of the New Convenant.
rogerant wrote:I have a question for Baptists however, do your churches serve communion meal to their children, those who have not received the sign and the seal of their acceptance into the physical chruch? And do they have any concern about God's intention to kill Moses for not giving the sign of the seal to his own son? Exodus 4:24?
Well, I don't know what this 'sign and the seal of their acceptance into the physical church' means.
However, all 1689 Baptist churches hold to 'believers baptism', in which case only the converted are baptised. Normally, this baptism after conversion is entrance into church membership, giving the member a voice in the running of the church.
As far as I know, Roger, there is no belief in baptism being a continuation or fulfillment of the OT circumcision.
rogerant wrote:..........I have a question for Baptists however, do your churches serve communion meal to their children, those who have not received the sign and the seal of their acceptance into the physical chruch? And do they have any concern about God's intention to kill Moses for not giving the sign of the seal to his own son? Exodus 5:24?
John UK wrote:Amen! It's simple really, but so many churches want to play God and restrict communion.
I have a question for Baptists however, do your churches serve communion meal to their children, those who have not received the sign and the seal of their acceptance into the physical chruch? And do they have any concern about God's intention to kill Moses for not giving the sign of the seal to his own son? Exodus 5:24?
Faithful Remnant wrote:Thanks John for your response. So are you of the Calvinistic Methodist persuasion? I find the name rather intriguing and read about them to learn more.
The history of the CM's is fascinating and I've recently read a book about them myself, as I joined with a CM church (Presbyterian Church of Wales) for about 18 months. As you will have read, the original Methodists were all members of the anglican communion, including George Whitefield, John & Charles Wesley, Howell Harris, and many others. But churches formed by the preaching of these men eventually separated, and formed new denominations according to their understanding.
But no, I'm not of the CM persuasion, rather a 1689 Baptist as epitomised by John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, and lately Peter Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Unfortunately, it is these churches who hold a restricted communion table. Maybe I should settle down somewhere instead of travelling all over the place.
Faithful Remnant wrote:Open to all believers. A simple confession of "I believe Jesus is the Son of God" from the eunuch was all that Phillip needed to baptize him and I believe it is all that is needed to be welcomed at Communion.
It is interesting that Howell Harris, one of the early pioneers of the Calvinstic Methodists was actually converted during a communion service.
The idea of making it a members only tradition seems, to me, to be missing the point of remembering Christ's sacrifice for ALL of us.
Anyone out there with similar ideas?
Minnow wrote:I don't accept this idea of "card-carrying" members only, having privileges and rights within the Lord's house, to the exclusion of other Christians or even genuine seekers.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1 Corinthians 11 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
preacherjond. wrote:1."Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:"2."The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 3."If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."4."But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.""Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."
derek wrote:MichaelMy bad I didn't read close enough.
Blessings
btw I is an wonderfull blessing to meet a young child who is truly born again and is growing in their love for Jesus Christ....and that would include the privilege of taking the Lord's Table with them.
My bad I didn't read close enough.
derek wrote:Michael:"btw Somehow I just do not believe that the Holy Ghost fell upon any infants present to where they spoke in tongues and I do not believe Peter commanded any infants there to be baptized, just believers."So - children can't be believers?Maybe this is a problem of deffinition and we need to define our terms. I find it hard to believe that a child under 5 years old understands he is lost, but who's to say it isn't possible? It surprises me that those who believe there is no cognative aspect to salvation will cut it off for children because they haven't the cognative ability to comprehend their lostness. Ir God has choosed whom he wills to be saved, who's to say he didn't save them at a 4 or 5 years old? How old was Samuel when the Holy Spirit began to speak to him?
btw I wasn't addressing the reality that very young children can know the difference between right and wrong, can know they are a sinner and have sinned against God and are guilty before Him and can also believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.
"btw Somehow I just do not believe that the Holy Ghost fell upon any infants present to where they spoke in tongues and I do not believe Peter commanded any infants there to be baptized, just believers."
So - children can't be believers?Maybe this is a problem of deffinition and we need to define our terms. I find it hard to believe that a child under 5 years old understands he is lost, but who's to say it isn't possible? It surprises me that those who believe there is no cognative aspect to salvation will cut it off for children because they haven't the cognative ability to comprehend their lostness. Ir God has choosed whom he wills to be saved, who's to say he didn't save them at a 4 or 5 years old? How old was Samuel when the Holy Spirit began to speak to him?
GG wrote:PreacherJonD: 1. If I am being lied to, why won't God give me a "Damascus Moment" and show me the truth? 2. Could it me that you believe that I was created for destruction...by a loving God? 3. If I am being lied to, as you say you were, where is my sin? I am acting in good faith. 4. I alway pray that God show me his actual truth regardless of denomination. Do you pray the same way?
