Drinking Deeply

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 1:55 AM

What am I anyway?

So someone linked me and described me as a Reformed Baptist.

This came as quite a surprise, not because I didn't know that Reformed Baptists existed (they do, and many of the blogs I read and link to are Baptist), but mostly because I simply cannot tell the difference apart from the infant baptism thing (and now, I think I'm firmly in the infant baptistism camp, convinced that I could convince myself if I didn't agree with it). But I never really talked about infant baptism, at least, not that I know of.

It's also funny because the church that I go to, that I pretty much "came to faith" in (maybe one of these days I'll share my story), and the fellowship that I visit (because I have time) are all Presbyterian, though in all honesty I wouldn't be able to point someone to specifics in the messages that distinguishes Presbyterian from Baptist.

Well, there is my favorite joke about how my fellowship are very much the "Frozen Chosen" I guess that's Presbyterian.


Links to this post:

Create a Link

Anonymous Renewed Day by Day said...

Sorry about the reference to you being "reformed baptist." I guess it was what immediately came to my mind to describe your theological views from what I had read. I'm not real versed in theology but from what I understand those who would hold to Calvinism, the TULIP and credo-baptism would be reformed baptist while those who follow the same with the exception of credo baptism and instead practice paedo-baptism would be Presbyterian.

I acknowledge these are gross generalizations. Not sure if I'm even correct in this regard but that's where I'm coming from with what little I do know.

If you want to study more indepth on baptism check out the CDs, The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant, that Vision Forum has put out from their Baptism conference they hosted last year in San Antonio. They present an overview of reformed Paedo-baptism, Credo-Baptism and Dispensational baptism.

I hope no offence was taken by the "label" I inadvertantly gave you and your blog. I will try to watch my wording more carefully in the future. Blessings to you.  


Blogger mxu said...

Oh no, don't worry about it. I am not offended in the least. As I said, many of the people I look up to the most are Baptist in bent.

I just thought there was something distinctive that I've said that was Reformed Baptist that I was unaware of.

In all honesty, I am a little unclear on what the traditional "reformed" label sticks to, I suspect that TULIP+5 Solas are part of it (though it should be pointed out that TULIP wasn't formulated until after Calvin's death). I would say that after having read bits of Luther and Calvin, I do agree with pretty much everything they say (though Luther's defense of infant baptism was very weak in the article I just read "Regarding Rebaptism").

Don't worry about it, thanks for the positive link. I am honored to be included on such a list (and feeling like I really don't deserve it in the least).  


Blogger Frank Martens said...

so you agree with infant baptism?  


Blogger mxu said...

As of now, I would consider myself to hold the Presbyterian view of infant baptism. Prior to reading Luther and Calvin on this, I held to it, but only because it was something that seems to have lasted 2000 years and I couldn't understand how something unbiblical could last that long. After reading it, I think I would be able to convince myself if I were not an infant baptist (though as to if I could convince someone else, that's really up to God right?)

Maybe I'll post my thoughts on this sometime.

As a side note, I don't think infant baptism is an issue I would withhold fellowship over unless it was someone who believed baptism washed away sin (which is an issue more of justification by faith than infant baptism)  


Blogger Frank Martens said...

ah ok, no I wouldn't hold it against someone unless, yes they thought it saved.

Ok, catch ya later.  


Drop a thought