Aaron O'Kelley
@AaronOKelley
Host of "The Old Roads" podcast. Pastor and theological educator.
Co-sign
While I disagree with @MattMBarrett, and there are some valid questions about his leaving, I have benefitted from his work and hope to continue to do so. I say this as one who is not even slightly tempted to be anything other than a Baptist.
So David French wrote an article for the New York Times blaming evangelicals for hypocrisy. In other words, it's a day that ends in "y".
Some important conclusions from historian Everett Ferguson’s magisterial 975-page tome, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Eerdmans, 2009): Is there evidence for infant baptism exist before the second part of the second…
Sometimes it's fun watching all the paedobaptists who disagree with each other arguing different, mutually contradictory theologies of infant baptism from the same verses.
Paedobaptist interpretation of Acts 2:39: The promise is for - you [so be baptized because you confess faith] - and your children [who don't have to confess faith, just baptize them] - and for all who are far off [now we're back to requiring a confession of faith for baptism]
Anyone else notice that CIA/State slushfund USAID just closed up and suddenly a bunch of liberal TV shows and news sites are no longer able to meet their payroll and have to shut down?
Believes baptism is a beautiful embodiment of the covenant storyline of the Bible. It’s not individualistic, but an identification of belonging to the family of God.
Some paedobaptists argue that infant baptism can be traced through the sources all the way back to the apostles. Some paedobaptists argue that it fell out of practice after 70 AD and had to be recovered later. Same evidence. Polar opposite conclusions.
This is the correct take on Acts 2:39:
Using Acts 2:39 to support infant baptism raises several issues. "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39) is often cited to support the notion of covenant inclusion for the children…
"You and your children" in Acts 2:39 is an allusion to the sons and daughters who receive the Spirit and prophesy on Joel 2. Reducing it to a mere covenant membership for infants guys the promise and ignores the OT background to Peter's statement.
Ok, last comment on the Matthew Barrett situation... I'm always a bit confused when seminary professors jump from a teaching role in one tradition to another. As far as I can tell, either one of two things has to be true. 1. You just realized that you've been completely wrong…
If my undergraduate student wrote a paper and said they had changed from credo- to paedobaptist because Peter said, “For the promise is for you and for your children” (Acts 2:39) without going on to the following verses, he/she would fail.
It’s not accurate to say classical Baptist theology is “individualistic.” 1. Individualism - All authority for being Christian rests in the individual. 2. Collectivism - All authority for being Christian rests in the church. Classical Baptists teach that individuals must…
It's very sad.
I just hate that Hulk Hogan is gonna vote Democrat now 😞
This is also a picture of what Anglicans used to do to Baptists.
Me announcing I'm still Baptist
I do not care about Matthew Barrett becoming Anglican but leaving the SBC because its views supposedly don't represent the faith passed down to us by history and then joining a denomination that ordains female priests is an impressive lack of self-awareness.
"If we add the Nicene Creed to the BFM 2000, then that will stop Baptist seminary professors from drifting away from classical Trinitarianism," he said, as he drifted away from the BFM 2000 while teaching at a Southern Baptist Seminary.
Bearing false witness is not a good way to start a career in Anglicanism (or in any church for that matter). Contrary to what Barrett claims here, Southern Baptists have not rejected the Nicene Creed. We just adopted a resolution reaffirming it last month.…