On The Pseudonym "awretchsaved"

I often get questions on why I use a pseudonym. Some people don't like it, others only know me by it. I figured it would be wise to clarify why I use one, what it means, and what it doesn't mean.

Why I Use One:

I use a pseudonym because it detracts from who I am. Engaging with all different sorts of people, who believe in all different sorts of things, there are often attacks on the person, instead of the argument. Where a person lives, what a person does for a living, educational levels, age, what a person did in the past, etc. That seems to be the aim of focus for some individuals. So, I take that from people. Forcing them to focus on the arguments, rather than the person. That is not to say that I am trying to conceal something. I do attend a church, and sit under the leadership of godly men.

What It Means/ What it doesn't mean:

It means that I am still a sinner, but a sinner who IS saved. I am not like Luther, who in his early days as a monk, attempted to earn his justification before God by beating up his body.

R.C Sproul writes:

" He refused the normal allotment of blankets and almost froze to death. He punished his body so severely that he later commented it was in the monk's cell that he did permanent damage to his digestive system. "

Luther writes:

 " I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery, it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other work".

At this point, Luther did not understand, that all of his works, though with "good" intention, could never satisfy the wrath of God. Despite his long prayers, constant confessions, desperate crys, it was all a stench to the nostrils of God.

When a person places their faith in Christ Jesus, the stench is no more, the sinner is forgiven, due to the work that Christ accomplished on the cross. He is seen as perfectly righteous before the Father, because he is now covered with the righteousness of Christ. I believe this! Make no mistake about it. I do not, as Luther did, "beat myself up" over sin. Surely, there is a period of mourning. Knowing that I have once again failed my heavenly Father. But I understand, that God is no longer angry with me. God declares me righteous, because of the work another- the man- Christ Jesus. Still, there remains indwelling sin in the believer. It is always, until we leave this earth, present with the believer. I can echo R.Scott Clark's words: "We are not Methodists". We do not believe in sinless perfection, nor do we espouse any doctrine of Christian Perfectionism (which gave rise to the "Holiness Movement"). Allow me to conclude with the brilliant John Owen, and his classic work on the Remainders of Indwelling Sin In Believers.

" 1. It always abides in the soul, — it is never absent. The apostle twice useth that expression, "It dwelleth in me." There is its constant residence and habitation. If it came upon the soul only at certain seasons, much obedience might be perfectly accomplished in its absence; yea, and as they deal with usurping tyrants, whom they intend to thrust out of a city, the gates might be sometimes shut against it, that it might not return, — the soul might fortify itself against it. But the soul is its home; there it dwells, and is no wanderer. Wherever you are, whatever you are about, this law of sin is always in you; in the best that You do, and in the worst. Men little consider what a dangerous companion is always at home with them. When they are in company, when alone, by night or by day, all is one, sin is with them. There is a living coal continually in their houses; which, if it be not looked unto, will fire them, and it may be consume them. Oh, the woful security of poor souls! How little do the most of men think of this inbred enemy that is never from home! How little, for the most part, doth the watchfulness of any professors answer the danger of their state and condition!"


"And this is the description of him who is a believer and a sinner, as every one who is the former is the latter also. These are the contrary principles and the contrary operations that are in him. The principles are, a will of doing good on the one hand, from grace, and a law of sin on the other. Their adverse actings and operations are insinuated in these expressions: "When I would do good, evil is present with me." And these both are more fully expressed by the apostle, Galatians 5:17, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that I cannot do the things that I would."

In Christ, awretchsaved

Calvin And Servetus

How many times have Calvin's detractors accused him of the murder of the heretic Michael Servetus? Typically I find when people assert such historical revisionism it is because they do not fairly and accurately seek the truth. They have an agenda to defend and that is the abhorrence of Calvin's theology. It seems to me that the aim is to assail the man in hopes others will reject his theology.

Steve Griffin, over at his blog here, does a good job of stating what actually happened as well as dealing with some other objections. Here is a snippet:

One of the most common and unfair charges leveled against John Calvin is, “Calvin burned Michael Servetus at the stake!” This, of course, is patently untrue. Servetus was indeed burned at the stake, in Geneva, for heresy. But Calvin is not to be impugned. This was a civil trial carried out by the State, not the Church. Calvin was not the judge. He was not a juror. He was not the executioner. What he was, was the prosecution’s star witness. And why wouldn’t he be? Who would be a better witness in a trial regarding theology than John Calvin?
Calvin, via private letter, warned Servetus [who was wanted in several European States] to not come to Geneva. This letter was to no avail. Servetus brought his particular brand of heresy [he denied the Trinity] to Geneva and was subsequently arrested by the magistrate, tried for heresy, and condemned to death by burning. Calvin pleaded with the authorities for a more humane execution. This also, was to no avail.

You can find the full articles here and here. I highly recommend the blog. Read and enjoy.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, contained in the Bill of Rights, particularly guaranteed that coercion should not be used by the government of the same to force any to believe anything contrary to that which their free use of conscience would constrain them to believe.

This is a return to that which is of the New Testament, though not all the framers of these things held to that Christian worldview which many today think they did, and while we may question the founding father’s beliefs, we cannot fault that which was the prevalent thought of the New Testament, regarding men and whether they believed or not.

This is not saying that men exercise a freedom of conscience that is uninhibited by what their very nature, or innermost man, determines for them; factoring in the nature of a person, when it comes to believing the gospel or not, is the purview of God’s providence and grace, as well as His righteousness and wrath.

What this is saying is that men will choose according to that nature and conscience which dominates their thought process, and so their world view, and they will act accordingly.

The transcendence of the Triune God of the Scriptures puts Him beyond criticism in such matters: He is shown, by the Scriptures, to be beyond that which a man may think of as good, while revealing that He is good beyond what a man may deem as such.

Opposition to that special revelation of the Triune God of Scripture is thus shown to be that which, while permitted by Him, will, at the time of the final judgment, be punished by Him.

Those who do not understand that grace-given eternal life by God certainly cannot understand that the opposite must hold true, for He has shown there is no partiality with Him – in saying such, we mean exactly what the Pharisees with the Herodians stated in Matthew 22:15-16: Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. In this, it is seen the popularly espoused view of the various churches that claim for themselves the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are decidedly mistaken when they use that fact that God does not respect persons, therefore He freely offers His forgiveness of sins and new life in the righteousness Christ obtained for His own to all mankind for all time, dependant upon their acceptance or rejection of the same, as if He considered all humanity over the course of history good enough to make such an offer to them, enabling them to sit on the judgment seat, if only for this one time, in assessing the value of either eternal damnation or eternal life, as if they could assess that which God does with the impunity of the creatures He created for His pleasure, not of necessity, but to show forth His glory in multiple manner.

Such a view of God shows an elevated view of man, while at the same time, showing a creaturely concept of God, as if He were subject to reason, logic, and morality on a human level, when He has asserted exactly the opposite (Isaiah 55:8-11; Romans 11:33-36); that is, “good,” when attributed to and as possessed, in eternal and infinite measure, by God, is beyond anything that a man may understand, for it consists of the complete holiness of that same infinite and eternal character of God which is as far beyond the finite creature He created as “East is from West.” If a person can understand exactly what the meaning of infinity and eternity are, which God, who has always existed, and who sustains Himself in complete satisfaction with all that He is, exists as and beyond, then such statements would be unnecessary; however, our Lord plainly stated that no man can even understand enough to determine what such “goodness” is, as pertaining to both God and man (Mark 10:18). Since only God is good, it follows that only God gives that which is good, and those who do not recognize this fact have, in fact, not received either of His goodness or His wisdom, for the greatest that He has to give to man – that which is the highest expression of His goodness – is that new life in Christ Jesus, with all that such inherently means: forgiveness of sins, repentance of the same, faith to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, all encompassed within that “new life given” whereby “the old has passed away, all things are new.”

So, those who framed our Constitution actually said that which has always been the case, but not in recognition of divine fiat, but rather, the obvious truth that man, fallen, will choose that which is according to his fallen nature, and that the exercise of any religion of men which does not recognize the true God of Judeo-Christian Scripture is due to the lack of the desire, which comes with that goodness, or grace, of God with a new nature, as He wills, is actually rebellion against Him, for which the Son will exercise that judgment that the Father has given into His authority (John 5:22).

Yes, as the First Amendment states, men are free to believe what they want; as it does not state, however, they will believe anything but the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ if God does not graciously grant that rebirth of the fallen human nature that is His alone to grant, with all the gifts inherent in such an exercise of God’s goodness, or holy grace as given “in Christ Jesus.”

No doubt some of the framers of our Constitution understood this, while others did not; in putting such forth in the First Amendment as they did, they merely affirmed that the One who controls all is yet firmly in control, and such will always be the case.

19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. 

1 Corinthians 15:19-28 (ESV-2001)

To God's alone glory - Bill Hier

Gospel Confusion?

Momentarily I will be bowing out of the baptism discussion. It seems that things have blown up beyond healthy discussion. Dr. John MacArthur threw the recent first blow by calling paedobaptism "demonic" and a radio show comprised of pastors responding with comments like, "So in like manner, there are truly elect and saved people, including Baptists, in the world, people miserably torn, scattered, and deceived by false teaching and sectarianism and idolatry."

We must all realize that when foolish things are said from both sides of the argument it becomes real easy to let the sin which remains in us to get the best of us and react out of anger and frustration. It follows that when speaking in this state of emotion, insults tend to pop up whether they are direct or subtle. I refuse to insult my paedobaptist brethren whom I truly respect and love. This is why I do not, at the moment, desire to pursue the discussion of baptism. I will gather myself and reflect on the Gospel of Jesus Christ our justification. 

I do want to point out one thing, though. It seems there is Gospel confusion going on. To tie in the subjects of baptism with the Gospel itself in a roundabout way, it seems to me, is to cause or be the result of Gospel confusion. To indicate the only way we can make a sound judgement of who is or is not a co-laborer of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is on the basis of local church membership and then make paedobaptism a pre-requisite for local church membership is to say that Baptists are out side of the visible church and to question their part in the body of Christ. That is to smuggle in paedobaptism as an essential. That is what you deny at the front door is let in through the back door. Or as Dr. James White says "to major on the minors and minor on the majors." 

That is why it is difficult for some paedobaptists to affirm that Baptists are "saved people" in simple words. What we get are statements like, ""So in like manner, there are truly elect and saved people, including Baptists, in the world, people miserably torn, scattered, and deceived by false teaching and sectarianism and idolatry." This coming after a comparison of Calvin's view of some elect people in the false church of Rome, "The requisite extent, depth, and maturity of the knowledge which is a necessary component of true faith, is mysterious, and should not be oversimplified. For this reason, for example, Calvin can say about people in what he calls the decidedly false Roman Catholic churches of his day “In one word, I call [Roman Catholic parishes] churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered. . .” (Institutes 4.2.12)."

My theology is not limited to that of the sixteenth century. Christianity did not begin nor end there. I have no need to be esoteric in my judgment of the body of Christ.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures...(1 Co 15:1–4).

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose (Ga 2:15–21). 

It is my judgment that if one believes the above- be it paedobaptist or credobaptist they indeed will be found in a local church body that is founded and remains on the Gospel of Jesus Christ- they are my brother or sister in Christ. It is not really that difficult.
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Luther Strikes Both Ways

You have to love Luther. Not just for his stand on justification but also his bombastic ways. He kind of reminds of an unrestrained (at times) Spurgeon. He takes on both the "Anabaptists" and paedobaptists that reject paedobaptism and fides infantium (infant faith).

Luther against "Anabaptists" writes:

Have they now become gods to peep into people's hearts to see whether or not they believe? ... The Anabaptists are not certain that their rebaptism is correct, because they base it upon faith, of which they cannot assuredly know, and so uncertainty plagues their rebaptism. Now it is a sin and tempting to God when in divine things there is uncertainty and doubt.... The devil can always make me doubt whether the faith in which and upon which I was baptized was a true faith. Thus he makes me doubtful about the baptism that has been consummated. In this way I am constantly in a state of uncertainty about my salvation. . . . It is really a work of the devil on their part to talk about faith when they mean works and in the name and appearance of faith to lead poor people to trust in works. ... We Germans are really Galatians and remain Galatians, and this is a masterstroke of the devil. He cannot stand it that the Germans have come to know Christ aright through the Gospel, namely the justification which is by faith - therefore he has sent the Anabaptists.*

Against deniers of infant faith he writes:

The sophists in the universities and the papal gang have fabricated the story that young children are baptized without personal faith, namely on the faith of the church which the sponsors confess at his baptism; ... but if one asked them as to the ground of such an answer and where it stands in Scripture, then one finds them in a dark smoke-hole; or they point to their clerical cap and say: `We are the most learned doctors and say it is so; therefore it is right and you are not permitted to inquire further....' [But] baptism helps no one, is also to be given to no one, except he believes for himself, and without personal faith no one is to be baptized. As St. Augustine himself says: `Non sacramentum justifica, sed fides sacramenti' [the sacrament does not justify, but the faith of the sacrament]. . . . Were we not able to prove that the young children themselves believe and have personal faith, it is my sincere counsel and judgment that one straightway desist and the sooner the better, and never more baptize any child so that we no more mock and blaspheme the most blessed majesty of God with such baseless tomfoolery and jugglery.*

You have to love Luther, unless you belong to Rome.
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando



*Cited in Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (pp. 160-161). Kindle Edition.
*Ibid, p. 167-168 

Pupils And Mentors:Taking It To Them At Their Own Game

How many times has it been asserted that Baptists cannot be Reformed? Far too many times. The basis seems to be that because Reformed Baptists, also known as Covenantal Baptists, reject the notion that infants of believers are members of the covenant of grace, we cannot truly be Reformed. I wish not to quibble too much about that here. Suffice it to say that Reformed Baptists are not Baptists that maintain Calvinism but Baptists that adhere to Calvinism and that affirm both the covenant of works and of grace. We believe in a covenantal framework of the Bible. In fact there wouldn't be any Christianity apart from the concept of covenant. Anyhow, I've extended my time on that issue.

Here is an example of a student taking it to his mentor(s) at his own game:

We see from such a paragraph that the promise is free, an unconditional message of pure grace, the Paedobaptists themselves being our mentors. And yet many whom God declares to be the heirs of this promise and who must be sealed with its sign are not heirs and never will partake of its blessings. How does all this fit together? According to the prophet Jeremiah (31:31-36), the new covenant, in contrast to the old, is one that cannot be broken. The fathers who came out of Egypt broke the first covenant the Lord made with them; but the new covenant will stand as sure as the ordinances of day and night, for it shall be engraved on the hearts of the covenantees by the omnipotent finger of him who saves by his grace. How can the heirs of this new, unbreakable covenant break that covenant? Yet Paedobaptists often speak of baptized children who grow up in unbelief as "covenant breakers" who are "unfaithful to their baptismal vows." So constant are these terms in the discussion that they have become, as it were, technical terms in the literature. Paedobaptists evidently cannot get along without them, though it is not clear how they get along with them either, if they are to remain truly Reformed.*

I must admit that I got quite a chuckle when I read the underlined portion.
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (p. 151-152). Kindle Edition.

Paedobaptism Without Paedocommunion? Part 2

After a short break I now wish to return to the discussion of baptism. In Paedobaptism Without Paedocommunion I sought to demonstrate the same hermeneutic that leads paedobaptists to their belief in infant baptism, if consistently applied, leads to infant communion. The two sacraments go together. Of course as a Reformed Baptist I reject both positions of paedobaptism and paedocommunion. I, however, do appreciate the paedobaptists that insist the two sacraments cannot be separated for those in the New Covenant. Not only do they consistently apply their hermeneutic no matter where it takes them, they also are consistent in their understanding of church history.

Church history is a great study. All Christians should endeavor to study it. It will be a rebuke to some of the newer positions (dispensationalism) and an encouragement to others and is by no means authoritative in itself since everything is in subjection to the Word of God. It is indeed helpful and important.

I find it an oddity that many paedobaptists will not venture to go far beyond the sixteenth century when discussing the subject of baptism. Some certainly have, I think, because they were convinced that paedobaptism was the normal position in the early church. As has been documented they have misinterpreted and misrepresented the writings of the early Church Fathers. Other paedobaptists sometimes behave as if the history of the Church began with the Reformation. I have often heard that Baptists or in their words "Anabaptists" have departed from orthodox Christianity in our rejection of the inclusion of infants in the covenant. Yet when we examine church history we will find that paedobaptists before the Reformation would most likely consider many of today's paedobaptists as departing from orthodox Christianity in that they reject baptismal regeneration (or something very close to it) and paedocommunion. Both positions were the dominant view prior to the covenantal view of  Zwingli in the Reformation. I would think if Augustine were still around he would think the prevalent view of Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian paedobaptism "unorthodox."

If Baptists have departed from orthodoxy so then have covenantal paedobaptists. Of course that all depends on a person's definition of "orthodox." It seems to me that paedobaptists have fit that term around what they believe for they define it around what was theologically sound around the sixteenth century. If they just go back before that time frame they should see that the very grounds that they accuse "Anabaptists" of unorthodoxy, condemns them as well.

Paul Jewett demonstrates this:

Doubts about the historical argument for infant baptism are due not only to the silence of the earliest witnesses but also to the way in which the evidence for infant baptism is related to the evidence for infant communion. Early Christian sources from the Didache onward reflect the unity of the sacraments; they were always celebrated together. Hence the first act of the baptized, following his baptism, was to partake of the Eucharist. If, then, evidence for infant communion appears only a short time after the first clear evidence for infant baptism, to repudiate the former as a post-apostolic superstition, as most Paedobaptists do, is to threaten the latter with the same odious pedigree.

 To see that this is the case, one need only recall that the earliest express mention of infant baptism is found in Tertullian's De baptismo (A.D. 200-206), a document in which the author entertains reservations about giving baptism to infants. But Cyprian, on whose shoulders his mantle fell, speaks not only of infant baptism but also of infant communion as a custom which provoked no scruples. Barely fifty years separates these two witnesses. Obviously, therefore, the initial evidence for infant baptism and infant communion shows a proximity in time (A.D. 205-250) and place (North Africa) which makes it difficult to see why the former usage should be accepted while the latter is rejected.

 These two practices, moreover, share a democratic exegetical pedigree. Understanding John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," to make baptism essential to salvation, the Fathers concluded - naturally - that it should be given to infants. In like manner, understanding John 6:53, "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves," to make the Eucharist essential, they argued, in a similar vein, that it should be given to infants (so Augustine against Pelagius, A.D. 412). It is true that Augustine is the first expressly to conjoin an argument from John 3 for infant baptism with a similar one from John 6 for infant communion; however, Cyprian argued for infant baptism in a similar manner in his Letter to Fidus (A.D. 251-253) and likewise approved the communication of infants in his admonition against apostasy. It seems difficult, therefore, to suppose that infant communion stems from a later misunderstanding of Scripture, while infant baptism altogether escapes this difficulty.

 Nor did it ever occur to anyone in the ancient church to question the right of infants to the Eucharist once the right to embrace them in the church by baptism had been established. The theory that infants are to be baptized but not given communion rests on medieval dogmatic developments in the Western church that had nothing to do with an evangelical view of the sacraments. This has given some Paedobaptists pause, and in the past there have been those who have questioned the propriety of withholding communion from infants. Wall, for example, considering the antiquity of infant communion - that it was recognized by the church universal for six hundred years and that it is still practiced by Eastern Orthodox Christendom - questioned whether it was an error or a duty to bring infants to the communion table . Other Paedobaptists have been outspoken in favor of the practice. But the great majority have been inclined to remand infant communion to the limbo of pious abuse, or, more frequently, to pass over the matter in discreet silence.*

It is not enough for covenantal paedobaptists to emphatically claim that the majority reject paedocommunion. That may be the case now but it wasn't the case for the earliest (or very shortly thereafter) documented defenses of paedobaptism all the way until the Reformation. The position was baptismal regeneration and paedocommunion. History, my friends, is not on their side. Hopefully you can see why credobaptists consistently say that "infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology."
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (pp. 41-43). Kindle Edition.