Doctrine Matters, Luther Says So

I cringe when I hear Christians lament "doctrine is overrated" or "doctrine is useless. I just need Jesus." Outside of the Bible the greatest event in history (up to this point) was spurned by a godly man whose doctrine of Christ and salvation came straight from the Word of God and so moved a fire in his soul of which the effects are still observed today.

Sadly man today do not grasp the significance of that day- October 31, 1517. Luther's stand that day was for the glory of Christ, in the power the Spirit based on doctrine. Doctrine? Really? Doctrine indeed. Doctrine does matter, just ask Luther:

In short, my doctrine is the matter of chief importance. With it I defy not only princes and kings but all devils as well. Indeed, besides my doctrine I have nothing that supports, strengthens, and gladdens my heart and makes it increasingly bold and defiant. As to the other matter- my life and conduct- I know very well that it is sinful and that I cannot boast of it. I am a poor sinner and will let my enemies be pure saints and angels. Blessed are they of they can sustain reputation. Not that I want to rate as a sinner before the world and non-Christians, but I do so before God and His dear Christians...Let the man who did not know this hear it now...If we believe that our Lord Christ will sit in judgment over all of us on the Last Day, how could any man be more miserable than this fellow Luther if he is wrong and teaches false doctrine? This belief in judgment would certainly not let him have many quiet hours. On the other hand, how can any man be more blessed than this Luther if he is right and teaches Christian doctrine? This belief in Judgment cannot let him have many troubled hours.*

If doctrine didn't matter to Luther we would still be pagans in bondage to Rome. Praise the Lord for raising up Martin Luther.


"Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers"(1 Ti 4:16). 

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

* The picture is of Luther's study where he translated the New Testament into the German language.
*Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (St. Louis, Mo: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 845-846

That Little Monk From Wittenberg

I shall not bore you with my own words for Luther accept to say that if my wife would let me, I would name my next son after him.

Luther's own words in regards to the Reformation:

After the pope had taken over all power and authority by force and cunning so that no emperor or king could humble him, this "son of perdition" (2 Tess. 2:3) was to be revealed by the power of the Word of God. I got into this very innocently, for twenty years ago I had no thought of it. Indeed, had another person so then taught, I would have damned him and burned him with fire. But God is the Cause, for He has miraculously done these things. It is true that when I was a young master a Erfurt. I was always beset by the temptation of sadness. Therefore I applied myself diligently to reading the Bible, and so, from the bare text of the Bible, I soon saw many errors in the papacy. But thoughts like this came to me there in the library at Erfurt:See how great the authority of the pope and the church is. Should you alone be considered wise? Indeed, you may be in error. I gave place to these thoughts and was completely hindered in my Bible reading. But later, when I saw the gross abuses of the indulgences and refuted them and they wanted to destroy me, then things began to happen (da gings an), though very feebly...So God carried on this affair in a marvelous way and drove me into it without my intention (unschuldig), and He alone advanced it so far that a reconciliation between the pope and us is impossible. For the pope will not agree to yield the least error; and we dare not yield to him in any-even the smallest- article. Therefore may God help this cause. It is completely out of human hands. As long as I live, I shall certainly help pluck the pope to the glory of God.*

Hitherto I have done nothing from criminal, reckless, disordered motives, for the sake of worldly honor and profit; all I have written and taught has been according to my conscience and sworn duty as a humble teacher of the Holy Scripture, for the praise of God, for the benefit and salvation of all of Christendom, and for the good of the entire German nation.*

I know that I would be the most agreeable and the dearest person if I were to say this one word revoco, that is I recant. But I will not turn heretic by contradicting the opinion which made me a Christian. I would rather die by fire or be exiled and cursed."*

"But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Ga 6:14).
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (St. Louis, Mo: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p.1174
*Ibid, p. 1183
*Ibid, p. 1184

Why I Love My Paedobaptist Brethren Part 3

 During discussions on baptism (other doctrines too) it is sometimes necessary to pause and re-affirm our love for the brethren based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which unites us. Else we become too consumed with proving our brothers wrong and defending our position that we lose sight of the truth. We both have the same foundation and He is Christ the Lord. If we lose our focus it is easy to become overtaken with bitterness and hatred for one another.

This is why I pause in the discussion of baptism to say that I really do love my paedobaptist brethren. I cannot forget their love for Christ and their labor and love for Him. Their defense of the Christian faith and example of truly contending for it. One thinks of that little one time monk from Wittenberg.  A giant of the faith- Martin Luther. One may say whatever they wish in regards to his view of baptism. What must be admitted is his love for Christ and his boldness in the face of death to proclaim the truth and defend it. Every Christian today owes respect and is indebted to such a great man of God.

Ask me again why I love my paedobaptist brethren. I answer with their own words-

Martin Luther:

What is the Gospel but the sermon that Christ gave Himself for us that He might save us from sin, that all who believe this might certainly be saved in this manner, and that thus sinners, despairing of their own efforts, might cling to Christ alone and rely on Him. this is a very lovely and consoling declaration and readily enters such hearts as are despondent about their own efforts. Therefore the word "evangel" means a sweet, kind, and gracious message which gladdens and cheers a sorrowful and terrified heart.*

Zacharias Ursinus:

Question 60. How art thou righteous before God?

Answer. Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me that I have grossly transgressed all the commands of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin; yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ hath accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

The doctrine of justification, which now follows, is one of the chief articles of our faith, not only because it treats of those things which are fundamental, but also because it is most frequently called in question by heretics. The controversies between the church and heretics have respect principally to two points: the one is concerning God, and the other concerning the justification of man in the sight of God. And such is the importance of these doctrines that if either one of them be overthrown, the other parts of our faith easily fall to pieces. Hence it becomes necessary for us to fortify and establish ourselves, especially in these doctrines, against all the assaults of heretics. Concerning the doctrine of justification (for we have already spoken of the doctrine concerning God) of which the above questions of the Catechism treat, the following things are to be considered...

Righteousness is derived from right, which is the law, and is a conformity with the law, as sin or unrighteousness is the transgression of the law. It may be defined in general, as consisting in a conformity with God and the divine law; although a definition can hardly be given so general as to agree at the same time with God and creatures. Uncreated righteousness is God himself, the foundation, and rule or pattern of all righteousness. Created righteousness is an effect of uncreated or divine righteousness in rational creatures. Righteousness, therefore, in general, as far as it has respect to creatures, consists in fulfilling those laws which pertain to rational creatures; or, it is a conformity on the part of rational creatures with those laws which have respect to them. Finally, righteousness is the fulfillment of the law, and a conformity with the law is righteousness itself. This must be observed and held fast to, because our justification can only be effected by fulfilling the law. Evangelical righteousness is the fulfilling of the law, and does not conflict with it in the least. The gospel does not abolish the law, but establishes it.*

Herman Bavnick:

According to the New Testament, all these different testimonies of the law and the prophets culminate in Christ. The whole Old Testament is basically fulfilled in him. In him all the promises of God are yes and amen (Rom. 15:8; 2 Cor. 1:20). He is the true Messiah, the king of David’s house (Matt. 2:2; 21:5; 27:11, 37; Luke 1:32; etc.); the prophet who proclaims good news to the poor (Luke 4:17f.); the priest who, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, in his person, office, appointment, sacrifice, and sanctuary far exceeds the priesthood of the Old Testament. He is the Servant of the Lord who as a slave (δουλος, Phil. 2:7–8) came to serve (Mark 10:45), submitted to the law (Gal. 4:4), fulfilled all righteousness (Matt. 3:15), and was obedient to the death on the cross (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8). As such Jesus made a distinction between the kingdom of God as it was now being founded by him in a spiritual sense and as it would one day be revealed in glory; between his first and his second coming, events that in Old Testament prophecy still coincided; between his work in the state of humiliation and that in the state of exaltation. The Christ had to enter glory through suffering (Luke 24:26).
The work that Christ now accomplishes in the state of humiliation is described in the New Testament from many different angles. It is a work that the Father gave him to do (John 4:34; 5:36; 17:4); generally speaking, it consisted in doing God’s will (Matt. 26:42; John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38) and specifically included the “exegesis” of God (John 1:18), the revelation and glorification of his name (17:4, 6, 26), the communication of God’s words (17:8, 14), and so on. Christ is a prophet, mighty in words and deeds (Luke 24:19); he is not a new legislator but interprets the law (Matt. 5–7; 22:40; Luke 9:23; 10:28; John 13:34; 1 John 2:7–8), proclaims the gospel (Matt. 12:16–21; Luke 4:17–21), and in both preaches himself as the fulfiller of the former and the content of the latter. He is the law and the gospel in his own person.*

Louis Berkhof:

CHRISTIANITY is pre-eminently a religion of redemption. It proceeds on the assumption that man’s relation was disturbed by the entrance of sin into the world, and that the present natural development of his life is so abnormal that it, left to itself, can only terminate in eternal destruction. And it teaches us that God does not permit sin to run its free course and to encompass the whole human race in utter ruin. It brings a message of reconciliation and offers a way of escape from the ravages of sin and from its destructive power,—and this way is the way of the cross. Reconciliation through atonement by the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of atonement has always been regarded as central in the Christian religion and as the very marrow of theology. It has been called “the chief part of our salvation,” “the anchor of faith,” “the refuge of hope,” “the heart of the gospel,” “the keystone of the Christian religion,” and so on. Robert S. Franks says in his valuable History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ, I, p. 5: “For where in the whole doctrinal system is there a single doctrine which is more a microcosm of the whole? The doctrine of ‘the saving effects of Christ’s incarnation, life, passion, death, and resurrection’ is indeed in miniature the whole of Christianity, and has indeed more than once in the history of the Church been treated so as to include practically the whole of Christianity.” Even modern liberal theologians often speak of it as a central and essential truth, though they differ widely in their conception of it from the interpretation which the Church of all ages has given of this important truth.*

This is why I love my paedobaptist brethren. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando



* Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (St. Louis, Mo: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 562

*Ursinus, Z., & Williard, G. W. (1888). The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (324–325). Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Company.

*Bavinck, H., Bolt, J., & Vriend, J. (2006). Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ (337–339). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

*Berkhof, L. (1936). Vicarious Atonement Through Christ (11–12). Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

"For You and For Your Children"= Infant Baptism?

"Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Ac 2:37–39).


This is a classic text used by our infant baptizing brethren as scriptural warrant for the baptism of infants to believing parents. After all our children do not get baptized to become members in the covenant, for they are already members according to paedobaptists, but as a sign and seal of external membership in the Church and of the spiritual realities of baptism- so they say. To assume that baptism itself makes our children members of the Covenant of Grace is to attribute to water baptism powers that it does not possess. They believe that our children have a Divine right to baptism because they are members and not members becuase they are baptized (a point which I do not think many young paedobaptists themselves understand). This is what makes many a paedobaptist aggressive towards Baptists. They see us as excommunicating our children from the external membership in the Covenant of Grace by not giving the sign and seal of covenant membership.

The attempt is to draw a line from the Abrahamic Covenant from circumcision to baptism with the difference being the outward form of inclusion into the Covenant of Grace. Hence, they find NT support in Acts 2:38-39 (among other numerous places in the NT). Let's see if this line from circumcision to baptism is indeed straight. One of the major problems in the baptismal discussion is that many paedobaptists argue from their assumptions forward without substantiating. Another way to state it is that they tell us their conclusions without showing us how they came to those conclusions. This effects their exegesis of passages. For example Acts 2:38-39 is often mentioned and because they believe that children should be baptized on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant. They then read that understanding back into a passage like Acts 2:38-39 that mentions children. First, they have not drawn the line from circumcision to baptism. The two are analogous but differ on many points. It is where they differ that paedobaptists refuse to venture.

Secondly, Acts 2:38-39 has an immediate context that needs to be addressed. Simply zeroing in on the words "you" and "children" and reading circumcision to baptism, back into the authors point is not only improper it is insufficient on the grounds of all the biblical information.

Very well then, let us now examine the passage. For this I defer to Paul Jewett:

It should be noted that the specific content of the promise Peter had in mind is the anointing of the Holy Spirit (v. 38), a promise found in Joel 2:28-32. This anointing of the Spirit bestows the gifts of visions and prophecy (Acts 2:17), which are quite beyond the ken of infants and little children. It hardly seems plausible, therefore, that Peter spoke these words with infants in mind, as do Paedobaptists when they quote him at the administration of infant baptism. Jeremias seeks to minimize this point by appealing to the eschatological context of the Pentecostal message: "Save yourselves from this perverse generation" (v. 40). But this form of address still clearly presupposes an audience capable of decision and action.

Probably more important for our inquiry than the eschatological milieu of this passage is the part of the verse to which Paedobaptists have paid the least attention. We refer to the conclusion, where the promise is said to be "to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." It is possible to construe the phrase "to all who are afar off" temporally, as a reference to generations yet unborn.- The verse would then mean: the promise of forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit is to you who hear me now and to your children and to those in turn who shall be born in years to come. But it seems much more plausible, in view of the manner in which the book of Acts traces the witness of the apostles from Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8), to understand the "afar off" reference spatially, after the analogy of Ephesians 2:17. Thus Peter's words become the harbinger of the preaching of the gospel to remote Gentile nations, a venture in which he himself became the cautious innovator when he went to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10).

 In any case, whether this text be construed as limited to Peter's Jewish hearers and their children - those living and those yet to be born - or whether it be understood as applying both to Jews with their children and to Gentiles as well, no adequate interpretation of the text can ignore the final phrase, "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." This phrase is equally related to all the members of the preceding triad. We pause to note this self-evident fact because Paedobaptists, with their theology of Old Testament externalism, according to which believers' children are "born in covenant," are prone to read this verse as securing the benefits of salvation (including baptism) to believers and their children in distinction to those who are afar off. The last group are born "out of covenant" and must be called to repentance and faith in order to be baptized. This approach, without the explicit statement of "covenant theology," is reflected in Jeremias' plea that the first two terms ("you and your children") should not be "torn apart" - as though associating the three together ("you, your children, all who are afar off") as equal members of the sentence might threaten the hermetic seal between parents and children that he is so zealous to preserve in support of infant baptism.

Such a Paedobaptist interpretation violates the elemental structure of the text. Whether we think of Peter's listeners or of their children or of those far removed from the immediate scene of this first Christian kerygma, the point is that the promise is to all whom God shall call. This fact puts the whole matter on a rather different theological axis from that which is traditionally assumed in the interest of infant baptism. It becomes no more a question of one's natural birth, as Paedobaptists have often implied; there is nothing in this Scripture passage of "visible church membership" and "external covenant privilege." Rather, the passage is concerned with the call of God, that inner work of the Spirit who enlightens the mind and renews the heart ("they were pricked in the heart," v. 37), and with the response to that call ("what shall we do?' v. 37) on the part of those who receive it. Those who are thus called are baptized into the name of Jesus, who is freely offered in the gospel as the Savior of all who in turn shall call on him. The whole account of the Pentecostal witness is couched in terms of summons and response. But no one can respond to this summons by proxy - as does the infant when presented by his parents for baptism; for when God calls a person, he calls him not by his family name but by his first name.

In Acts 2:39, therefore, we have a form of statement appropriate to the occasion on which it was uttered, namely the founding of the Christian church, an occasion that marked the end of the old economy and the birth of the new. Standing on the threshold of the New Testament age, Peter's words echo the Old Testament: "To you is the promise and to your children"; but they seize the future with a forward face: "and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." The Paedobaptist ear is so attuned to the Old Testament echo in this text that it is deaf to its New Testament crescendo. It fails to perceive that the promise is no longer circumscribed by birth but by the call of God, by the anointing of his Spirit which secures the new birth, according to the covenant as newly administered in Christ. The children of this new covenant are those who, having received a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36:26), become children of God (and of Abraham) by faith (emphasis mine).*

 Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando



* Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (pp. 120-122). Kindle Edition.

Paedobaptism Without Paedocommunion?

It is my contention that paedobaptism nor paedocommunion are commanded in Scripture. Neither by direct command or from John Murray's "good and necessary inference." I dare say, along with others, that paedobaptism is not a "necessary" or "good" inference from biblical data. I aim to further demonstrate that the hermeneutic that leads to infant baptism, if consistenly applied, leads infant communion. The latter point is where some paedobaptists abandon their "good and necessary inference" that lead them to paedobaptism.

Before I go any further I wish clarify an objection. Many Paedobaptists insist that some of the arguments presented against their position are borrowed from others. Indeed they are. I seek to not present anything novel. These arguments are some that have lead me to not embrace paedobaptism while I made my theological shift from Arminianism to Calvinism. It was tempting to embrace the whole Reformed position, paedobaptism and all, in order to be accepted and included in the broader "Truly Reformed" circles. It was certainly tempting and would have been easier to simply accept infant baptism from its persuasive arguments and be received by the upper echelon of Christianity. Yet after much study, honest study, my conscious is bound to the Word of God which I believe does not allow for paedobaptism. Not by command nor inference. I am aware of the paedobaptist position(s) (there are a variety) and simply reject them. This is perhaps what seems to anger some.

Let me repeat that I am not trying to bring any new objections and arguments to the discussion. Let me also say neither is the paedobaptist. The arguments they present are borrowed from others- Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Ursinus, the Westminster Divines, Hodge, Murray, Berkhof, Marcel, Jeremias, Pratt, Wilson, Horton e.t.c.; all whom have disagreed on very significant points or borrowed from others and expanded the arguments(s) themselves. Thus my paedobaptist brethren are borrowing the thoughts and information of others as well. That is not a bad thing, so long as one has truly examined the evidence from both sides and have been persuaded, not by the rhetoric or stature behind the one arguing or by counting noses, but by the Holy Writ. Neither one of us are bringing anything new to the table. How about we both admit that?


Without granting the argument that baptism replaces circumcision and corresponds with it on a one to one basis so much so that they are identical. This is a point we shall return to later and in more depth, in yet another article. Sufficient for now is to affirm with Paul Jewett:

We have agreed that circumcision means "essentially" what baptism means in the New Testament. What is needed is not a repetition of this point but rather a close look at the Old Testament to determine exactly what is the nature of the non-essential diversity between the signs. Paedobaptists, it would seem, are so committed to the similarity of circumcision and baptism that they care little for the task of determining wherein the two are dissimilar. Circumcision is baptism and baptism is circumcision, for all theological purposes. The difference between the signs is so incidental that no good thing, theologically speaking, could come from probing it. But if this is the case, then where is the warrant for "old" and "new" as appropriate adjectives to describe the difference between the covenants? Why is the Bible in two parts?

Therefore, we cannot approve this method that simply identifies the new with the old. We can only protest that such an emphasis on the inward and spiritual blessings sealed by baptism as the key to the interpretation of the Old Testament rite of circumcision is a faulty approach, which needs to be balanced by a recognition of the outward and external blessings that circumcision also represented to those who received it. To interpret circumcision exclusively in terms of baptism is to read the New Testament back into the Old in a manner that violates the movement of holy history and denies the progressive character of revelation. We must never write systematic theology at the expense of biblical theology. We must explore the ways in which the Old Testament teaching about circumcision differs from the New Testament teaching about baptism (emphasis mine).*

We shall now proceed to examine if the paedobaptist is consistent with applying the "good and necessary inference" that lead them to paedobaptism, with applying the same hermeneutic with paedocommunion.
It was John Murray that championed the argument of "good and necessary inference" which he believes to be from the WCF's (Westminster Confession of Faith) "good and necessary consequences" (WCF 1:6). In Murray's own words:

The evidence for infant baptism falls into the category of good and necessary inference , and it is therefore quite indefensible to demand that the evidence required must be in the category of express command or explicit instance.*

The basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church.* 

In other words since the sign of the covenant for the people of God was circumcision in the Old Testament and that sign bears not just external significance but spiritual as well, unless there is express command to abolish this sign to the covenant people of God, which included infants and adults, then this sign and seal carries over into the New Testament in the outward form of baptism and is to be given to the covenant people of God, again, which includes the children of believers. To put it, yet, a different way- since there is no express command to abolish the inclusion of infants from among the covenant people of God; although there is no New Testament command or explicit examples of infant baptism in the New Testament, we must infer that since baptism replaces circumcision and to be "identical" with it , infants must be included into the covenant people of God and are to be baptized. The "good and necessary inference" of the sign of God's covenant people is identical in meaning but differs in form in the Old Testament economy and New Testament economy. Again, unless there is an explicit command in the New Testament to abolish giving the covenant sign and seal to infants of the covenant people, we can infer from the biblical data that is must continue from the Old to the New. That is a common argument from paedobaptists.

Without granting that premise I wish to move forward to demonstrate that that same argumentation is rejected and abandoned by the majority of paedobaptists when it comes to infant communion. According to Exodus 12 the Passover meal was to be for the "household" (v. 3-4) and to be established with them and their sons forever (v. 24). Now apply the same "good and necessary inference" hermeneutic from many paedobaptists that demand that the "household" baptisms in the New Testament which is to include infants. Take that same principle and apply it to the Passover meal in Exodus 12 and you are led to believe that children, not nursing on their mother's breasts, must have been included in the Passover meal -which is replaced with communion. Furthermore, since it was to "you and your sons forever" (bear in mind that a similar phrase is used by Peter in Acts 2:38-39 and is a reason for paedobaptists to baptize infants) and we have no explicit command in the New Testament to rescind the sacrament of the Lord's Table to covenant members, then by "good and necessary inference", just as with the sign of covenant membership, children must be included to have a place at the Lord's table. Yet a great majority of paedobaptists will abandon the hermeneutic that led them to infant baptism when it comes to infant communion.

They attempt to do so through a few ways. One of which is to deny that children were not allowed to participate eating of the lamb in the Passover meal. At this juncture paedobaptists are at disagreement with each other. John Murray held the view that children were not allowed to participate while Berkhof affirms that they did participate. Murray and many others deny children were allowed participation on several grounds. One being that v. 26 sates they are to give an answer to their children when asked why they celebrate the Passover meal. The reasoning is that children were not allowed to participate unless they were old enough to ask about it. The answer to that objection is, exegetically speaking , there is nothing in the text that says they were only allowed participation unless they asked. It only states parents were to testify to their children the extreme importance behind such a service when the children were old enough to inquire.

Perhaps a better answer to the objection is as Fred Malone writes:

The inclusion of children in the meal is clear because there were no other leavened breads and meats allowed to be present in the household ( Exodus 12:19, 28, 29). Except for infants still on the breast, there literally was nothing else for the children to eat but the Passover meal!*

Quite interestingly Murray demonstrates the weakness of his position while showing a glimpse of recognition of his inconsistent hermeneutic. He writes:

It could be resolved by going in the other direction, namely,that of admitting infants to the Lord's supper. And when all factors entering into this dispute are taken into account, particularly the principle involved in infant baptism, then far less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord's supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism.*

Another way in which paedobaptists attempt to affirm peadobaptism and deny paedocommunion is on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:28. They (rightly) maintain that a child cannot examine themselves as commanded before participation. Yet the "good and necessary inference" that led them to paedobaptism was on the basis of a lack of command to rescind or prohibit the sign of the covenant to infants born to established covenant members. Where, then, is the command to prohibit these same infants born into the covenant by virtue of their parents, rescinded in the New Testament? There isn't one. That puts the paedobaptist in a conundrum by the logic of their very own hermeneutic (of baptism). A command to examine oneself is not the same as a command to rescind.What about the view of paedofaith, if God can grant an infant faith can he not grant them the ability to examine themslves? What is the appropriate age to do this? Just as it has been objected that the examples to repent and believe before baptism, in the New Testament, is alleged by paedobaptists- is for unbelieving adults or those cognizant. How do we not know that the same command for self-examination is only for adults or those cognizant?  Appealing to 1 Corinthians 11:28 does not help their case. It exposes it. It reveals their inconsistency in applying their hermeneutic to all areas. Fred Malone explains this to be the reason he re-examined his position as a paedobaptist:

If children in the Old Covenant were allowed to participate in the Passover Feast as soon as they were able to consume the elements, but children in the New Covenant are not allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper until a professed faith and self-examination are evidenced, is there also inconsistency with the hermeneutics of infant baptism. What hermeneutic must determine consistently the subjects both of baptism and the Lord's Supper?*

After serving happily for seven years in Presbyterian churches, I was unsettled when reading Exodus 12. This text revealed that the household children partook of the Passover meal. Since I believed baptism was a continuation of circumcision and the Lord's supper was a continuation of the Passover, then did this mean that Presbyterians should allow children to take communion from their earliest years? I found that theologian decided against such a notion. the reason he gave, however, was that the New Testament requires partakers of the Lord's supper to examine themselves first (1 Cor. 11:28). Then it hit me. The New Testament also requires baptismal candidates to repent first. If one is hermeneutically consistent, one must accept both paedobaptism and paedocommunion, or one can accept neither. This discovery uncovered many inconsistencies in my position, leading me to adopt the position that only disciples should be baptized. I was a Baptist, again.*

It is this flip-flopping inconsistency Malone realized of his past hermeneutic, that Jewett brilliantly says:

They have so far pressed the unity of the covenant as to suppress the diversity of its administration. They have, to be specific, Christianized the Old Testament and Judaized the New.


It is this double movement within the argument from circumcision - reading the New Testament as though it were the Old and the Old Testament as though it were the New - which makes the argument so easy to use and so difficult to criticize. The reader should be advised at the outset that Paedobaptist reasoning does not flow in one direction like the water in a brook but rather can be likened to the great currents of the sea. As the deep, heavy water is constantly flowing over the sill at the Straits of Gibraltar and out to sea, while the lighter, less saline water is flowing inward from the Atlantic to replace it, so it is with the Paedobaptist argument from circumcision. It moves in two directions at the same time, reading the Old as though it were the New and the New as though it were the Old. It is this compounded error that makes the Reformed argument for infant baptism, apparently so plausible on a superficial level, seem utterly confused when one probes it in depth.*

There is a third reason to be explored, as a reason, by paedobaptists for rejecting paedocommunion. It is to appeal to church history but as we shall soon see, the earliest testaments of infant baptism favored the inclusion of infant communion. They well understood that that the two sacraments go together. You cannot be a partaker of one yet be denied the blessing of the other. I will explore that issue at a later time.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (pp. 96-97). Kindle Edition.
* John Murray, Christian Baptism (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), p. 72
* Ibid., p. 48
* Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone (Cape Coral, Fl.: Founders Press, 2007), p. 24
* John Murray, Christian Baptism (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), p.77
* Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone (Cape Coral, Fl.: Founders Press, 2007), p. 27
*Tom Nettles And Russell Moore, Why I am A Baptist ( Nashville, TN.: B7H Publishing Group, 2001), p. 137-138
*Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (pp. 91-92). Kindle Edition.

The Error of The Free Will of The Fallen Nature: Considerations and Ramifications

The more I am confronted with the doctrine of “free will,” by which is meant what has been historically called “libertine free will,” and which I will define simply as “free will of the fleshly nature,” or, more appropriately, “sovereign will of the fleshly nature,” as it is said to either accept or reject the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from an unregenerate nature, and so must be said to be the deciding factor in both that acceptance of God’s freely given gift of salvation in Jesus Christ, as well as the regeneration of that unregenerate nature, the more I see the old adage, “error leads to error.”

Proponents of this doctrine of decisional regeneration point to the fact of truths in the gospel which tell us to “choose,” “believe,” “have faith,” & etc. without bothering to consider the noetic effects of the fall:

Galatians 3:22: But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

If all is imprisoned under sin, what part of that which is imprisoned is released, even for a moment, but anything other than transforming grace from God?

Does this not consider the very innermost fiber of that nature that is after Adam’s fallen nature?

Of course it does, and that, far too clearly to misunderstand:

Romans 5:12-21: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The first thing to notice is that all are under sin – there are no exceptions to this fact, and it takes the grace of God in Jesus Christ to conquer this spiritual death; and notice, the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. If this be true – and it is – there is stated a significant difference between God’s grace and the effects of the fall in Adam, and that difference is that those who receive that gift of grace receive it as not that which is inherent, as in the fall, but as that which is spiritual – it is exactly at this point that it is not as the one man’s sin. It is freely given, and so freely received, but this is a full giving and reception, because what makes it free is God’s sovereignty in the giving – it is not able to be received by anything of that nature that has inherited every aspect of sin (John 1:12-13).

We also learn what happens to one who receives this grace – and please note, I do not mean “receive” as in judged and considered worthy of their approval and reception, for then man would sit in judgment of God, at the very moment of their approving, or disapproving, that which He supposedly offers for their consideration.

Let us consider the teaching on a grace that if offered to all, yet only actuated by those who, yet unregenerate, as said to be brought to such a state of objectivity that they are able to consider eternity, both in damnation, and in glorification, of themselves in Christ.

First, if all people are given this grace, this means that they have been raised to the status whereby they accept or reject it – this would be the prevenient grace of Arminianism, which informs of the transformation to fit a person for either eternal damnation or eternal glorification.

Implicit – and undeniably so – in the terms accept and reject, is the fact that there is a judgment being made, for to do either is a judgment call, a moving of the thoughts and will and emotions of the fallen nature to consider, fairly, objectively, by the aforementioned prevenient grace, such grace having been said to lift all persons to that state whereby they could consider, then render judgment, on whether they desire either end for themselves.

If one states that God is sovereign in all His creation at all times, as the Scriptures do, in great and multifold detail, one must wonder at the hubris of such a doctrine that places Him upon the witness stand, and man upon the judgment seat.  Mercy is not something given, but rendered by God according to the judgment of each individual mandating that it is acceptable to them, for which I imagine God must be very grateful, seeing that He went to so much trouble to make their ability to judge the worthiness of His gift as worthwhile (irony completely intended).

If, having been raised to such an exalted state by said prevenient grace, one judges God’s freely given gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus as unworthy, they are choosing, objectively, eternal damnation, knowing full well what that means.

We would say such a person, in possession of all their faculties, which have, furthermore, been raised to such a state by prevenient grace as to render wrong judgment, for their part, as something that could not happen, to be either insane or deceived to choose eternal damnation in such a state.

If insane, what good such prevenient grace, for it did not bring them to that objective point of consideration whereby they might truly judge God’s free gift in Jesus Christ, obviously (only a madman would choose eternal damnation)?

If deceived, was there ever any grace offered whereby they could render such judgment, or did the ground the seed was planted upon indeed prove that “in Adam, all die,” and that the seed was indeed a false one, sown by the evil one (Matthew 13:1-32;37-42)?

Notice the dual purpose of parables given: Those who are the “good seed” see and hear truth; those who are “bad seed” cannot. Good seed is the “sons of the kingdom” sown by Christ our Lord; bad seed is “sons of the evil one,” sown as counterfeit sons of the kingdom. One set of seed was both bad and always falls on the wrong ground from the start; the other set of seed is good from the start and always falls on good ground, yielding fruit.

Since good seed is sons of the kingdom sown by our Lord, even in parabolic language, we see that the ground prepared to receive those seeds is none other than that new life, regenerated, born again (John 3:3-8) – there is no other way to read these parables. Those the Lord sows always are sons of the kingdom; those the evil one sows always are false ones posing as sons of the kingdom – they may hear the gospel, but they are bad seed, and cannot respond to it in truth and spirit. By juxtaposing these two parables of planting and sowing, we can clearly see that it is the Lord who both sows the gospel and the good seed which always lands on the good ground.

Back to the aforementioned prevenient grace, such is said to be given to “all men,” in a universal-potential manner. The context of even the quote from Romans 5, above, is not read in any real understanding, for it makes separation of those who are the “all men” of Adam’s transgression, and so have his nature, and the “all men” who are made righteous – not potentially made righteous, but actually made righteous, justified and given life – by the free gift of God in Him. There is a distinction of category.

I hope it is not needful to demonstrate fully the futility of the atoning sacrifice of our Lord in such a system, so we do so only in part, here: God’s wrath is only potentially satisfied, for if it were actually satisfied, then all for whom it was satisfied would have no need to satisfy it again by their denial of Christ and all that God commands and demands of those who would stand before Him eternally, in that righteousness that is as Christ’s, for it is exactly that – our Lord’s own righteousness (Philippians 3:8-16). Furthermore, if their sin is atoned for, actually, they should not pay for it eternally in damnation, inflicting the standard of double-jeopardy which they slanderously speak of us as doing – it has often been said that either our Lord Jesus Christ’s death atoned for sins, or it atoned for nothing, and rightly so.

It takes a man-centered view of the Scripture to understand such things so shallowly, as any harmonious reading of all – or even a good part – of the verses concerned show us that Christ did not come to potentially save His people, but to save them, actually (Matthew 1:21).

I have heard, in various forms, “God is so sovereign He could create man with free will.”

A very easy way to understand this stating of the sovereign will of the fleshly nature is to simply restate it:

“God is so sovereign that He could create man to have at least one moment of sovereignty over Him, as pertaining to salvation or damnation.”

In logic, which God created with all other things, this is known as an oxymoron – it is akin to saying “The little girl grew up to become a great man, and fathered many children.” It is literally a contradiction in terms – it is the very definition of an oxymoron, and smacks of the philosophy of unredeemed minds of unredeemed men; simply put, it is an exercise in semantic absurdity, as the two premises are mutually exclusive.

I am not saying that all who believe in such prevenient grace are, of necessity, unsaved; I am saying, clearly, that they have an extremely low view of Scripture, the nature of God, and the nature of man, as Scripture defines these things, because of a shallow study ethic, or a refusal to believe that which the Scriptures state, or some combination of these things.

In this type of view of Scripture, the prime category errors are bound to lead to other errors – this has proven true over the history of the church, as a low view of God, a high view of man, and what these speak of concerning Scripture has continued to promulgate and perpetuate error after error.

Such is not confined to only Arminianism, but it is in that tradition that such has found the roots to grow into more and more error, primarily. When other traditions are examined which put forth such errors, they are either more man-centered (Pelagianism), or show themselves to partake, at their point of departure, of an error, or errors, that are not limited to their traditions, but borrow from others, and often, lead to cults, or cultish belief systems (Roman Catholicism). This is true even of various errors perpetuated in those churches which we call Reformed, sadly.

Suffice it to say a pure hermeneutic, as defined in Scripture, which partakes of all of Scripture, is always God and Christ-centered (Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39).

Once one gets away from the fact our Lord states, that ALL the Scriptures speak of Him, the breeding ground of man-centered philosophies both start, and abound; human responsibility before God is seen to mean human ability before new life, and it is only by His grace, indeed, that these types of errors are eradicated among those who are truly His.

To the glory of God alone - Bill Hier

A Covenantal Baptist Response

The issue of baptism certainly opens the floodgate of discussion. My article here provoked a response from a good brother, found here (a good blog that I do recommend). Although I do not personally know Mr. Silva, I have had the privilege of meeting his acquaintance on Facebook and can say that he does exemplify true Presbyterianism, and for that I am thankful to the Lord and him.

Before I address a few of his points I wish to preface my article with an exhortation to look for the unity we have in Christ, which is secured by the Gospel that bears His name, rather than looking for, and focusing on, any differences on any doctrines that will not get us booted out of the Kingdom if either of us are wrong. I know this stance evokes much anger from credobaptists and paedobaptists alike. It is too "ecumenical" for them. Very well then, move along, just move along, there is nothing here for you to see. This is a brotherly discussion where we believe the command of our Lord that we our to love one another (John 3:34-35). At the same time we readily acknowledge that the subject of baptism is no small nor trivial matter. Hence the discussion we are in that can get a bit excited at times. That being, and to repeat myself, the goal here is unity and not division.

Now to deal with some points that Mr. Silva mentions. There are far too many for me to cover in detail here. So I shall deal with a few that I think need to be addressed. My first being that the overall tone of that blog misses my main point. Issue was taken with the last paragraph of my article and I was taken to task for it while my main concern went largely ignored. My chief two issues were the demeaning insults from paedobaptists and the misuse of church history from some of them. My article was not motivated because of one individuals Facebook post but the sentiment that comes from many paedobaptists towards Baptists. That one post, which was not only insulting but slanderous as well, evoked many cheers and encouragements from all sorts of paedobaptists. Baptists were treated as inferior or as some sort of sub-species of Christians. And not one paedobaptists held their counter parts accountable for the insults.

I was by no means intending to infer that that attitude is one of Presbyterianism, because it is not. Perhaps, I could have been a little clearer. But my concern remains. If that attitude is not representative of true Presbyterianism, why weren't those that are truly of the Presbyerian spirit holding their fellow paedobaptists accountable? Would they have remained silent if it was a Baptist posting such insulting things towards those that practice infant baptism? We here at this blog have rebuked fellow Baptists for being ignorant and misrepresenting paedobaptist beliefs and practices. It is hard not to come away with the idea that some or even a large portion of paedbaptists really believe that Baptists are somehow inferior.

Not only was there lacking a rebuke for the insult towards Baptists but the misuse of church history didn't evoke any comment. The idea that believers baptism wasn't around until the sixteenth century is just preposterous. Tertullian advocates against the baptism of small children. It is often understood that Tertullian was referring to infants in his discussion of baptism.He wasn't. He was referring to the practice of baptizing children. His view was that it should be postponed until they are able to comprehend what is happening. Meanwhile the Didache, written before Tertullian's piece, gave only instructions for believers baptism, again, a Baptist position. Church history didn't start in the sixteenth century. The Didache (100-125 A.D.) is an extremely important piece of Christian literature. It is ( if I'm not mistaken) the earliest document outside of Scripture that gives instructions for baptism and it only gives instructions for the credobaptist position. A further study of church history verifies this as admitted by even some paedobaptists. As Fred Malone writes:

An interesting study of baptism in the early church was written by two paedobaptist authors, H.F. Stander and J.P. Louw , professors at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. They claim: "The truth is that modern-authors misinterpret and sometimes misrepresent the statements of the Church Fathers."

These authors point out that many references used by paedobaptists from the church fathers to support infant baptism are really dealing with the baptism of small children, not infants. They demonstrate that the link between  the Abrahamic Covenant , circumcision and infant baptism is a later development from the third to fourth century A.D. They find no wide practice of infant baptism till the fourth century. It is interesting that Peter Leithart also argues that infant baptism was not practiced by the church until the third century A.D. because Baptists had taken over the church after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (emphasis mine).*

Baptists could never get away with with such abuse of church history! Yet, paedobaptists play loose and fast with historical facts on baptism quite frequently. While not all of them are fast to jump to church history, a great many do. That is why I am attempting to drive this point- church history is not on their side. It has been said before and I'll repeat it (again), "infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology." I'm not quite sure they are even aware of the evolution of their theology in regards to infant baptism. Many are quick to point out that they dogmatically hold that position. My response is which version? The one that regenerates, washes away sin, proclaims membership into the covenant, the one that does not require infant faith, the one that does? Which one? And to answer the view of the Reformation. Again, which one? Luther's baptismal regeneration or later infant faith view or Zwingli's covenantal view? In fact Zwingli went so far as to say that all the Fathers and his contemporaries (Luther) have erred until his view. About the only thing they had right, according to him, was the practice itself! One can certainly observe the search of a proper theology for this practice.

I have not yet addressed Mr. Silva's points about paedocommunion, which was his main concern with one of my previous articles. Lord willing, I will do that in part two. Suffice it to say for now that I reject it and think all Christians should reject both paedobaptism and paedcommunion. What I eventually will attempt to demonstrate is that the hermeneutic that leads to infant baptism, if consistently applied, will lead to infant communion. I did not address the issue now because I do not desire for my other concerns to be ignored.

I am aware that the majority of paedobaptists reject (rightly so) paedocommunion. And just a brief note here becuase I cannot help myself, the article quoted Dr. Nigel Lee as stating that minors were never permitted to eat the meat of the lamb in the Passover Feast. But that is one of many disagreements among paedobaptists. Dr. Berkhof writes, "Children, though they were allowed to eat the passover in the days of the Old Testament, cannot be permitted to partake of the table of the Lord, since they cannot meet the requirements for worthy participation."* I will contend with Berkhof that they did indeed participate. But that argument is for a later time. I will also be posting an article in full from a good brother that will defend the paedobaptist/paedocommunion view point. Be sure to look out for it.


 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (Jn 13:34–35).


Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando



* Fred Malone, The Baptism Of Disciples Alone (Cape Coral, FL.: Founders Press, 2007) p. 174-175

*Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (656). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

The Evolution Of Infant Baptism

When people use the historical paedobaptist defense of the church fathers, I ask, "Which one?" They may reply "The historic view of the reformation!" To which I still reply "Which one, Luther's or Zwingli's?" Some may wish to avoid that and simply say "I believe the biblical view of baptism that includes infants." I reply, "Again, which one? The one the one that washes away sin and secures salvation or the one that proclaims them members of the covenant?"  The old addage, that infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology, certainly proves true in the history of the church. The historical approach is not very favorable towards the position and is especially true for the main view espouted today. Why? Because the predominate view before Zwingli was tied to a form of baptismal regeneration- a position which they reject. Paul Jewett demontrates:

 For the present we can only observe that to say with the Augsburg Confession that baptism "is necessary to salvation," or with the Anglican Book of Common Prayer that a child is "by baptism regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's church," seems to us to be playing the part of Lot's wife in furtively looking back toward the medieval doctrine of sacramental efficacy (ex opere operato). When the ancient Fathers began seriously to frame a reason for baptizing infants, they wrote the prologue to this medieval sacramentalism by saying that baptism is the divinely appointed instrument for mediating the grace of cleansing from original sin and renewal in the image of Christ. The position of the Lutheran and Anglican confessions is but the epilogue to this same position. Though in the latter communions, as in the early Fathers, the ties between the outward sign and the inward grace are looser than in the Roman Church, yet cleansing from sin and inward renewal are still tied to the waters of baptism.

At the time of the Reformation a new thing occurred. Like the river of Eden, the argument for infant baptism was parted and a genuinely evangelical defense of Paedobaptism emerged, a defense that viewed the sacrament of baptism simply as "a washing with water, signifying and sealing our engrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace." The interminable debate over infant baptism and believer baptism has tended to obscure this significant fact. It is commonly acknowledged that there were essentially two points of view on baptism at the Reformation: that of the Reformers, which was infant baptism; and that of the sectarian Anabaptists, which was adult baptism. But a closer examination reveals that the thinking of the Paedobaptists themselves, from the very beginning of the Reformation, is further split by a difference of opinion which goes far deeper than the question of whether or not infants should be baptized. This fundamental difference involves the whole theology of the sacrament of initiation. Whereas Luther could thank God that the sacrament of baptism had been preserved unimpaired, Zwingli could only conclude that ever since the apostles, all the doctors in the church had been in error in this matter. In this latter statement we have the beginning of a radical break with the past and the appearance of a new constellation of ideas in the theological heavens. To perceive that this is so, one has only to turn to the confessional literature of the major Reformed communions, read with a theologically critical eye, and he will at once perceive that in this area the Reformed confessions differ significantly not only from the teaching of the medieval Schoolmen but also from their Lutheran and Anglican counterparts quoted above.

In none of the Reformed confessions is there a reference to the necessity of baptizing infants in order that they may be saved. Whereas Lutherans "condemn the doctrine that children are saved without baptism," the Reformed tradition repudiates with abhorrence the thought that unbaptized children may be forever lost as a "cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament."Furthermore, there is nothing in the Reformed confessions about being "born of water," which is so prominent in the Lutheran and Anglican confessions. Rather, there is the express statement that baptism is a washing of regeneration only in the sense of a "divine pledge and token ... that we are really washed from our sins spiritually. ..." It should be noted further that in the Reformed view the children presented for baptism are not regarded as needing cleansing and as outside the church prior to their baptism. Instead, it is because they are heirs of God's covenant promise and numbered by him as among his people and members of his church that they are to be baptized. "Why should they [covenant children] not be consecrated by holy baptism, who are God's peculiar people and are in the church of God?"

How different is this from the prayer that God will grant to this child, being baptized with water, that he may thereby be received into Christ's holy church and made a lively member of the same! The one perspective moves in a dimension of evangelical propriety; the other echoes sacramental necessity. In Lutheran and Anglican theology, baptism is to be administered privately, even by laymen and laywomen, if death impend. By contrast, in Reformed theology, though baptism is not to be unduly delayed, "it is not to be administered in any case by any private person, but by a minister of Christ.... Nor is it to be administered in private places or privately, but in the place of public worship and in the face of the congregation..."

The whole difference that we are noting here was succinctly put in the Saxon Visitation Articles (A.D. 1592). Though never of ecumenical authority in Lutheran circles, these articles are nonetheless a clear statement of the orthodox Lutheran position in contrast to that of the Calvinists. In repudiating the allegedly false doctrine of the Calvinists on baptism, the Articles accuse the latter of teaching that baptism merely signifies inward ablution; that it does not work regeneration, faith, and grace, but only signifies and seals them; that salvation does not depend on baptism, so that when a minister of the church is not available, the infant should be permitted to die without baptism; and that infants of Christians are already holy before baptism, being received into the covenant of life, otherwise baptism could not be conferred on them (I-VI).,

Now if one views the sacraments evangelically as outward signs and seals of an inward grace secured to those who worthily receive them by the efficacious working of the Spirit, and not as guaranteeing, in themselves, the grace which they signify, then the traditional reason for baptizing infants - that they be cleansed from the guilt of original sin, regenerated, and thus made members of Christ's church - is deprived of all force. But then why should infants be baptized, if it does not secure their salvation? It was Zwingli who first pioneered the answer to this question. Caught between the sacramentalism of the Roman Catholics, who made the baptism of infants necessary for salvation, and the innovations of the Anabaptists, who refused even to allow infants to be baptized, he sought a via media. He decided to walk with the Fathers and contrary to the Anabaptists in retaining the usage of infant baptism, but at the same time to walk with the Anabaptists and contrary to the Fathers by denying the necessity of infant baptism.

We can thus appreciate the significance of a sentence from the opening paragraph of Zwingli's treatise on baptism. Having observed that the doctors "have erred from the time of the apostles, by ascribing a power to the waters of baptism which they do not possess," he concludes that "at many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries." " This new path, says the Reformer, opens up before one when he perceives that Christ has transformed the blood of circumcision into the water of baptism. By this Zwingli meant that infant circumcision, as the mark of the covenant between God and the seed of Abraham, is the final raison d'etre for infant baptism. As circumcision was the sign between God and the seed of Abraham, so now baptism is the sign between God and the seed of Christians who are the true heirs of the covenant made with Abraham. Of course, the great Swiss Reformer marshaled many supporting arguments from the testimony of the Fathers and the practice of the apostles, but this "argument from circumcision" was destined to cast all its confreres into the shadows.

The argument, to be sure, was not absolutely new. As we have already seen, the opinion that infants should be baptized because they were circumcised is of ancient pedigree, having been mentioned by Cyprian in his letter to Fidus. Prior to Zwingli, however, it had enjoyed only an ancillary place in giving propriety to infant baptism. But with the Swiss Reformer it became a full-orbed theological principle, moving into the center of the argument, a position which the centripetal pressures of the subsequent debate -especially in the Reformed tradition - entrenched and fortified. Calvin called it, very candidly, the sum of the matter.To the question, "Are infants also to be baptized?" the Heidelberg Catechism answers, "Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God ... they also are to be baptized as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament baptism is appointed." Besides Calvin and the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, many another illustrious theologian has followed Zwingli down this path, smoothing, widening, straightening the argument, until the concept of "children of the covenant" has become the main highway connecting an evangelical view of the sacraments with the practice of infant baptism.*

Quite a lengthy read. I know but well worth it for serious study on the subject.
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (p. 77-81). Kindle Edition.

Baptists Abusing Their Children?

Such is the accusation by some of our paedobapist brethren from pictures like the one above. One is supposed to get the idea that Baptists are abusing their children and causing them much grief by denying them entrance into the covenant by virtue of infant baptism. Surely there is a better way to engage in the theological discussion among the brethren without resorting to classless tactics? As Doug Eaton said of the picture, "Whoever put that together either has a warped sense of humor or a worldly propagandist approach to theological discussion."

We understand that paedobaptists think we are in serious error by denying our children inclusion into the covenant through baptism. But shameful behavior doesn't help promote or advance the theological discussion let alone the unity we have in Christ. It only serves to confirm that their is a big pocket of Christendom which believes they are theologically (or confessionally) superior to other Christians. They seem to think that they are big brother always picking on little brother when they feel the need to release some (theological) energy. They wish to always look down upon us and speak of us condescendingly. 

We, however, love our paedobaptist brethren. Speaking for myself, I have learned and grown more from paedobaptists than I have from credobaptists (theologically speaking). I will always remain at their feet ever learning and listening. But I refuse to to do so at the feet of those that sound like the noisy gong of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.

Now I do want to address an issue (again) that has been presented by many a paedobaptist. It is the argument of the counting noses. The one that goes something like this, "The early Church Fathers were paedobaptists, all through the Reformation. What does that tell us?" Such is often the assertion put forth typically with such force that it often goes unchallenged. Many, either are uninformed or confused about church history. Take Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw's book "Baptism In The Early Church" for example. Both, if I'm not mistaken, paedobaptists (they, at least, attend paedobaptist churches) conclude after much study that infant baptism was not practiced by the Apostles and did not become prominent until the end of the fourth century.

They meticulously and honestly examine all the alleged evidence of quotes from the early church fathers to support infant baptism. Tertullian's quote, in On Baptism, from around two hundred A.D. is examined. They write:

This passage from Tertullian is indeed the earliest reference in early Christian writings to children being baptized. However, to equate the baptism of children with the baptism of babies, as adherents of infant baptism prefer to do, is to neglect the fact that these children were not baptized within in a theological framework of the Abrahamic covenant and circumcision. The passage from Tertullian  does not speak of infant baptism as it is understood today; it merely refers to a practice among some Christians (of which Tertullian disapproves) to baptize people at a very early stage as small children. It is also remarkable that Tertullian refers to sponsors who probably had to go through the ceremony on behalf of these little ones. This was done at a time when baptism was regarded as one's guarantee to enter the Kingdom of heaven. As a safeguard, in order to avoid the possibility of little ones dying before they are grown and able to partake of the ritual themselves, sponsors substituted on their behalf. That is why Tertullian advises that such baptisms are undesirable and should be postponed until the recipients can understand what is actually at stake.*

This leads to an inconsistency on their part. That is to attempt to trace their roots in church history to any one that favored infant baptism. Then they start counting noses while a large part of church history is on their side and the confidence abounds (of course they believe their position to be from the Holy Writ). Yet, the position that is advanced today from the Westminster angle wasn't the position of the same people they desire to use in the early Church Fathers. Ironically they are at odds. One position believed in baptismal regeneration (or something close) while the other believes in external covenant membership which wasn't developed until Zwingli (sixteenth century) and then expanded and modified later! The inconsistency is that as long as one has the same conclusion (infant baptism) it is okay even though your means of getting their (reason for infant baptism) is at odds with one another even at times condemning one another. The Lord willing, we shall explore this further in another post.

Suffice it to say that we Baptists do not abuse our children. Frankly, we are not the ones telling our children they are members of the covenant while denying them a covenant privilege and command-a place at the Lord's Table (communion). We understand your view of the external/internal distinction, we just don't buy it. Baptism and communion go together. At least the Federal Vision and other paedobaptists are consistent in paedobaptism and paedocommunion.


 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,  not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Je 31:31–34). 


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Hendrick Stander, Johannes Louw, Baptism In The Early Church (England: Cary Press, 2004) p. 18

Why I Partake In Halloween

Disclaimer: This article does not represent the convictions of all the contributors in this blog. These are solely my thoughts. 

It is once again that time of the year. The time of the year when Halloween comes around, and that means the Christian blogosphere begins to debate as to whether we- as Christians- can partake of the festivity known as Halloween. Are those who participate compromising? Or are those who refuse to partake in Halloween simply too uptight about what is simply now a day of fun for the kids?

Whatever your position, we cannot deny the well documented facts about the pagan origins of Halloween.


Brief History

Halloween began with the Celts who celebrated Samhain (means summer end). November the first (a new year for the Celts), marked the end of the summer and the beginning of a long winter. On the night before the new year, on October the 31st, the Celts celebrated Samhain. They believed that on this day, the barrier between the dead and the living was broken, and the dead roamed the earth. The people feared for their health and crops. As a result, the people wore masks to in order to fool the ghosts, causing them to believe they were of their own. There are other speculations inregards to what other superstitions derive from this celebration. Whatever the case, it is clear that this festivity began with pagan origins.

Arguments Against Christians partaking in Halloween: 

Argument #1:    The origin of Halloween is pagan and superstitious.
                         Christianity is not pagan nor superstitious.
                         Therefore, Christians should not partake in Halloween.

Argument #2:    Halloween glorifies evil.
                        Christianity does not glorify evil.
                        Therefore, Christians should not partake in Halloween.

A Closer Look and Response:

The problem with the first argument is the fact that there is a very small amount of Christians - if any- who actually believe the dead roam the earth on October 31st  (of course I am being generous with the "small amount" here). You will seldom find a five year old who nags his parents for a Halloween costume in fear of ghosts who wish to make him ill. You will find it difficult to even find a person who even knows the origin of Halloween (and one who even cares of that matter). The reality is that Halloween has lost ALL of its religious significance. The reality is that ghosts do not roam the earth damaging crops, or attempting to make people ill. What Samhain meant for the Celts will always be remembered as what it was- a folklore. If Christians did in fact celebrate those pagan aspects of Halloween, then yes, we would be in sin.


The problem with the second argument is that it falsely assumes that Christians must glorify evil in order to partake in Halloween. This is false. Christians do not have to allow their children to wear costumes that depict evil. Nor should they adorn their houses with decorations they cannot in good conscience place.


Inconsistency Is A Pain:

As Christians, we should strive for consistency in all areas of our lives. We cannot, as other worldviews, be inconsistent in our argumentation; inconsistency does not glorify God. Lets be clear here, Christmas has a pagan origin. Yes, don't run, don't cover your ears, it does. But you say "I am not worshipping Sol Invictus nor am I setting up yule logs".  This is our very argument for Halloween. We are not celebrating the pagan folklore that was Samhain, but we are partaking of the innocence of having our kids walk around and receive candy. Further, why don't the same people who rail against Halloween advocate for a name change of the days and months of our calender? It is known that their names were derived from pagan deities. Where is the consistency?

Clarification:

I am fully aware that in other countries, and maybe there might be some cases in the U.S. (certainly isn't the norm at all), some kids do in fact act upon the "trick" part of Halloween. Let me clearly state that this is not what I mean when I say Christians can partake in Halloween- certainly not. Also, young ladies dressing provocatively is sinful whether on the 31st of Halloween or not. We do not condone this behavior. This is not what we mean when we say we partake in Halloween.

Final Thoughts- How I partake in Halloween:

Last year was the first Halloween I celebrated in a long time; I passed out candy and gospel tracts. I got to meet people I've never met, and gave them the gospel. It was a good time. I would encourage you to reconsider turning off the lights and pretending no one is home. Instead, consider engaging with your neighbors. Take your kids out for a stroll and talk to people you do not normally speak to. This is the one time of the year when unbelievers knock on our doors. I really believe Halloween is one of those Romans 14 issues. It is a matter of discernment and conscience. If our brethren cannot participate in Halloween in good conscience before our Lord, then that is fine, but we ask that they grant us the same liberty.

In Christ, awretchsaved

Drug Lords VS. Jesus

The most powerful men in the world can only touch the feet of what true power really is. Respect, power, honor and glory are paid to those to whom it is due.

Cocaine and other drugs are mass-produced and delivered to the unfortunate masses involved, and we label these contributors to the drug world as drug lords. They control continents, parts of governments (if not most), and play a major part in the demise of honesty and justice in a fallen world.

Why I chose the title of this article is because it serves to clearly explain the struggle that we tend to have as both Christians and non-Christians alike. A struggle that leaves us questioning the validity of Jesus when he says, "I AM.", in Scripture. Though we (Christians) see clearly the true "I AM." of this world (Jesus), we see these obviously powerful cartels and mafias of all sorts and we secretly give them a little respect for their power. Seeing them so up close we sometimes can hardly imagine anything greater. It is a contradiction to pay respect to the power of this world while paying a more pious "glory, honor and praise" to the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

Though we do recognize the power that certain men and organizations have in this world, we do not put our faith in the power of men or their creations. Much less their desires.

What can truly be defined as power in his world? Can it be when certain persons, news stations, governments, militaries, and any "people" in general pay homage to these men and organizations acknowledging them with the reverence of respect, power, honor, and glory? I wouldn't want to live in such a world of subjectivity and fear. Though, such is the case. We live in a world that is defined by human philosophy and fear. Drug lords and mafias receive respect, excessive amounts of power, some kind of honor, and certainly and overwhelming sense of an achieved glory on their own right.

True power can only be defined by true righteousness.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, "the righteous shall live by faith." Rom 1:16-17 NASB

Glory, power and honor and respect is due to him who saves. He who saves from God's wrath, sin, death, and Hell. We have to get our perspective right, in line with Gods word, in order to put our faith in true power...

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes...For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith..."

True power can only be defined by true righteousness. Not by how we feel or what we see.

Yours in Christ,

Chris Fincher

Light and Darkness

It is said that we have a theological tradition; this is true.

What matters is that it be that tradition that is delivered to us of our God and Lord, as well as their apostles and prophets, without compromise:

1 Corinthians 11:2: Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonian 2:15: So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.


Both in the manner in which we write of Scripture, and the manner in which we verbally communicate it, we are bound by our Lord to do so in the manner described - many are the traditions of men which have sought to find a foothold that would dethrone our King and God and enthrone ourselves in their place, and to say that such is heresy is redundant.

It has been well stated that the one who states that he follows no tradition in the manner in which they approach the Scripture is an unknowing slave to that tradition.

Light remains light, and darkness remains darkness - there is no middle or common ground upon which the traditions of man's empty, deceitful philosophies, masquerading as theology (which is only found in true exposition of His Scripture), can truly be said to be of God - such is an empty position, and the grey that those who believe such stand upon is truly another shade of the absolute darkness that opposes all that is truth, meaning our Lord Jesus Christ.

To His glory alone - Bill Hier

A Wise Fool

All knowledge should fall short of, build up, and have it's purpose, content, and ultimate culmination in the submission to the gospel of Jesus.

A typical life lived unchanged by the gospel will claim all kinds of knowledge that only serves for self edification. Note that the pursuit of knowledge is not to be blamed, but strictly speaking, it is the constant dismissal of Christ as Lord that leads us to claim wisdom in light of a Christless ignorance, obviously... In this we set ourselves to be our own God and therefore our self-claimed “wisdom” simply becomes another smoothly crafted idol that we adore and worship. Misled, we strive in a sinful image of God, searching for the very light of God that gave us our reasoning (Jesus) apart from that very light. It doesn’t make sense.

“He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, “Is there not a lie in my right hand?” Isaiah 44:20

Thank God for His common grace that has allowed brilliant men and women throughout time to find truth while not seeing it operating for Gods glory, for the benefit for the greater whole of the human race. God is good.

Now this knowledge is useful. It is common for man to think, understand, and work his way through a problem and then gain knowledge through the experience. So be it. But, as I said this knowledge is not the problem. Whether we gain knowledge in our occupation that helps make money to feed our family with, or deceitful knowledge that we use to harm others with. Either way, if we do not set what ever knowledge we have to the Lordship of Jesus it will turn out to ultimately dishonor God. What good is the man who has a knack for fixing cars if he works for Satan with his mind? No good... An idol in the mind is an idol in the hands. And every idea of God not originating from the soundness of His word is a self-made idol.

“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ...” 2 Cor 10:5

The most well meaning people delude the glory of the knowledge of the true and living God with personal ideas and self-made wisdom. We cannot substitute true knowledge of God derived from His word for some well meaning philosophy about God.

Let this be a reminder to glorify Christ in everything we do, and indeed strive to take every thought captive to the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ. It is more fulfilling to pursue Christ rather than ourselves, so why would we pursue our own “wisdom” apart from the Word of God?

“But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” John 3:21

“and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" John 11:26　 　

Yours in Christ,
Chris Fincher