Reformed Theology Advice on getting baptized  Calvinism

Advice on getting baptized

Reformed Theology Advice on getting baptized  Calvinism
Advice on getting baptized

Hello, r/reformed. I need some advice.

I have been a believer for nearly a decade. I converted as a teenager in a hostile home. My parents confiscated my Bible and religious literature, I was forbidden from attending a church, and even my internet access was limited for a long time because it was how I had learned about Jesus. I have suffered greatly, but God preserved me through it all. He drew me constantly to Himself and was the spiritual father I did not have here on earth. I got another Bible, learned what it taught about salvation by faith, and have preached it and studied it intensely ever since. However, my isolation from other Christians has created a problem.

I have never been baptized – not for lack of desire, but for lack of opportunity. I have endured trials for the Name's sake, preached the gospel to others, seen the work of God in my life in sanctification, and have never wavered in my faith, yet I have not obeyed this simple command. There are two churches in my area I have attended since last year when I was finally able to start going. The first, a megachurch, turns baptism into a spectacle that I want no part of. I believe it undermines the sacrament, and further, they don't want to baptize me because I have already believed for so long. The second, a much smaller Reformed church that I have attended for a few months, is wary of me because of this situation. I feel as if I have few options. I greatly desire to obey Jesus' command to be baptized – no matter your stance on how baptism should be performed or what it accomplishes, we all believe that He command this.

At this point I have three options. The first, and easiest, is baptizing myself (hence the name of my throwaway account). With God as my witness, as it has been throughout my faith journey, in a local lake. I readily admit there is no biblical precedent for this. The second option is organizing a private ceremony – a mature Christian friend of mine from out of state may be coming to visit in a few months. I could have him administer baptism to me. There are some semiprivate or fully private baptisms recorded in the book of Acts. The final option is continuing to look for a church that treats the sacrament with respect and will accept my desire to be baptized. The issue is that there are very few churches around me, fewer still that take the Bible seriously (ie, as the final, inerrant rule of faith as opposed to a liberal church).

Thank you for reading. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on sebaptism and private baptism.

Link
Submitted by sebaptistthrowaway

Reformed Theology Question about Luke 9:27  Calvinism

Question about Luke 9:27

Reformed Theology Question about Luke 9:27  Calvinism
Question about Luke 9:27

I was doing my daily reading today and came across Luke9:37 "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God."

Is Jesus speaking about the second coming? I feel like that's a problem because Jesus hasn't come back and the apostles are long gone.

Or is He speaking about the transfiguration that happens later in the verse? This has been trouble for me guys, I feel like there's probably a very simple explanation that I'm missing.

Link
Submitted by Spencer_1123

Reformed Theology Help with baptism without a debate please  Calvinism

Help with baptism without a debate please

Reformed Theology Help with baptism without a debate please  Calvinism
Help with baptism without a debate please

Hey all, hope all is well. So I've been studying a lot about God's covenants recently and what I believe is the best framework within which to interpret scripture. I can see too much continuity between the Old Covenant/s and the New for dispensationalism to be an option, and New Covenant theology presents all sorts of other problems. So I have come to the conclusion that federal covenant theology is the only way that makes sense.

Now I understand the claims of both 1689 federalism and 1646 Westminster, how the continuity/discontinuity in covenants results in the respective view of covenant inclusion. Basically, I can see both very easily, how do I come to the conclusion which one is correct? I have a couple of issues in either direction I would like someone to explain if possible please.

Looking at 1689 Particular Baptists, there is a huge gap historically, in the mid 2nd century infant baptism is described as the universal practice of the church, I understand that we have little form this time period but it's difficult to believe that the true apostolic practice vanished off the face of the earth within a hundred years with now written documentation surviving in opposition?

Secondly, there seems to be specific mentions of Oico baptisms with regards to inclusion of families in the covenant, I understand Luke writes that all had heard the word, but in my experience, it is not normal for whole families to come to faith at once, so to claim this for each of the oico baptisms creates issues for me pragmatically, can anyone answer these objections satisfactorily?

Now to the 1646 Paedobaptist. When Galatians 5:3 ties circumcision to the law, how is it possible to see the Abrahamic covenant as one of Grace/unconditional rather than a conditional works one? I understand the duality in the covenant best explained by Berkhof however surely to accept this it must follow that there is an element of baptism in the NC administration that is part of the covenant of works and is conditional?

Thanks for your help, Calvyn

Link
Submitted by CalvynS

Reformed Theology Baptism = Water + Spirit = New Creation; A Short Tour Through the Scripture  Calvinism

Baptism = Water + Spirit = New Creation; A Short Tour Through the Scripture

Reformed Theology Baptism = Water + Spirit = New Creation; A Short Tour Through the Scripture  Calvinism
Baptism = Water + Spirit = New Creation; A Short Tour Through the Scripture

Baptism = Water + Spirit = New Creation

[This is probably old news to many of you, but it never ceases to fascinate me.]

Note for the following: RUAH (Hebrew) = spirit = wind = PNEUMA (Greek). I have subbed in the root word, Ruah or Pneuma, depending on the original language, in each passage below to make plain the underlying connections.

  • In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the [RUAH] of God was hovering over the WATERS. (Gen 1:1-2)

  • But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a [RUAH] over the earth, and the WATERS receded. (Gen. 8:1)

  • Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east [RUAH] all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the WATERS were divided. (Ex. 14:21)

  • When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the WATER; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the [PNEUMA] of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. (Matt. 3:16)

  • “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the [PNEUMA], he cannot enter the kingdom of God” …The [PNEUMA] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. (Jn. 3:5, 8)

  • For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us[e] to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the [PNEUMA], by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through WATER. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 3:18-21)

  • For there are three that testify: the [PNEUMA] and the WATER and the blood; and these three agree. (1 Jn. 5:7)

  • But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Tit. 3:4-7)

Thoughts?

Link
Submitted by BSMason

Reformed Theology When do you guys collect the tithes and offerings? When do you guys sing the doxology?  Calvinism

When do you guys collect the tithes and offerings? When do you guys sing the doxology?

Reformed Theology When do you guys collect the tithes and offerings? When do you guys sing the doxology?  Calvinism
When do you guys collect the tithes and offerings? When do you guys sing the doxology?

I wrote the liturgy last Sunday, and will do so this Sunday as well. Apparently it's most normative at my new church to have the collection before the sermon, but theologically speaking, it makes more sense to have it after the sermon (our response to God).

Also, when I separated the doxology from the offering, the liturgist freaked out and moved the doxology from where I put it in the liturgy to after the offering.

Having attended most recently churches where the doxology does not follow the offering and happens after the sermon, this was strange to me.

So /r/reformed, what do y'all do at your church?

Link
Submitted by rev_run_d

Reformed Theology Should the Church follow one model of church government (5 are listed)?  Calvinism

Should the Church follow one model of church government (5 are listed)?

Reformed Theology Should the Church follow one model of church government (5 are listed)?  Calvinism
Should the Church follow one model of church government (5 are listed)?

In the infancy of understanding there are different models of church government, should the church follow one model? Is there even a preeminent model of government for the church? Here are 5 models: 1) Single Elder-Led Church 2) Presbytery 3) Congregation-Led Church 4) Episcopal Polity 5) Plural Elder-Led Congregation

Please, present your Biblical case for why you think one benefits the church over another or if multiple models are appropriate. If there's a model I didn't list, please inform me.

Link
Submitted by steadfast_roast

Reformed Theology What does everyone here think of Religious Tracts? Do you use them? Why? Do you refuse to use them? Why?  Calvinism

What does everyone here think of Religious Tracts? Do you use them? Why? Do you refuse to use them? Why?

Reformed Theology What does everyone here think of Religious Tracts? Do you use them? Why? Do you refuse to use them? Why?  Calvinism
What does everyone here think of Religious Tracts? Do you use them? Why? Do you refuse to use them? Why?

So I have been working as a pastor for a month now in Southern California. This morning I was sitting in a restaurant reading a book for church, Growing Young, and as she was leaving, a Korean woman gave me a tract and said, "Jesus loves you." I said thank you very much and she left. I received this tract.

I thought at first it was funny. Then I got mad because I don't think tracts are a good way to evangelize. But then I started to think about it. Here I am sitting in this restaurant after preaching a sermon about how we need to be distinct from the world. This woman has no idea I am a pastor. Why should I be mad at her? Sure, maybe she should have started a conversation with me and tried to form some sort of a relationship. But she was at least doing something, rather than me just sitting there, not engaging with anyone.

My question is does anyone on this sub use tracts as a form of evangelism? If so, why? If you don't, why not and then what is your strategy for evangelizing to people in your community in a more relational way?

Edit: spelling and grammar

Link
Submitted by NukesForGary