Addendum 1
Well now, this is an interesting twist. The recent conversion tale in question has disappeared (recall a recent CTC conversion tale disappeared as well).
2 convert posts, 2 deletions.
Perhaps one of them had a dream, confirmed by one of their wives, instructing them to remove the recent conversion tales.
Rhology has an update on all of this here.
Addendum 2
The entire blog which hosted the convert story has vanished, but the page in which Rhology interacted with it (along with the story) can be found here. Frankly, the conversion story doesn't interest me at all. Rather, Rhology's interaction with it and other comments makes it worth the read. Stories are just that: stories.
Posts
68 comments:
Cry havoc!
Good points, over there, Rhology!
I just left a comment there at Tyler McNabb’s cite, but it is in moderation, so I also put it here, just in case. (later, as this has become too big now to fit in the combox limitation.)
The references to infant baptism are hopefully, taken in the right way by my Presbyterian brothers and friends. It seems to me to be one of the potential dangers of attraction to Rome - when one is not grounded and begins to be tempted to see baptismal regeneration and the Federal Vision as credible next steps from “entry into the covenant –community infant baptism” - it does not automatically lead to Rome, but it has the potential to trick people; as it seems to a major aspect of the “Called to communion” crowd of former Reformed Presbyterians and paedo-baptists.
Jason Stellman claimed his decision was not an "over-realized eschatology" (which seems to me to be a wish for the following: visible, “stable” (in their confused mind) church here on earth, security; living voice, unified community; building/place to go to/ physical eucharist, classic architecture, good political and social apologetics to the culture at large, etc.) Yet, it seemed to me that Jason “protests too much” – the very thing he says “are not his reasons”, seem to be the underlying reasons.
". . . the suggestion that converts from Geneva to Rome are simply opting for a feel-good, fairy-tale romance betraying an “over-realized eschatology” and desire to skip blissfully down the yellow-brick road to heaven, utterly trivializes the entire ordeal." Jason Stellman
(at Turretinfan's recently article - Response to Jason Stellman)
Ok - now my response to Tyler McNabb -
Tyler McNabb –
I am amazed that you find Adrian Fortescue’s book, The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 AD to be convincing. Clement himself shows that bishops and presbyters were the same office, as in Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-5. Peter calls himself “fellow-elder”. That should be enough to defeat the Papacy idea with one phrase in one Bible verse! Peter, when he wrote 2 Peter, said he was being diligent to leave his readers with something that would help them remind themselves in the truth and stir up their sincere minds, after he is gone, as he knows he is going to die soon – 2 Peter 1:12-21, with 3:1. Think deeply on that passage. If any kind of succession or pope doctrine/practice was true, he would have mentioned it there.
I wonder if you read through any of this information – all of the articles starting at the bottom – the first one. (read all of John Bugay’s articles on Fortescue, start at beginning/ bottom.)
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Adrian%20Fortescue
Read more of John Bugay’s articles there at Beggar’s All and also at Triablogue.
I am also amazed that you claim to have read all of the articles of the debate between William Webster and Steve Ray on Augustine and Chrysostom (and if you didn’t read the parts on Cyprian you need to) and the Papacy. I find it amazing that you would be convinced to swim the Tiber if you read all of James White’s material and listened to and watched his some 36-40 + (?) debates with Roman Catholics. ( I quickly counted 36 in the list at his web site under his name of formal debates; that does not include all the DL phone calls and discussions with RCs.)
I am also amazed that you would be taken by the Federal Vision and it’s version of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, etc. – if you were a committed Baptist and read the best material for credo baptism/believer’s baptism/believer baptism (Piper – see his chapter in “Brothers, We are not Professionals” on baptism/disciples’ baptism. Dr. White’s debates with Robert Strimple and Gary Johnson, Bill Shishko and Gregg Strawbridge; (Dr. White won all three) John McArthur vs. R.C. Sproul. (McArthur won.) Fred Malone’s “A String of Pearls Unstrung” also demolishes infant baptism as does “Baptism in the early Church” by 2 Padeobaptist scholars – (Henrick F. Stander and Johannes P. Louw.)
Continued - last part of my response to Tyler McNabb awaiting moderation at his site.
You don’t seem to have really studied the issues deeply. I have met a lot of young Christians who are all excited about the “Way of the Master” evangelism (it is fine in itself, but it is not “the key” to everything nor should be used in a legalistic formula type way), but they (the ones I know) all seem to be imbalanced, and many are unstable, confronting pastors and elders/anger issues/ starting their own little house churches, etc. – in my opinion – many of the ones I have met are so into that, that they have no grounding in local church discipleship/ church membership, understanding of elders/pastors, discipling, and many of them are confused because they spend so much time with different people from different churches who are also into street preaching and witnessing. They are dogmatic about “the way of the master” and that dogmatism and idealism goes into depression and anger when it bumps up against the reality of disunity and different churches and interpretations that they come into contact with other Christians, etc. It appears that the appeal of the RC church authority thing, is a result of a lack of grounding in a good Biblical Evangelical/Reformed / conservative church.
The references to infant baptism are hopefully, taken in the right way by my Presbyterian brothers and friends.
And sound Lutheran and Anglican and other paedo-baptist Biblical friends. (smile)
Although I honestly don't' think infant baptism is biblical at all; I can see it defended as a practice/custom/tradition as a sign of "entry into the covenant community" as long as a hearty defense against baptismal regeneration/sanctification is explained and clearly taught, that it does not justify nor save the infant, but is a sign of entering into the visible covenant community.
Yep ... that's good stuff. Way to go, guys, lurkers (like me) are definitely learning from your examples!
Blessings, ac.
Ken: "Although I honestly don't' think infant baptism is biblical at all; I can see it defended as a practice/custom/tradition as a sign of "entry into the covenant community" as long as a hearty defense against baptismal regeneration/sanctification is explained and clearly taught, that it does not justify nor save the infant, but is a sign of entering into the visible covenant community."
Amen Ken. Another solid Bible-Believing Christian who doesn't subscribe to the baptismal doctrine of Lutheranism.
Also, as far as the main point of this post, Rhology is doing a great job although I must confess that Called to Communion is effectively luring Reformed folks and Way of the Master presuppositionalists over to Catholicism. I acknowledge the reality of the situation and the actual facts on the ground, but these Tiber swimmers and their justification for swimming the Tiber still doesn't make sense to me.
Amen Ken. Another solid Bible-Believing Christian who doesn't subscribe to the baptismal doctrine of Lutheranism.
I was thinking of just the RC version of it. The Lutheran version is incoherent, as it conflicts with Sola Fide and so, it logically makes no logical sense.
I hope Brigette will resist the urge to debate that issue again!
I don't think Brigitte wants another piece of Rhology again.
Then we'll just have another blogpost, but this time it'll be titled:
Rhology Unleashed: Bowling at Wittenburg Lanes.
I don't think Brigitte wants another piece of Rhology again.
LOL
Especially not since I seriously look a lot like that über-intimidating bowler in the posted graphic.
Ken: "Although I honestly don't' think infant baptism is biblical at all; I can see it defended as a practice/custom/tradition as a sign of "entry into the covenant community" as long as a hearty defense against baptismal regeneration/sanctification is explained and clearly taught, that it does not justify nor save the infant, but is a sign of entering into the visible covenant community."
Ken, there's as much biblical backing for paedo as there is credo-baptism(as a former credo now paedo myself) Your warning about what is taught also applies to believer's baptism as well(and your baby dedications--which are faux baptisms) I never saw infant baptism as the "gateway drug" to RC-ism--that seems a stretch. I think RC-apologists like to put the "reformed" tiber swimmers on display as it carries more "weight" in their eyes. I know Rho and others have made attempts at explaining the characteristics of these types, but alot of it seems to have to do with a common drift away from the Scriptures, to....some "other wisdom".... I don't know.
Thanks for your comment, Mrk, but I do want to push back on you a bit. :-)
Baby dedications are not faux-baptisms. They're baby dedications. Simple.
Ken said: The references to infant baptism are hopefully, taken in the right way by my Presbyterian brothers and friends.
And sound Lutheran and Anglican and other paedo-baptist Biblical friends. (smile)
Me: How are we supposed to take it?
I think we, who practice and believe the biblical model of infant baptism, think credo baptism is clearly wrong on so many fronts...biblical, logical, historical, and just plain common sense.
So I really do not know how to take comments as such about God's practice for his Church, other than an affront to Him.
But you know...let's (smile) anyhow.
In Him,
Joe H
This is all I found:
"Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help."
How about that - he deleted the whole page. Took a page straight out of the Stellman handbook for announcing one's own apostasy.
No matter - I learned from the Stellman incident and saved the comments. I'll link to them soon.
See here an update to this situation.
Rhology you know very well that Luther, whom we have running just a couple of posts above, believed in baptism regeneration. You know very well that we are instructed to baptize not to dedicate. You know very well that we all say that baptism is exactly a gift from God, not a work, but you can't get off that harping of it being a "work".
I just hope you are "surrendered" enough by showing enough good deeds, or regenerated, etc. perhaps by showing in all these debates, to count as a proper believing Christian.
I've listened to a Reformed preacher in his own setting. Whenever he talked about someone he was placing judgments on them: yes, they are professing Christians... but I don't really think that they believe... Yes, they know that Jesus loves them, but they don't seem to know that God is holy and hates sin. (He called that hating sin part "gospel", I told him that we call that "law".) Yes, oh, all these people with their recurring sins, they have not really converted. They must turn from their sins. Yes, of course we sin daily, but that's another matter. (???) He is a dedicated man like you Rhology, probably better and kinder than you, seeing that he does not ridicule people behind their backs, as has happened here. (Thank you very much). Though he does I guess question their integrity or their Christian-ness behind their backs.
I, too, have left a message on the deleted blog, but it seems to be gone, altogether, or never showed. Basically, I said that we should be able to agree that authority is the apostolic and prophetic witness to Christ for the forgiveness of sins, that Christ instituted two sacraments for this forgiveness to be made visible, viewable, tangable, consumable, as is the supper and baptism. I noted that both the Reformed contributors and the Roman contributors managed to jump right over Luther, as per usual, to keep carrying on this never-ending scandalous, soul-destroying debate.
You know very well that we are instructed to baptize not to dedicate.
And when I'm faced with the proper recipient of baptism, I DO want to baptise, not dedicate.
I just hope you are "surrendered" enough by showing enough good deeds, or regenerated, etc. perhaps by showing in all these debates, to count as a proper believing Christian.
This is a category error.
I think that baptism and other good works DEMONSTRATE the regeneration that has ALREADY taken place.
You think that baptism, a work, is the means God uses to regenerate.
You know very well that we all say that baptism is exactly a gift from God, not a work, but you can't get off that harping of it being a "work".
I know that's your contention, yes. I don't agree.
He called that hating sin part "gospel", I told him that we call that "law".)
I would agree with you there.
Yes, oh, all these people with their recurring sins, they have not really converted
It was unclear to me whether you are saying that or whether this preacher said that, but IMHO the truth is not that simple.
He is a dedicated man like you Rhology, probably better and kinder than you
Probably. May the Lord grant there be many better and kinder than I.
seeing that he does not ridicule people behind their backs, as has happened here.
Don't lay that on me, please. I didn't bring you up.
I, too, have left a message on the deleted blog, but it seems to be gone, altogether, or never showed
Yes, I believe I read it.
I noted that both the Reformed contributors and the Roman contributors managed to jump right over Luther, as per usual
I've never considered that contending for the truths of sola fide, sola scriptura, and solus christus were "jumping over Luther", honestly.
The fact you consider it a "soul-destroying debate", however, is quite disturbing, almost as much as when you told me "Baptism is Gospel". What do you mean?
God hates sin and is holy is the "law aspect" - yes - the gospel presupposed the holiness of God and the judgment of the law.
"Christ died for our sins" - I Corinthians 15:1-5ff - that gospel part presupposes the law part of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and "the wrath of God abides upon all who will not be persuaded by the Son" - John 3:36
I think we can all agree that baptism is a command (Matthew 28:19), and the internal reality of it - being baptized by the Spirit and immersed into Christ and His death and burial and resurrection, by the Spirit (Romans 6:1-7; I Corinthians 12:13) is a gift of God. Romans 5:5 may also point to that - "for the love of God has been poured out through the Holy Spirit who was given to us." see also Ephesians 1:13.
Brigitte,
I apologize for bringing up your name - I just didn't want to get into the debate over the Lutheran form of baptismal regeneration again.
I see that Rhology has already started it up again with you before I finished typing my first post his morning. Sorry for that.
We all love Luther and his re-covering of justification by faith alone from Romans, Galatians, Ephesians(2:8-9), Philippians (3:9); and so, we just confess that the baptismal regeneration and "infant faith" aspect of Luther is just hard to wrap our brains around, given that repentance and faith are only possible when someone is a little older.
Since Colossians 2:12-13 also says, in the context of baptism "through faith in the power of God", it would seem to be for those old enough to understand their sinfulness (the law part) and repent and believe in Christ.
As Tertullian wrote:
"But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. . . .
"Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ."
On Baptism, 18
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.vi.iii.xviii.html
Brigitte,
Someone who goes by "threehappypenquins" gave us a link that saved Tyler McNabb's post and your post is also there, I see.
http://covenantrpc.freehostia.com/misc/usswimteam.htm
I think Luther would agree with debating against Roman Catholics and us joining forces in Biblical argumentation, even now, with Zwinglians. (smile)
I don't think he would see the debates as "soul destroying", but necessary and essential.
FOR ZWINGLI!
I've added this to the entry:
The entire blog which hosted the convert story has vanished, but the page in which Rhology interacted with it (along with the story) can be found here. Frankly, the conversion story doesn't interest me at all. Rather, Rhology's interaction with it and other comments makes it worth the read. Stories are just that: stories.
Someone who goes by "threehappypenquins" gave us a link that saved Tyler McNabb's post and your post is also there, I see.
http://covenantrpc.freehostia.com/misc/usswimteam.htm
By the way, even though I've added this link to the above blog article, I know nothing about the person who put it up, or the site which hosts it.
Perhaps it's my laptop this morning, but getting the page to load correctly hasn't been easy. It frequently just stalls, and gives me a blank page.
The church that copied Tyler McNabb's post is Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church in Halifax, Canada.
http://covenantrpc.freehostia.com/covenant/index.htm
I think James could confirm that Luther would not side with Zwingli under any circumstance, not even over the Roman church, which was even worse then.
I have been watching the Borgias. What a context.
I forgive you Ken.
Rhology, you do sound somewhat more mature. But the going on about baptism as a work gives you away straight away as someone whom one cannot talk to. The debate is soul-destroying as the world watches this non-sense and shakes its head.
Roman Catholics are in the world. Our responsibility is to proclaim the Good News of Jesus, crucified for sins, risen from the dead, offering eternal life and forgiveness of sin through faith ALONE (not faith + a work, even when we label the work "not-work" or "faith"), and to "(destroy) speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" -- 2 Cor 10:5.
But the going on about abstaining from fleshly lusts as a work gives you away straight away as someone whom one cannot talk to.
The going on about hospitality as a work gives you away straight away as someone whom one cannot talk to.
The going on about being loving your neighbor as a work gives you away straight away as someone whom one cannot talk to.
See how easy it is to slap the contrary label on things? Anyone can play the postmodern two-step.
"What Luther says", by Plass, something everyone should have handy (if not the BOC; personally, I have to admit to going to the Plass before the BOC.)
"The world is now full of sects which exclaim that Baptism is merely an external matter and tht external matters are of no use. However, let it be ever so much an external matter; here stand God's Word and command which institute, establish, and confirm Baptism. However, whatever God institutes and commands cannot be useless but must be an altogether precious matter, even if it were worth less than a straw in appearance."
"We should be on our guard against the Anabaptists and sectarian spirits,k who speak contemptuously of Baptism and say that it is nothing but ordinary water, which helps no one. They look at the sacred act as a cow looks at a new door; for they see a poor preacher standing there or some woman who baptiszes in an emergency, are offended at the sight, and say: Indeed! what might Baptism be? Moreover, they state: whoever does not believe is really not baptized. In this way they dishonor and blaspheme the most worthy Sacrament, not seeing any farther than a horse or a cow sees.... But here it is written that when Christ was baptized, all three Persons of the Trinity were present--God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit... and that the heavens stood open, too. In fact, God the Father, Son, and God the Holy Spirit daily stand about and at the side of our own Baptism... for this reason we should highly esteem and honor Baptism and say: Baptism was not devised by any human being, but God instituted it; and it is not simple water, but God's Word is in it and with it, which makes of its water a washing of the soul and a washing of regeneration."
... WE COULD Go On and On, as Luther is most voluminous.
This really matters because of what happens on a number of fronts.
1. Communities where there was a strong Roman Catholic presence which has subsided due to man-power shortages, now have all kinds or preachers going into them talking about how bad the RC faith is. How people don't actually believe anything, practice anything, do anything... (pointing fingers, actually) and gasp, these people dare to trust their baptism and the promises made to them. (I wonder who will be entering the kingdom ahead of whom.) The answer to that is not to deny baptism, but through proper preaching of law and gospel to stir up the people. Now we have communities under the pressures of secularization and increasing strength of atheism, while Christians snipe at each other endlessly looking like fools and yes, destroying souls. Meanwhile young people who want to be Christians labor in this environment and yet under this demand to be "fully surrendered" and nearly perfect. It's no wonder they turn to other things for strength and comfort.
2. I met one of them on the mental ward. (Stories DO matter.)
Then there is the issue of the video I wanted to have you guys comment on, but James never got around to it, nor any others. Here it is once more. He is now a nascent atheist posting videos. I think it is telling how many sentences he spends on predestination and knowing how one has faith, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9mUvwYJ2mOI
Yes, soul destroying.
I forget my other points, just now. The phone keeps ringing. I might come up with them in a while.
The point is not to deny doctrine to make things easy to swallow. But we have now--since whom? I don't even know whom to blame? Certainly Zwingli is one of them--this division over the meaning of baptism, which is entirely unnecessary and unwholesome. The result is that we need to look at ourselves to see if we have faith rather than at the promise to inspire it. This is a fatal move.
And these are Christ's lambs led astray. It is NOT a small matter.
May God have mercy on you and clear your eyes from such cobwebs and jacked-up thinking, Brigitte. There are many errors in this last comment of yours.
Rhology,
"But the going on about abstaining from fleshly lusts...hospitality as a work...loving your neighbor as a work gives you away straight away as someone whom one cannot talk to."
?!?!
Hi Brigitte -
I watched the video of the atheist, who claims he was a Christian. I am guessing he is in England from his accent. There is no telling what kind of church or “youth group” he had.
The first issue that he seems to have struggle with is that he admits was one that he was not sure about is the issue of creation vs. Evolution.
Secondly -
“I want to know why?”
His struggle was, if I am not mistaken was the question, "Why does God hate us, or why does God hate our sin? – if you want to be nick-picky"
Those 2 comments seem to reveal that he was never a true believer. (Matthew 7:23; 1 John 2:19) To not see oneself as a creature and God as creator, and that we have no rights to demand of God anything is basic. “Who are you O man, who answers back to God” (Romans 9:20-23)
And to call the difference between “hating us” and “hating our sin” = nick-picky shows a real lack of understanding God’s love – it is clear that the love of God never flooded his heart (Romans 5:5; 2 Cor. 5:14) – because he gives no indication of what a miserable sinner he is.
And to think John Shelby Spong is good – wow . . . reveals unbelief.
Leading Youth Group before even knowing if God created all things (vs. Darwinian Evolution), and hates sin, and questioning original sin.
I think even though he does spend a lot of time on the issue of predestination, those things above are the deeper issues, so I don’t think it was predestination that caused his apostasy, but I suppose that issue exposed his true nature – a rebel sinner who never saw his own wickedness. Predestination becomes the excuse that many people use to say, “if that is true, then I don’t like that God who is in charge.” The same way that many atheist Jews are angry at God for allowing the holocaust; and that other atheists are really angry at God for allowing some kind of tragedy or suffering. (that is always the root) (Dan Barker, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens - all famous atheists, have that at the root)
Brigitte: "How people don't actually believe anything, practice anything, do anything... (pointing fingers, actually) and gasp, these people dare to trust their baptism and the promises made to them. (I wonder who will be entering the kingdom ahead of whom.)
Yes, soul destroying."
Here's a very brief video about wrongful beliefs being propagated about baptism and the subsequent destroying of souls:
Regeneration and Baptism
"How many people are in Hell today because they thought 'I was born again when I was baptized'? That's tragic."
Ken, respectfully, the way you answered that is to me typical of the Reformed pastoring I witnessed. For a young person to wrestle with creation/ evolution DOES NOT mean that... (insert whatever thing you like to indicate is is not REALLY...--whatever way you'd like to phrase it, i.e. not really Christian).
There are things we have to grow through organically.
The Reformed pastoring I witnessed was exactly with that stress: God is not just love. God hates. He hates sin and sinners. He quotes a psalm, (5:5) that God hates all evildoers. So. There you go. God is not all love and John 3:16 is not the Gospel in a nutshell either. Confusing? I think we need to give this guy some space. He sounds honest.
And Spong, he has had a bad influence far and wide. We need to give answers. There are some good videos out there now.
To say to someone that the love of God has never flooded their lives, etc. aren't true believers--that's just the thing. This is why there are ex-Christians walking around bitter as hell, feeling arm-wrestled, manipulated, put-down, abused. Just because someone has had some doubts, just because they have some struggles... they may have to worry about their having been flooded or not by God's love. And then we hear about hellfire and damnation to go with all this. And demon possession, yet, on top of it. It is unconscionable.
That's exactly what this is about. We need to have baptism as an anchor outside of ourselves. A comfort and strength in all life's ups and downs and the ups and downs in our faith life, too.
Just because someone has had some doubts, just because they have some struggles... they may have to worry about their having been flooded or not by God's love.
That is not really what I wrote or meant - the fact that he went to atheism showed that the they were not just little "struggles" or "little doubts" - over time the eventual atheism and embracing of Spong and Dawkins revealed what a sinful rebel he is. If he had stayed with the Lord and had true faith, he would be humble and say, "I am a sinner, but I cry out for God's mercy, I am the pot/clay and God has all authority and rights over me; I have no rights; I take up my cross and deny myself; etc. and I am grateful for the mercy and grace shown to me in the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, and God's sovereign love and grace. Instead, the atheism reveals the hidden deep rebellion. I think Luther would agree with me on this. Sorry you don't see this.
"Instead, the atheism reveals the hidden deep rebellion. I think Luther would agree with me on this. Sorry you don't see this."
This is us, Ken! That's what's inside of us. Concupisence is the old term. That's why Luther was in the confessional forever (see couple posts up),--not because of his legal background. There is NO merit or worthiness in me. The Old Adam ever struggles against faith in God. I am sorry, you can't see what I'm saying. Bad doctrine kills.
For a young person to wrestle with creation/ evolution DOES NOT mean that . . .
I struggled with that issue also when I was a young believer, but submission to God as creator later confirmed true faith.
All I am saying is that his using of Dawkins and Evolution LATER, to go argue against the existence of God, confirmed the deep rebellion and lack of faith that was already there.
But that guy doesn't want to go to confessional anymore - He is angry at God for God being angry at his sin. That is the difference. If he was humble, he would confess and cry out for mercy like Luther.
His atheism confirms that he never was a believer.
How would you speak to the guy? He is an unbeliever, so he needs the law (again) and the gospel - repent and trust Christ as Savior. He never understood it. he who has ears to hear, let him hear, as Jesus said.
I would try and address his issues first of all, if he still cares. He seems to need some gentle apologetics to cover the ground that was lost to bad influences. And then most of all, he needs to know that God's grace and love and mercy are for all mankind, including himself, meeting him in all his needs for affirmation, clear thinking, and purposeful living without taking temperature of own spiritual life to make sure he is REALLY in the faith. Faith is in the goodness and mercy of God for the individual person. And for our assurance we have been given the gift of baptism, to say, yes, you also are called and the promises are also for you. Hold on and rejoice. Don't worry and see what I can do.
I Corinthians 10:1-5
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.
Hebrews 3:16 -4:2
16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.
Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.
Note: “all were baptized” – I Cor. 10:3
“nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased” – I Cor. 10:5
“we see they were not able to enter because of unbelief” – Hebrews 3:19
“the word did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard” – Hebrews 4:2
“Without faith it is impossible to please God” – Hebrews 11:6
“the just shall live by faith” – Romans 1:17; Galatians 2:16, 20, chapter 3-5, etc.
So, Luther’s justification by faith alone is the key, “the doctrine on which the church stands or falls” (whatever James Swan’s research revealed, if he actually said the exact words or others after him conflated several statements together. (smile)
TUAD
"How many people are in Hell today because they thought 'I was born again when I was baptized'?
the same number who are in Hell because they thought "Jesus is my redeemer;" or
the same number who are in Hell because they thought "it is by grace I have been saved, through faith – and this not from myself, it is the gift of God; or
the same number who are in Hell today because they thought "God keeps his promises."
In short, zero. Those aren't wicked thoughts; those are thoughts that God gives to the believer and they are good thoughts to have. There are plenty of thoughts that people are in Hell for, because there are plenty of thoughts that are sinful(thought I suppose in some sense sinful thoughts are all boringly the same).
Same as however, whoever, whatever,... but now does not believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHv4s_hYs4c&list=UU2-3Cf7Hw10b3NW05p2Z7IA&index=2&feature=plcp
Ken said:
...we just confess that the baptismal regeneration and "infant faith" aspect of Luther is just hard to wrap our brains around, given that repentance and faith are only possible when someone is a little older.
Me: Not sure why it is difficult to wrap your brains around, given your intellect Ken. We have explicit example of infants having faith, praise and trust in God. John the Baptist for one, Psalm 8 and Psalm 22 also come to mind. More certainly are out there...but that should be enough to show that it takes place.
Ken said: Since Colossians 2:12-13 also says, in the context of baptism "through faith in the power of God", it would seem to be for those old enough to understand their sinfulness (the law part) and repent and believe in Christ.
Me: Colossians 2 also directly connects circumcism to baptism...and we of course know that the OT faithful were sternly commanded to give the sign of the covenant to those 8 days old...infants. Since the NT is actually more inclusive and a better covenant...it appears foolish to withhold the sign from the children of believers. Your version of the new covenant actually has us going backwards, in my humble opinion.
in Him,
Joe H
Hi Ken.
You said: As Tertullian wrote:
"But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. . . .
"Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ."
Me: Would you not agree that the vast majority of the Christian Church in Tertullian's day and before actually practiced infant baptism?
in Him,
Joe
Hi Ken.
after providing some bible quotes, you said:
Note: “all were baptized” – I Cor. 10:3
“nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased” – I Cor. 10:5
“we see they were not able to enter because of unbelief” – Hebrews 3:19
“the word did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard” – Hebrews 4:2
“Without faith it is impossible to please God” – Hebrews 11:6
“the just shall live by faith” – Romans 1:17; Galatians 2:16, 20, chapter 3-5, etc.
So, Luther’s justification by faith alone is the key, “the doctrine on which the church stands or falls” (whatever James Swan’s research revealed, if he actually said the exact words or others after him conflated several statements together. (smile)
Me: so, how does this diminish baptism, infant baptism or BR? Luther stressed that faith is required for the efficacy of baptism to last. if faith dies, so does the benefits of baptism.
And again, faith can be given at baptism....so it is not like there is no faith in baptism. Even the Reformed allow that faith can be given in baptism, from my understanding.
in Him,
Joe H
Ken: "We all love Luther and his re-covering of justification by faith alone from Romans, Galatians, Ephesians(2:8-9), Philippians (3:9); and so, we just confess that the baptismal regeneration and "infant faith" aspect of Luther is just hard to wrap our brains around, given that repentance and faith are only possible when someone is a little older."
Hi Ken,
Have you seen this short answer provided by R.C. Sproul when directly asked about Luther's view on baptism:
Sproul on Luther's Baptismal Regeneration
Hi TUAD.
I watched the video, and I actually do not see how BR violates faith alone at all...whereas Sproul certainly does.
In many respects I consider Sproul a spiritual father. I have listened to literally hundreds of hours of his messages, have most of his books and respect him greatly....but think he is clearly wrong in thinking BR contradicts faith alone.
If faith comes via hearing thru a preacher, why would that not be considered contra faith alone....if faith coming via baptism is? Why would the mode of receiving faith be significant in regards to being contra faith alone?
in Him,
Joe H
I agree with Sproul - (on the video) And the one by Piper too. (smile)
Baptismal regeneration seems to be contradictory to justification by faith alone.
and
"I don't understand Luther's view of baptismal regeneration".
John the Baptist would seem to be an exception there when he leaps in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary comes close. That is historical narrative and surely not a good hermeneutical principle to try and extract that out and make it a paradigm for our children. that seems far fetched to me.
Psalm 22 seems to be speaking of the baby trusting in his/her mother when they are fed - they find contentment and rest and satisfaction of hunger when the mom supplies them with their needs - that is hardly faith in God through understanding one is a sinner and under the wrath of God and turning to Christ and His atonement to save him!
Psalm 8 - it just seems to be about God's strength and power in creating babies and infants and that they testify to the creative power of God - even their "goo goo" s and "ga ga" s are like creation speaking of God's power as in Psalm 19:1. It honestly doesn't seem like repentance over sin and faith in Christ.
I think it is sad - the disunity that Luther had with Zwingli over the Lord's supper issue; and the statements that Luther made about Zwingli are scandalous and RC apologists use those statements all the time.
I like the unity around the gospel that the movement of "together for the gospel" demonstrates - www.t4g.org - Baptists (Dever, Mohler, Piper), Presbyterians (Ligon Duncan, R. C. Sproul, Carl Truman), Charismatic Calvinists(C. J. Mahany, Matt Chandler), Dispensationalists(McArthur), etc.
I am glad for that and that the old days of the wars of Europe over Christian doctrine are over.
Lord willing, more tomorrow.
One more comment:
in Tertullian's day, around 200 AD, it appears that infant baptism was just starting -
The earliest explicit reference to child or infant baptism is in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, about 215 A.D.:
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21:15, c. 215 A.D.)
It was not the majority practice until into the later part of the 300s and into the 400s AD.
After that, it was the majority view until the Anabaptists of the Reformation and then later the Calvinistic Baptists and General Baptists of England and USA.
Joe: "Hi TUAD.
I watched the video, and I actually do not see how BR violates faith alone at all...whereas Sproul certainly does."
Hi Joe,
Thoughtfully read this:
Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism
Sproul does not see how Luther makes BR fit with sola fide. Sproul must be right!!! Let's charge on! -- Here's a piece of logic.
Baptism is your visible sign that God is wanting you as his child. Believe it. This is trust and faith.
Children seem to get it. That's what Jesus said, too.
Hi Ken.
John the Baptist would seem to be an exception there when he leaps in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary comes close. That is historical narrative and surely not a good hermeneutical principle to try and extract that out and make it a paradigm for our children. that seems far fetched to me.
Okay, so you see John as being an exception. But certainly then you can "wrap you head around" the concept of an infant (not even born yet!) having faith then...and your prior comment of "given that repentance and faith are only possible when someone is a little older"...is falsified in this one example.
Also, the practice of infant baptism was not "extracted and made into a paradigm for our children" simply by this example of John. It's practice is scripturally supported in much greater depth than this example of John. John simply proves that infants, even those not born yet, can have faith. God is not limited to give the gift of faith until we are "a little older"
in Him,
Joe
Hi Ken.
Psalm 22 seems to be speaking of the baby trusting in his/her mother when they are fed - they find contentment and rest and satisfaction of hunger when the mom supplies them with their needs - that is hardly faith in God through understanding one is a sinner and under the wrath of God and turning to Christ and His atonement to save him!
22:9-10 "Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God."
Ken, I am not arguing that an infant has the same faith/trust or understanding as one 80 years in the faith. That would be silly. But it appears you are discounting these remarks of infant faith completely, as if they mean nothing ...which I think is wrong, and actually shows that you limit God in what He can do to a very large portion of humankind. We see infants trust/praise/leap for joy for their God...in their own infant way. You can worship God fuller than probably 5 years ago. You grow. Our faith grows, yes...but in this few examples, it is explicitly clear there is faith/trust in God.
In the OT, He specifically had interactions with infants...giving them the sign/seal of the covenant, and all throughout the OT and NT as well we see this same continuity.
in Him,
Joe
(same could be said of your remarks on Psalm 8)
The earliest explicit reference to child or infant baptism is in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, about 215 A.D.:
What about the earliest implicit reference?
Since we are referring to Sproul...he says, in "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith" (note essential :))
"Church History bears witness to the universal, noncontroversial practice of IB in the second century. The first direct mention of IB is around thet middle of the second century. What is noteworthy about this reference is that it assumes IB to be the universal practice of the Church. If IB were not the practice of the first-century church, how an why did this departure from orthodoxy happen so fast and so pervasively? Not only was the spread rapid and universal, the extant literature from that time does not reflect any controversy concerning the issue"
I know Irenaues spoke of infants being born again...certainly a reference to baptism, as the early church held to BR as well.
In Him.
Joe
Hi TUAD.
Thanks for the article. Will read it soon.
Please thoughtfully answer this question:
If faith comes via hearing thru a preacher, why would that not be considered contra faith alone....if faith coming via baptism is? Why would the mode of receiving faith be significant in regards to being contra faith alone?
In Him,
Joe
Ken: "I agree with Sproul - (on the video) And the one by Piper too. (smile)"
That's a nice smile you have, Ken.
Rhology, 2:21pm, 8/2/12: "May God have mercy on you and clear your eyes from such cobwebs and jacked-up thinking, Brigitte. There are many errors in this last comment of yours."
Asking for God's mercy to be extended to someone in serious doctrinal error. That's loving kindness.
Back-to-back 300 games by Rhology against both Team Tiber and Team Wittenburg.
Joe: "Please thoughtfully answer this question:
If faith comes via hearing thru a preacher, why would that not be considered contra faith alone....if faith coming via baptism is? Why would the mode of receiving faith be significant in regards to being contra faith alone?"
Joe,
Here's an excerpt from the article that you are going to thoughtfully read:
"Once again, we can hear Luther and his defenders protesting that baptism is not a work. The only thing man does in baptism is believe, which itself is a gift of God. Baptism is simply the earthly means by which God has chosen to impart salvation. In response, it must be stressed that submission to baptism is an act of obedience to God that is done in addition to believing the gospel. Justification, therefore, is by faith in the gospel plus obedience to God’s command to be baptized. This is contrary to the Scriptures and akin to the Galatian heresy. John 5:24 states that he who hears the word and believes in Jesus has passed from death into life. One is justified at the moment one believes, and not later at baptism. The Galatians had their sins pardoned and received the Holy Spirit when they believed the gospel and not after they had obeyed the law of God (Gal 3:1–9; Acts 13:48, 52; 14:1). In Gal 3:2 (niv) Paul rhetorically asks the Galatians, “I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?” Paul does not say “by believing and being baptized.” In a passage where Paul is vigorously defending the biblical way of salvation, one would expect Paul to mention baptism. But he does not because the Galatians received the Spirit when they believed what they heard, in contrast to any further work of obedience."
Since we are referring to Sproul...he says, in "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith" (note essential :))
"Church History bears witness to the universal, noncontroversial practice of IB in the second century. The first direct mention of IB is around thet middle of the second century.
Sproul is wrong on that.
First Century - 0 -100 AD
Second Century - 101-200 AD
Third Century - 201-300 AD
215 AD is in the early third Century.
I have looked at the references in Irenaeus - they are not about baptism at all. Stander and Louw confirm this. Everyone should get that book. "Baptism in the Early Church.
http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315
Polycarp and Justin Martyr are the main extant writers we have for the middle of the Second century (around 150-165 AD) - nothing there about infant baptism, in fact Justin Martyr in describing baptismal services argues against it and says that one must repent and believe and agree with the church in her doctrines and even prepare for baptism by extended time of prayer and fasting.
Baptism is your visible sign that God is wanting you as his child.
where is that in the Bible? Baptism is a visible sign of already having died to sin and been buried and raised to walk in new life.
Romans 6:1-7
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be rendered powerless, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is justified from sin.
Acts 2:38
"repent and be baptized . . . " - Internal repentance takes place first, then a believer comes to be baptized.
Hi Ken.
Certainly, I do not claim to be a historian and rely on others that are concerning when IB started. (but I do not what time frames the centuries are. :) )
I did find this on Ireneaus:
"He came to save all through Himself-all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord."
With Ireneaus explicit teaching of BR and baptism as "born again", it is hard to imagine his comment of infants being re-born in God not referring to IB.
This on Origen:
"For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit."
and
"Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. What sins? Whenever have they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And yet: 'No one is free from defilement.' (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put away by the mystery of baptism. That is the reason why infants too are baptized."
This on Hippolytus (170-236):
"And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them."
Will try to find more as well...but this put things in the second century, and perhaps early second century with Irenaues.
in Him,
Joe
Thanks Joe,
Yes, I am familiar with that argument. Stander and Louw deal with it in their book, Baptism in the Early Church. (Mentioned above, and also in a new article/post I just finished. I recommend that book to you and the other one on Believer's Baptism edited by Schreiner and Wright.
that argument = the passage from Irenaeus - Stander and Louw deal with it. Not enough time right now for me for typing it all out.
Jesus: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"
Would it surprise anyone should this turn out to be the case:
Not everyone who is baptized and/or baptized as a young child and who then says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.
-----
Petitioner: "Lord, Lord, was I not baptized in your name? Sure, I was a baby when I was baptized, but the objective fact remains: I was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. I claim the promises that were proclaimed to me by the Lutheran pastor in the church that our family rarely went to."
Judge: "Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"
How many books do you have to read to argue away baptism when the Lord clearly instated it and in Acts we have the new believers baptized ASAP including their entire households?
Maybe children should be baptized so you can't go around scrutinizing their works and life to determine if people are good enough. I've seen this judging and putting on of all kinds of rules on people first hand and it has bad results. If you really are a Christian... --you don't drink, for example, that's one of them. You don't dress... You don't ... Anything that you manage to keep yourself and then can turn around and judge others on. We have the 10 commandments to worry about and we can't keep them. Love the Lord your God above everything else with heart, mind and soul. I refuse to judge anyone on that sort of thing. I am bad enough at it myself. Also remember the Pharisee and the Publican.
I have noticed a few times, also, that American evangelicals have written off European Christianity wholesale. Unfortunately, in the State Churches we have plenty of state employees who teach whatever they like, keeping to no doctrinal standards, at all. But religion tends to really be propagated in the homes and I find when I go back that those who were believers decades ago are still believers and their children are also. There are tons of mission societies and various independent churches, as well. Just because some of the deadwood has decided to stop supporting the state churches does not mean that some of the countries are Christ-less.
In fact, I read somewhere, that the Pope is trying to make clear to people, that just because they have opted to drop out of the state church tax system, it does not mean that they are no longer welcome in church.
Anyhow, this is a bit of a digression. But the whole idea, that all those millions of baptized have no faith, is also one of those judgement calls that ought not be made. When I go to Germany, I go to beautiful church services and sing all the old hymns and go to Bible studies and ladies meetings. It is a far cry from all dead. Such things, however, vary regionally, such as whether there was communist oppression, etc. Also the Lutheran/Reformed state churches are more liberal than the catholic. (One has to say something there for the pope, though I'm no fan of the papacy. Of course, in my view, the doctrinal standards should be the Book of Concord. That would solve all that.) Rambling, now. Sorry.
Brigitte: "How many books do you have to read to argue away baptism when the Lord clearly instated it and in Acts we have the new believers baptized ASAP including their entire households?"
Unintelligent statement. No one's arguing away baptism. Ken, Rhology, James Swan, et al, all support baptism. Just not baptismal regeneration.
Post a Comment