tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14199749.post4673128489245712685..comments2023-07-05T09:05:15.394-04:00Comments on the lower case: discussions on baptismstephen lee cavnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12760138041488885844noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14199749.post-84499983267724165132006-12-30T23:17:00.000-05:002006-12-30T23:17:00.000-05:00i'll be back. :-) happy new year!i'll be back. :-) happy new year!Laurenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562327535448460255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14199749.post-30915282175969111582006-12-27T22:23:00.000-05:002006-12-27T22:23:00.000-05:00lauren,
i have enjoyed these exchanges as well.
a...lauren,<br /><br />i have enjoyed these exchanges as well.<br />as for re-baptism, wherever you may land on that, understand the reasoning for churches who require it (or as it was initially done)is because a church member in a baptist church, by definition is one who has been baptized *as a believer*. that is where the issue is.<br />it is not denying that the person who was baptized as an infant who now wants to be in a baptist church is not a believer. <br />it is simply stating that to be a baptisy church member, the requirement is to have been baptized as a believer.<br /><br />every organization that clarifies who can and cannot be a member has membership requirements. for those who choose not to be re-baptized, baptist churches should not look down on them as an unbeliever, but they should also not be looked down upon for holding firmly to their convictions. <br /><br />obviously, there is debate as to how stringently this should be practiced in certain situations.<br /><br />historic sbc and pca (credo and paedo baptistsrespectivley) have gotten along very well throughout the centuries, holding very similar, if notthe same doctrinal positions in many areas. i have often said that if it werent for baptism and some aspects of the view of the lord's supper, i could be a pca member with a honest conscience. in many areas today, pca churches are much similar to historic sbc doctrines, whereas present day sbc churches as a whole, have either abandoned, or become ignorant of their founding beliefs.<br /><br /> i am by no means an sbc "apologist", but i am a southern baptist by choice and conviction, despite some of the shortcomings.<br /><br />but in this, i do hope to be used by the lord to help bring what ever sbc members he places in front of me to learn to be obedient followers of christ.<br /><br />thanks lauren, i hope you will continue to stop by often.<br />-stephenstephen lee cavnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12760138041488885844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14199749.post-24835549824469457372006-12-27T22:03:00.000-05:002006-12-27T22:03:00.000-05:00hi stephen,
thank you for sharing this essay. i t...hi stephen,<br />thank you for sharing this essay. i think i'll close my end of this discussion. i am still opposed to the practice of re-baptism as a requirement for church membership. however, i do understand it's because anything other than believer's baptism isn't considered true baptism by most baptist churches. i am in agreement with you that the sacrament should not be done lightly, regardless of whether parents are having their child baptized or a new believer is considering baptism, regardless of age. every denomination can fall prey to nominalism. this discussion has reminded me how, especially as a new parent, it's crucial to dig into the Word and seek the Lord's guidance in such areas. i am thankful that in spite of some negative experiences i've had within the sbc in the past few years, there are also many people who are seeking Christ first above the denominational politics. my brother, brother in law, and some acquaintances from college are among them.<br /><br />thanks again for helping me to ponder the whole baptism debate according to what the Bible says.Laurenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562327535448460255noreply@blogger.com