General Question for the Site

[theend0218]

I am not actively involved in a reformed church - is it ok to post and respond to posts here? I think I read somewhere that if we were not a part of a church we could only ask questions in these denominational formus. Let me know, or should I PM a moderator? Thanks.

[Antman_05]

Well if you hold to a reformed theology, i don't see how it matters about what church you go to. As if a question is asked we give a reformed answer.

[Jon_]

I am not actively involved in a reformed church - is it ok to post and respond to posts here? I think I read somewhere that if we were not a part of a church we could only ask questions in these denominational formus. Let me know, or should I PM a moderator? Thanks.
Yeah, you can post, brother. You just have to profess Reformed Theology. Breaking that down is a little bit harder. I think the lowest common denominator ought to be Calvinist soteriology and Covenant Theology, but I don't know what the official stance is. Suffice to say that if you are a Calvinist, feel free to join us.

(For the record, I don't attend a "Reformed" church, either. It's non-denominational.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Elderone]

(For the record, I don't attend a "Reformed" church, either. It's non-denominational.)


One of the best "Reformed, Calvinist" churches I know of is the non-demoninational in Geauga, Ohio which is pastored by Alistair Begg. If you have a chance to hear his radio program I recommend it as very solid teaching. Here is their webb address http://www.truthforlife.org/

[theend0218]

Thanks to one and all. I feel welcome even if not chosen. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I am a living testimony against free-will.

[Jon_]

Thanks to one and all. I feel welcome even if not chosen. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I am a living testimony against free-will.
You and me (and I'm sure everyone else would agree) both, brother! :D

Praise God from whom all blessings flow: including faith!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Jon_]

One of the best "Reformed, Calvinist" churches I know of is the non-demoninational in Geaugia, Ohio which is pastored by Alister Begg. If you have a chance to hear his radio program I recommend it as very solid teaching. Here is their webb address http://www.truthforlife.org/
(http://www.truthforlife.org/)
Thanks for the link, Roger. It will be great to see what other nondenominational "Calvinist" churches are doing across the country. I guess the new-wave thing is to be covertly Calvinist. We'll have Arminians converting in droves and they won't even realize that predestination, which they once abhorred, is now a staple point of their doctrine. :thumbsup:

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Elderone]

I guess the new-wave thing is to be covertly Calvinist.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon


Rev. Begg is a Scotchman and very up front with the TULIP, etc. My mother lived a few miles from his church but my wife and I didn't have the opportunity to attend anytime we were in the area.

Anyone who appreciates no holds barred, straight talking Biblical teaching will thoroughly enjoy him; however, being a Scotchman myself I may be a bit prejudice.

[Jon_]

Rev. Begg is a Scotchman and very up front with the TULIP, etc. My mother lived a few miles from his church but my wife and I didn't have the opportunity to attend anytime we were in the area.

Anyone who appreciates no holds barred, straight talking Biblical teaching will thoroughly enjoy him; however, being a Scotchman myself I may be a bit prejudice.
Well, I'm Scottish myself, so it looks like we've got yet another thing in common. :)

I really like the no-holds-barred Biblical teaching, though. That is precisely what our new pastor is going for with our new church. I am really excited about it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Behe's Boy]

Have you guys heard of Soverign Grace ministries? You can check them out here: www.soverigngrace.com (http://www.soverigngrace.com) These churches are popping up everywhere - they seem pretty solid to me - I'm growing interested in what these guys are doing. I know that one of the top dogs - C. J. Mahaney is closely associated with John Piper - though I think his view of Calvinism is a bit more in line with the Canons of Dort than Piper's is. Anyway - does anyone know of this and have any thoughts?

[Elderone]

They appear to be Baptist in nature with believers baptism and immersion.

Those aren't my beliefs.

[CoffeeSwirls]

Just another thing about Allister Begg, his sermons are all at oneplace.com, as are several others. I believe there is a podcast function, and you can keep up to date with any preacher on the site through rss.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/truth_for_life/

[cygnusx1]

Have you guys heard of Soverign Grace ministries? You can check them out here: www.soverigngrace.com (http://www.soverigngrace.com/) These churches are popping up everywhere - they seem pretty solid to me - I'm growing interested in what these guys are doing. I know that one of the top dogs - C. J. Mahaney is closely associated with John Piper - though I think his view of Calvinism is a bit more in line with the Canons of Dort than Piper's is. Anyway - does anyone know of this and have any thoughts?

C J Mahaney is a Calvinist , he is also 'Pentecostal/Charismatic' ... but he is a great speaker and is really a man of deep integrity I believe.

I have one tape by him , it is one of my favs.

[Imblessed]

One of the best "Reformed, Calvinist" churches I know of is the non-demoninational in Geauga, Ohio which is pastored by Alistair Begg. If you have a chance to hear his radio program I recommend it as very solid teaching. Here is their webb address http://www.truthforlife.org/

OK, I'm really excited now. :clap: I've heard this guy a time or two on the radio while traveling and I absolutely loved him! He's the only radio preacher I've ever heard that I really enjoyed listening too. He's so no-nonsense and straight forward! Now I found out that not only is he "reformed, Calvinist" but his church is in OHIO?! I gotta find out where! whoo hoo! Gonna make a trip! :thumbsup:


Looked up where they are and so cool, it's only about two hours from me. I'm gonna have to drag my hubby there some weekend, just to hear Alistair preach in person! I'm sure he'll think I'm crazy, but it'll be cool.

[Elderone]

Hi Imblessed,

My wife and I did go past the church one Sunday morning as they were letting out. There were hundreds of cars so it could be called very large or possibly a mega-church. Also, Rev. Begg travels so it might be a good idea to call ahead to see if he is going to be in town, teaching, and at what service. It wouldn't surprise me if there are 2 or 3 assistant pastors.

If you get to hear him in person please give us a run down, as I think he is great also.

It would be nice if we had someone half as good as Rev. Begg less than an hours drive from our house. :sigh:

[Imblessed]

Hi Imblessed,

My wife and I did go past the church one Sunday morning as they were letting out. There were hundreds of cars so it could be called very large or possibly a mega-church. Also, Rev. Begg travels so it might be a good idea to call ahead to see if he is going to be in town, teaching, and at what service. It wouldn't surprise me if there are 2 or 3 assistant pastors.

If you get to hear him in person please give us a run down, as I think he is great also.

It would be nice if we had someone half as good as Rev. Begg less than an hours drive from our house. :sigh:




Yes, from what I saw on the church site, it's a mega-church, but I'm used to that, since our church is also (although on the small side of mega ;))! And they so kindly put a list of when and where alistair is teaching so we wouldn't drive there in vain.

It'll be a few weeks, since I'll be spending all of next week at my mom's helping her shuttle all the grandkids to and from day camp. Off topic, but I'm really excited because my 5 year old gets to go this year, and it's the camp I went to every year from 2nd grade through graduation. It's so cool seeing the second generation of kids start going! :clap: I can't wait till he's old enough to do the overnight camp(3rd grade). It's a great Quaker camp, and going there really helped form a great faith basis for me.

But after I get back from there, I'm going to try to plan a trip up there, even if I have to go alone(but I bet I can get Matt to go-he heard him on the radio a couple of months ago coming home from a trip and actually told me to keep it on that station when I went to change it--the first time he's ever wanted to listen to a radio preacher--and he mentioned how good he was.)

I'll let you guys know....for sure!

[CoffeeSwirls]

Apparently Begg's Itinerary is so often requested that they put it on their website. This should help!
http://www.truthforlife.org/itinerary.php

[Behe's Boy]

They appear to be Baptist in nature with believers baptism and immersion.

Those aren't my beliefs.

Yea Roger -

They are indeed Baptist and I'm with you on that issue - as you well know.

I however do not consider it an "essential" in salvation and believe that guys like C. J. Mahaney have a lot to offer the church as a whole. I recently watched a DVD with him preaching on "election" and it completely blew me away. I was very impressed with his passion on the subject.

I happen to love and cherish the works of other reformed teachers who were Baptist such as Spurgeon, Gill and Pink - and can't in good conscious discredit their teaching and preaching because I disagree with them on their belief in Believer's Baptism.

[Elderone]

Hi Behe's Boy,

I agree that mode of baptism, or the baptism itself, is not an essential for salvation. I also am partial to A.W. Pink and continually use my John Gill commentary of the whole Bible.

My response should have been something to the effect that if I were looking for some teaching, "my" preference would be to search out the reformed Calvinistic people. If none of those were around a "reformed" teacher of another demonitation would work.

My aversion to "some" Baptists is that they believe Presbyterians carried over the Roman Church form of baptism and aren't very smart as to what the Bible teaches in regard to that, and maybe other things as well.

I do not hold the Roman Church in very high regard but they have some things right. Our previous pastor, who is thoroughly reformed, would say, "It is a sad state of affairs when the Church of Rome has more in common with us, meaning reformed, than the other protestant denominations."

Boy, this rant probably will get me thrown off the forum..........

[CoffeeSwirls]

Something I stumbled across the other day seems to carry the belief that believer's baptism is more in line with Jewish practices before John the Baptist.

Baptism: a conversion to Christianity? (http://5twenty8.com/shane/?p=84)



I'd be interested in hearing some responses to this, and if it belongs in another thread, I can repost.

[theend0218]

If I may weigh in on the baptism question:

I think immersion fits with Jewish (and other religions) custom, the descriptions of John's baptism, and the image of our union with Christ in His death and resurrection. However, I think a good case can be made for sprinkling as well both from the OT and from certain phrases in the NT when discussing our salvation.

Believer's baptism fits with the idea of conversion, and of the early practice of the Church as described in the NT. However, almost everyone would have been a convert at first, and thus believers prior to baptism. I think a good case can be made for infant baptism based on the covenant, and based on baptism being something of a sign of the new covenant. In this sense it can be seen in the light of circumcision in the OT. A common reformed position I think.

My conclusion is that when in doubt, the meaning of baptism is more important than the method or timing. If done in faith, I do not see how it matters whether one is immersed or sprinkled. If done by parents of faith within the community of faith, I think it can be a sign of a faith to come when performed on infants. In other words, I think if it mattered a great deal the NT would be more clear about the method and timing.

When believer's baptism was stressed by those who became "Baptists" sprinkling was not unknown among them. The insistence on "believer's baptism" is understandable when many in the Church are believed to be unconverted, but I often think this is but a sign of radical puritanism, as in "we must have a visible Church composed only of believers." I think this flies in the face of Jesus' parables in Matthew 13. If we accept that the Kingdom of God is the power and presence of God that creates the Church as the body of Christ, and the Church is one way the Kingdom of God continues to spread throughout the world then the visible Church must often be a mixed group.

A side note: those who insist on believer's baptism often practice "children's baptism" and it is difficult to believe that many of these children are not in a similar situation as that experienced by infants - marked with the sign of the covenant by believing parents within a community of faith. Too often, too, the insistence on rebaptizing in the Baptist Church tends to make baptism a way of joining "our church" rather than as a sign of faith in Christ. Evangelicalism in general, when practicing alter calls, makes "walking the aisle" the visible sign of conversion thus emptying baptism of its meaning. This simply reinforces the idea that baptism is the way to "join our church."

Sorry for the long post and rant.

[Elderone]

Sorry for the long post and rant.

Great post and rant !!! :thumbsup:

[CoffeeSwirls]

Very good points. I wonder if the basis on some of the "rebaptising" has to do with the Landmark Baptists. Just like Calvinists and Hypers, Baptists are all too often lumped into one stew that ends up tasting like a minority group within the category.

Just for the record, I'm not baptist. I was given a believer's baptism, but my parents did not have me sprinkled as a child. To be honest with you, I am just now exploring the joys of covenant theology.

[theend0218]

The baptist movement received its name originally because of their emphasis on baptizing again - initially being lumped in with an older heresy called "Anabaptists." From a somewhat modern perspective they are at times discussed as part of the Radical Reformation. What we now know as Baptists (regardless of type) tend to trace their roots back to the separatists movements, especially in England. As a strange example of how these groups worked one can look at John Smyth who baptized himself because he believed he could not find a pure church to unite with. I believe this happened around 1608. Some later joined the Mennonite movement. Most of these groups "poured" rather than immersed, but they did insist on baptizing those who had only been baptized as infants again - it was a form of "believer's baptism" but also, as we can see in one like John Symth, a form of puritanism (wanting a church comprised of "visible saints"). I do not think immersion became the norm until early 1640s. Most of the congregations were in England, and later New England, although there is some connection to Holland, but right now I cannot recall exactly what it was. The English Baptists that "fathered" the New England baptists were Calvinists in all but the sacraments and church government. You can still see this influence in most of the early baptists confessions of faith. I believe the Southern Baptists now have a group called the Founders who are trying to bring the Southern Baptists Convention (or the Churches afflicated with it) back to their Calvinists roots.

[CoffeeSwirls]

Great stuff to digest! I do believe that the mode is not the main thing, but you'd think that the Bible would have more clear-cut instructions regarding one of only two sacrements allowed.

[Behe's Boy]

Hi Behe's Boy,

I agree that mode of baptism, or the baptism itself, is not an essential for salvation. I also am partial to A.W. Pink and continually use my John Gill commentary of the whole Bible.

My response should have been something to the effect that if I were looking for some teaching, "my" preference would be to search out the reformed Calvinistic people. If none of those were around a "reformed" teacher of another demonitation would work.

My aversion to "some" Baptists is that they believe Presbyterians carried over the Roman Church form of baptism and aren't very smart as to what the Bible teaches in regard to that, and maybe other things as well.

I do not hold the Roman Church in very high regard but they have some things right. Our previous pastor, who is thoroughly reformed, would say, "It is a sad state of affairs when the Church of Rome has more in common with us, meaning reformed, than the other protestant denominations."

Boy, this rant probably will get me thrown off the forum..........




Yea Roger -

I agree with you on this - for the most part. I think that the similarities between Rome and the Reformed Churches on baptism end at the baby and the water.

I know what you mean about being considered an "idiot" in regards to the PB issue. Maybe I am - but I have to stick to what I think is the most biblical practice.

Dave

[Elderone]

Yea Roger -

I agree with you on this - for the most part. I think that the similarities between Rome and the Reformed Churches on baptism end at the baby and the water.
Dave


Hi Dave,

OOOOOOOps, I should have been more specific about the Roman Baptism, meaning they had the sprinkling right, not the elimination of original sin or any other un-Biblical items they may have included.

Good catch ! :thumbsup:

Roger