Does Trinitarian baptism join you to the New Covenant? Does it join you to Christ? Does it make you a brother or sister in Christ with everyone else who has likewise been baptized, even if you hold to a false gospel? Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ by baptism, but not by confession of faith? These are the issues debated by Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho and James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. (2 Hours 48 Minutes)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
"Separated Brethren", I believe is what the RCC calls them.
I am surprised those two shook hands.
James, is a transcript available? I'm allergic to videos.
I'm not aware of a transcript. I actually don't prefer video debates. I usually listen to such things while driving.
Wilson and White should be worrying if we Catholics consider them our brothers in Christ.
Did you watch the video?
Drat. It'll have to be my driving music, I suppose. At least it's an improvement over NPR.
,Drat. It'll have to be my driving music, I suppose. At least it's an improvement over NPR..
+1
I watched it long ago. I find it laughable. Should they, members of an upstart religion that popped up 1500 years late, deign to consider the original Christians their equals? Ha!
21st century Catholics are not synonymous with "the original Christians". Even RCC theology acknowledges that all those within the visible bounds of the RCC are not heaven-bound, while there are countless people not visibly connected with Rome that can / will be saved. How is that "laughable"?
What did you think James?
Super busy this week. Briefly:
I heard this debate about 5 years ago, and not since. I'm grateful to Dr White for posting these full-length videos free of charge, which is I posted it.
Here's what I remember- and those who have recently watched it, feel free to correct me:
Wilson argued in part that Roman Catholics were brothers and sisters in Christ because of valid baptism (baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Dr. White pointed out the Mormons do that also. Wilson countered they believe in a different god, so it isn't valid.
Dr. White pointed out that Rome anathematized the Gospel at Trent, and proclaims a false Gospel. That's enough for me to make my conclusion that those who willingly proclaim and defend Rome's gospel are not my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Now, this question may generate a different response from some Lutherans, because, according to Luther- baptism is another form of the Word of God (for Luther, the Word of God was not simply Scripture). so I could see how a Lutheran could conclude that baptism makes a Roman Catholic a brother or sister in Christ, despite Trent's declaration. On the other hand, Luther consistently argued those who defend Romanism (the "papists" as he like to call them), were not Christians.
I had this very discussion a few years ago with one of my pastors over lunch. My church does not require ex-Roman Catholics to be re-baptized. I posed the same question: why is Rome's baptism valid if they proclaim a false gospel? He didn't have a response, nor do I think he ever considered the question. Personally, if I were running my church, I would not require them to be re-baptized, because I think having the true Gospel, makes their earlier Roman baptism valid. i know this might not sound consistent- but as a pastor I would strive to be sensitive. On the other hand, say the person in my church was an ex-Mormon. I would require them to be re-baptized.
Guy,
I'm going to delete two of your comments- not out of spite or meanness towards you.
Yes, I have read the link you mention, and I do not have any comment. People can read and believe what they want to, and who they want to.
guy fawkes said...
James, Do you re-Baptize Arminians? Dispensationalists? Lutherans do have the "wrong" ordo salutis, right? What about Church of Christ folk? Oneness Pentecostals?,
No, I don't believe in re-baptizing people. If previously I noted that pastorally I wouldn't force re-baptism on an ex-Roman Catholic, why would I do the same for any of the above? Broadly speaking, the members of the groups you mention adhere to sola fide.
Why Baptize anyway? Only the elect benefit from it. It doesn't actually do anything, right?
Because it is a command of Scripture.
Why do you guys celebrate the Eucharist? It doesn't change election. It is efficacious only for some so why give it out to the assembled throng?
Because it is a command of Scripture.
Why pray for your others? Because God says to? Why does He do that if it doesn't really do anything
Because it is a command of Scripture.
As to what any of these do from a Reformed perspective, some other time. My time is limited in cyberspace.
guy fawkes said...
James, I think the Theresa of Avila woman is pretty much correct. I think you are white washing Luther.
I don't recall who this is, but I've had people make this charge against me. And if I've white washed Luther in this discussion, show me where.
I am an expert on Luther as I am a North Dakotan German whose father was a lifelong Lutheran.
And I have no idea what you mean.
Did Luther say Christ committed adultery with Magdalene or not? Is the fact he was soused when he said it an excuse. Is this all popish slander of a holy man?
It's a purported context-less Tabletalk comment. So whether or not Luther was drinking or even said it at all- I have no idea.
As to popish slander- usually.
"Neither will all Calvinists make it heaven even though they think they have an assurance of salvation."
Umm, wouldn't a Calvinist who thinks he has the assurance of salvation and makes it to heaven be correct?
Post a Comment