Emergent Heresy

If there is one thing that the Emergent types all agree on, it is a hatred for the Gospel. There is an utter detestation for the biblical truth that God would become a man, not to make this present world better by making bad people good, but to give dead people life- to spare sinners from the judgment and wrath that is to come. Or as the apostle Paul puts it in 2 Thessalonians 5:9-10, "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him." Please take careful note of how salvation is contrasted with wrath, which means that salvation is a deliverance from God's righteous judgment and that escape from it is only through the death of Christ, for those who believe on His name. But the Emergent folks hate this Gospel. To the point of blasphemous mockery. Read some of Brian Mclaren and Rob Bell. Or read and listen to the disciples that they have spawned. Just observe this quote from a local church "pastor" by the name of Casey Travis (an admirer of both Mclaren and Bell):

"Let's not even take into account that what appeases God is His eternally bloody Son. And how long do I have to keep up this charade? Is there any point in eternity where I can stop wearing my Jesus camo and God will be ok with me being in Heaven? Do I just sneak by Him at the pearly gates as He's reading the paper, hoping that He doesn't look too closely as I walk by, "Oh, hey Son, be sure to wipe your feet so You don't track too much blood on the carpet."
Jesus went to great lengths to communicate the love of the Father, not His blood lust. He went to great lengths to communicate how we are infinitely special to Him, how we are His sons and daughters, so much so that yes, He did send His Son to die a horrible death by crucifixion. But is that moment in history frozen for all eternity? Is God always looking for a bloody Jesus? Are we to perpetually live with eternal Jesus camo?"


You can find the whole article here. Just peruse his blog and observe how he attempts to redefine Christianity and how he mocks (the main pastor seems to take part too and you can find his articles here) the Gospel and those that not only proclaim it but defend it, too. Yet, these two men are supposed to be "pastors" or better stated, shepherds of the flock. But how can one call themself a "pastor" when a pastor is to lead the sheep and protect them from the very poison that they are feeding them!? Pastors preach the Word of God not pervert it. A biblical under-shepherd will not hate the Gospel but love it, preach it, teach it and defend it- even if they are not liked for it. Now of course I may be viewed as the bad and mean guy for mentioning names and stating that they are not qualified to be "pastors." My reply is, that this is what we are called to do: "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive" (Ro 16:17–18). See also 2 Timothy 4:1-10. Furthermore, it is not false teaching that will be condemned on judgement day but false teachers (Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Pe. 2:1-11, Jude).

Now to deal with Mr. Travis's assertion about "Jesus camo." First, dealing with these folks and pinning them down on what exactly they believe is sometimes stressful and difficult. They are quick to deny or question core biblical truths like penal substitutionary atonement (or the more shy ones don't blatantly deny it but minimize it and never teach on it) but fail to define what exactly they believe about the cross.
They love to un-define terms and then re-define them not with explicit definitions (this is a reason they scorn doctrine) but as Bob Dewaay writes, "Emergent leaders loathe definitions. Definitions create boundaries, they say, and boundaries keep people out. I find that Emergent Church leaders do their best not to be understood, suggesting that being clever, coy, contradictory, or even provocative is a better way to help people emerge from old categories of thought into new, synthetic ones" ( The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity. Location 77 of 3207 Knidle Edition). Bingo! This is precisely what Mr. Travis does in his article. He attacks the biblical and historic teaching about the death of Christ, while leaving no explicit teaching on the subject. We are left with statements like "When God sees us, He isn't looking for His bloodied Son, He sees us, warts and all, and loves us just as we are. That love is what will wash us. That love is what will cure our sin disease. That love is what will transform us into His very likeness, His image."  But where in the Holy Writ does it say that God's love will "wash us" or "cure our sin disease?"

 In the Bible we do find clear teaching like, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.  Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him" (Heb 9:21–28) and "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin"(1 Jn 1:7).

And just who are these people that say "I'm wearing the blood of Jesus?" I've never met any one that is wearing any "Jesus camo." What the Bible does teach, and the Church has always taught, is that we are cleansed by the blood of Christ and clothed with His righteousness (Zech. 3:1-5, Is. 61:10, Rom. 4, Matt. 22:11-12 Phil. 3:9). One of the most comforting passages of the Bible, clearly teaches this: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). There is just no way around it- to be seen apart from Christ is to perish. Period. Do we wear the blood of Jesus? No. Are we cleansed by His blood and clothed with His righteousness? Absolutely, for there is no Christianity apart from it!

One of the most troubling statements in that whole vitriol is: "Jesus went to great lengths to communicate the love of the Father, not His blood lust." Sound familiar? Doris Williams, then, of Union Theological Seminary once boldly asserted, "I don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses, and blood dripping, and weird stuff” and one of Dr. Al Mohler's seminary professors conveyed a similar thought when he said, "I will have no more bloody cross religion in this classroom.” It is old liberal heresy resurfacing in a new package. What it really boils down to is a hatred for the holiness of God. That a holy God would demand justice for those that have sinned against Him and this sacrifice was the death  (a very bloody death) of His very own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is incomprehensible to them. No loving God would require this for salvation. And nor is salvation deliverance from judgment, they say. Rather, Jesus came to show us a "way of life" that is primarily about "kingdom living" in how we live in "community" with each other. In their minds, it's all about social justice. Taking care of the poor and needy e.t.c. (which are things Christians most definitely do, as a result of the Gospel). Albeit, these things are a part of Christianity but flow from a person who has been given life by the Gospel. It is never said to be the Gospel nor the primary emphasis of it.

Not sure how "Jesus went to great lengths to communicate the love of the Father" without understanding, that he had to satisfy the wrath of the Father for the people He loved? In fact, the bloody death of Christ is what God says is how we know what love is: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:8–10 see also 1 John 3:16 and John 3:16-36). Is this not what Isaiah foretold why Jesus came to the earth? "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Is 53:5–6). Does God have a "blood lust?" Of course not but because He is holy, He declares, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb 9:22). 


I will continue to be blogging on this topic because I am tired of the sovereign Lord Jesus presented more like a Ghandi figure than the Lamb of God- who is the Living God, the Lord of Lord and king of Kings,-that is worshiped as such: "And they sang a new song, saying,Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Re 5:9–10). They are free to start their own religion and call it "Bell-ism" or "Mclaren-ism," if they so wish. What they are not free to do is call it Christianity and attach the name Jesus to it! Christianity is not about behavior modification. It is the wrath delivering, life giving message of the perfect life, substitutionary death and victorious resurrection of Christ Jesus, for the people that repent of their sins and believe on His name. This alone, of course, results in a life that is dedicated to glorifying Him through the way we live. Better known as being a disciple ( a term they love to spin). Soli Deo Gloria!


"I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Re 7:14).


For His Glory,
Fernando

DEBATE DATE EXTENDED

The debate start date between Bill Hier and Gary Glunt has been postponed. It will start Monday the 13th or after.

Sorry for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Is The Arminian My Brother?

This will no doubt be a very controversial post, but it is something that, especially after reading pastor Fernando's latest blog entry, I believe must be addressed. Not addressing it would be wrong, I believe, in both the eyes of our Glorious God and those He has given discernment too.

To many who profess the doctrines of grace, they say the Arminian cannot be their brother; they fail to realize that many who hold to that position do not even know they do, until confronted with it; they have been taught that faith to believe is universally applicable to all men, and not a gift from God (or a gift that makes belief possible, but not concrete, until "energized" by a movement of the dead-in-sin will), or that it is a gift from God that they must accept, thus faith accepts faith.

Of course, this seems a silly proposition: to believe to believe, yet even so, we hear it expressed in Scripture by the desperate father of the child with the spirit that throws him into the fire and the water (Matthew 17:15-18; Mark 9:17-27), and the disciples ask the Lord to increase their faith (Luke 17:5), so it is not so silly after all, is it?

By this, we do not mean that man, of himself, has the kind of faith that is only divinely granted by God, but what we deny is that one who is steeped in the tradition of man’s teaching, regarding God’s sovereignty, man’s depravity, and other of the truths of Scripture, cannot come to a greater understanding, and we understand that not just in orthopraxy, but in all matters of growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that, with the apostle, we ought to say, “Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained (Philippians 3:15-16).

Since “the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith (1 Timothy 1:5),” should our attitude then reflect the fleshly manner of expression that is contrary to that charge, in unwarranted antagonism, for brethren less mature in the faith (the body of doctrines God has given us); from we who say we are spiritual, are able to discern a true love, thankfulness, and worship of God?

Who is being mature in the faith in such circumstances as these?

I would contend that neither party is doing so – zealousness mixed with the flesh is hardly spiritual maturity.

This is not to say we do not fully disagree with the traditions of men taught as the doctrines and commandments of our God, but we must realize that we are to give the reason for that which we believe, which is always according to “the hope that is in us,” with unwavering humility and fear of representing the very thing we are seeking to give patient, humble instruction and correction regarding – to look like the world and reason from the flesh in any degree will not correct, but alienate, those whom God wills we speak and teach of His life, trust, and truth; this we must always fear to do, as children of the most High God, and co-heirs with our Lord Jesus Christ, entirely of Him.

Do we realize that most of those brought up in the various churches today have largely accepted modern philosophical and psychological patterns of thought that actually are not even a part of the message of God’s truth and gospel, yet that also many of these same people actually do believe, by the same grace we believe, or are we so arrogant as to think that one is not born again unless they have all the doctrinal ducks in a row?

How many of those who cry the loudest, in the most rude and condemning manner, against the confused synergism of today which they call Arminianism (most of it is hardly that, but based loosely upon such, or semi-Pelagianism), were themselves not fully persuaded of these divine truths prior to giving vent to such vitriol?

I grant, there are times when such must be said, but certainly in a manner that is consistent with the glory of God, and not the depravity of the flesh.

The litmus test for us should be this: when confronted with the grand truths of God’s sovereignty, man’s radical depravity, and His gloriously free grace, do those we speak of such to continually wail and cry out against these, instead insisting that the created creature must have the ability to dictate their alleged self-governing will to bend that of their Creator, no matter how often they are faced with the fact that it is only God who truly has such a will, and that in so infinite and good a measure, as with all of His most holy qualities, that it defies complete comprehension?

Again, do they insist that the Creator of all there is, who has determined their boundaries and dwelling places, and given them even the breath they must have, must love all people, of all time, in an anonymous, generic “love” that they themselves will never observe (see, for instance, Ephesians 5:26-27)?

These are the places of the battle within the visible church, the lines that are drawn by God’s own truth, and He has determined the manner in which we do such with those who even the apostle calls brethren, while stating that they are Christ’s, unless they have believed in vain (1 Corinthians 15:1-2); should our manner of address be any the less honestly steeped in the life, faith, love, and yes, truth, that our God has given us?

True, there are lines that must not be crossed, and we must be quick to point these out to those we call brethren, or who call themselves our brethren, such as works-salvation, or the so-called carnal Christianity that is nothing other than telling people they can live like hell, as long as they have made a “decision” for Christ; other than these, however, our marching orders are clear, and if we hold that those who have not come to the place of maturity in the faith – meaning the doctrines of God – have no place or inheritance with us, let us beware, lest we be found to be fighting against God Himself.

Remember, most we would label Arminian do not even have enough knowledge of the Word to understand that position, and may very well be of those elect of God, while some who do hold to these most precious truths may show themselves not to be by their very words and actions, for both knowledge without love and emotional counterfeits of love without knowledge can prove themselves to be devoid of the actual truth of God.

I applaud the so-called New Reformation, but wonder at the zeal of condemnation of those who promote these doctrines in a manner that would make any humanistic, materialistic, relativistic post-modern atheist proud.

Remember, we are to love in word and deed, and pride is that which brings each fall; let us keep these things in mind, and trust in the God who saved us to make His points, rather than thinking ourselves wise in our own eyes, for to do such is not to trust in our God completely, acknowledge that He will direct all our ways, and is the very essence of evil, for the fear of the Lord is lacking in such discourse (Proverbs 3:5-7); therefore, sharp rebuke is to be saved for those who turn away to very foolish myths among the brutish (Titus 1:10-16), and gentle teaching and encouragement should be the discourse of the wise to those who have not reached that level of understanding, mixed with faith, love and a good conscience, which is ours to follow.

In His love and grace - Bill Hier 

Rejoicing in False Gospels - pt. 2

Well, it has been a several days since Harold Camping was again a focus for the unbelieving world to use as a line to drag our Lord Jesus Christ’s name through the mud, and then unrepentantly seek to validate his heretical dogma by spiritualizing the alleged prophecy.

I wrote, in my first installment of this matter, of how we should not rejoice in the way that such false teachers bring shame upon the Lord by not rejoicing that false gospels are wrong, for then we assume the common ground, with the world of those who believe the church is represented by such, that the message of the cross is foolishness for all the wrong reasons.

God has made the wisdom of the world foolishness already, by a message which can only be believed by the faith and repentance granted to and exercised by a regenerate nature, and that by His willing and working to do of His good pleasure as we obediently, worshipfully, thankfully work out that which He has given to us in fear and trembling; the world already knows not what this means, unless He has mercy on one or more in the world by the message of the gospel to such a renewed heart; and we are to give no common ground for a message of folly that far surpasses the message that is His true gospel.

It is sad, that as such teachers flourish, many will perish who follow their fruits of unrighteousness, and if we are seen to even agree with such who will not believe, in any case, in lampooning of these false teachers (as easy and as readily available as such is) in the mildest manner, it is my firm belief that it will be taken as confirmation of the folly the world already holds the church in, and more importantly, the Lord of glory of the true church; it is also a fact that this is a sign of the times, as our Lord stated, and His prophets and apostles, moved along by His Spirit of Holiness, also stated.

So, it is both a blessing and a curse, that we have these things to contend with, yet we must remember that judgment does begin at the house of God.

With all else that our Lord said we would suffer in persecution, both in word and deed (and indeed, which many of our beloved brethren in far less safe areas of the world have been, and are being, martyred for the sake of His gospel and name), both in areas of social and political matters (and one wonders if there is any difference between these things, any longer!), we must yet fight the good fight under such conditions in the “free” portions of this world.

Rebuke we must, and pray we must, yet agreement with the world on these matters put forth by we who are Christ’s is not either, but the same as giving them a thumbs up, saying they are right in their assessment of our Lord and His church, and so losing the distinction we have as those who are in the world, as He was, but no longer of it, as He is not.

Let us then give glory to God for these things, in thanksgiving, and continue steadfast in prayer for the coming of our Lord, while trusting Him for the continued grace to still live amongst those who so blatantly drag His name and righteousness in the mire; let us stand for Christ, as He enables us by His Spirit, though we will be ridiculed and hated by all for His sake, and thank Him for the blessing of being counted worthy, by the righteousness of our Lord, to suffer such despite for His name’s sake; finally, let us not forget to share the reason for the hope that is in us with fear and trembling, knowing our Redeemer lives, and is coming again to judge the world a final time, while bidding us enter into our Father’s kingdom by the inheritance we gained at His expense, to the praise of the glory of His grace.

Whatever Happened To 1 John 2:9-11?

"Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness." 
These words from the apostle John are a warning for professing Christians and true believers. We in the body of Christ have our disagreements on certain doctrines. That is understandable, after all, we are fallible finite creatures. But the problem does't stop there it, sometimes, gets worse. In the Reformed and Calvinist circles, it seems to prevail. We have the confessionalists that distance themselves from non-confessionalists, Paedobaptists vs Credobaptists, Premillennialists vs. non-Premillennialists, Theonomists vs. non-Theonomists e.t.c. In other words, there are obvious disagreements and these disagreements have led to some un-brotherly love. The disagreements are not my concern (here). It is how these differing views are handled that concern me. It is the treatment of brothers that becomes the issue. Sometimes one side is far too busy trying to justify their position while forgetting the people that they are disagreeing with have been purchased by the same Lamb of God and will be spending eternity bowing before His holy presence! More time is invested in suppressing the other side and distancing from them. Rather than building them up, by, challenging their views, that are believed to be in error, while maintaining friendship and fellowship.

Before I proceed, let me alleviate some fears. I am not a- let's all get together and have one big "kumbaya" and act as if there is no strong disagreement(s)- type of Christian. I will in no way endorse and promote the likes of Rick Warren (no matter what brother and Dr. Piper says) and company. There is far too much danger and error there, as far as the Gospel and how it is preached, for my care. I'm in favor of having these heated and passionate discussions and debates. I believe it is necessary, at times, to take the gloves off and be poignant. Those that have followed this blog are familiar with my strong dislike and objection(s) to Dispensationalism. I believe their errors are great and need to be biblically dealt with, as they would view Covenant Theology the same. So-lets' do this! ;-)

How do we treat one another during and after the heated argument? Sometimes, as an observer, I see a ton of vitriol that seems like hatred and detestation of the person and not just the position. Let's stick with the Piper and Warren situation since I mentioned it. Many have cast Dr. Piper to the wayside and have launched a vitriolic attack against him. Now, I think Piper is wrong for his endorsement of Warren and I am quite appalled at the platform he gave Warren at his conference. It is concerning to me. But not to the point of outright rejecting Piper. If Piper starts to teach like and what Warren teaches, things will change. But until then I will have no problem affirming my love for Dr. Piper and recommending his writings. I think that is the loving thing to do. What I don't think the loving thing to do is to keep him at a distance with a thirty foot pole because of his association with Warren. That would be tantamount to rejecting Whitefield because of his friendship Wesley (if you think Warren is theologically bad, read Wesley). Or despising Spurgeon because he, at one time, endorsed Wesley. And for the record, the mention of Piper/Warren is not the reason for this article. I just think it is a good example.

Here is an interesting scenario- I dislike and object to Dispensationalism and yet I pastor a church that is Dispensational (how this happened is the subject for another article)! We love each other and fellowship just fine. No outside observer would know that the pastor is Amillennial while the church is Dispensational Premillennial. What we pray, and I think is the case, is that people see this: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" and "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” ( 1 Cor. 2:2 and Jn 13:35). We don't spend the majority of our time looking at our disagreements. When we gather together on the Lord's day to worship, we focus on Him and His Word. When they come up (and they will), we deal with them in a loving and brotherly manner. We invite each other over to our houses and have fun, hang out, talk theology and discuss our views and differences (even heatedly) and just enjoy each others company. We do this knowing that despite our differences we will be, one day, in the presence of the glorious Lord Jesus Christ- together. We better learn to love each other and get along now, if we will be worshiping the Lamb together for all of eternity!

I often wonder if those that show nothing but detestation for others because they don't agree with all of their pet doctrines, have truly had their hearts pierced with the love of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I know some Reformed folk are uncomfortable with all this talk of brotherly love. But the identifying mark of one that has repented and believed in Christ is our love for each other (John 13:35). People have tried to manufacture good works but brotherly love is impossible to duplicate and that is why many do not attempt to do it. They rather justify their hatred. There is a warning for all: "We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother" (1 Jn 4:19–21). I await the objections. :-) Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

How To Build An Ungodly Household

           I look foward to having a wife and kids. I look to that day in great excitment and with much fear. Excited because I will have my own family. In fear because of the great responsibility that lies within. God will hold me responsible for how I use the authority He has given me over my wife and kids. It is no small task. It is no game. Scripture commands men to "love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave up Himself for her "(Ephesians 5:25). Therefore, it would be wise of us, who are single men, to prepare ourselves for that day. And it would be wise of you, husband, to start loving your wife as Christ loved the church.

Here is an email I sent to my friend last year. Entitled: "How To Build An Ungodly Household" (I did not write this - credit goes to whomever did).

1. Marry an unbeliever.
2. Make sure both parents work outside of the home.
3. Commit your children to be educated by the Government.
4. Leave the TV on throughout the day.
5. Never eat meals together.
6. Never read the Bible or pray as a family.
7. Avoid Godly influences in the home such as music, books, and friends.
8. Do not acknowledge the Lord’s Day. Work, play, purchase as you
would on any day. If you must attend a church, be sure it’s an
entertaining contemporary seeker sensitive congregation for they are
fully committed to your well being without the distraction of concern
for God’s Glory.
9. Separate yourself from your children as much as possible through
Sunday Schools, junior church, youth groups, sports, and social
activities.
10. Strive to be more of a cool best friend to your teens as opposed
to a strict and boring parent.
11. View your home to be just a place to sleep and to store belongings
instead of a foundational place of refuge, comfort, love and security
for the family.
12. Encourage dating and romance for your kids at the youngest of
ages. Help them to “Play the field” and experiment.
13. Friends, friends, friends. Your kids need social interaction with
other kids their age outside of your home. Don’t plague them with
forced companionship within their family.
14. Blur the gender distinctions in your home. Have Mom go to work,
have Dad prepare the meals. This is extremely helpful in eliminating
any sense of Biblical structure in their own future homes.
15. Avoid moral standards in your home. Rules cause rebellion. Allow
any type of dress, music, friends, language, etc.
16. Never assign chores to your children. Adulthood is tough enough.
Let them relax and enjoy their teen years sleeping late and hanging
out at the mall.

He Said What?

Often this is my response to discussions between Paedobaptists and Credobaptists. I can hear myself say "what" as both sides not only talk past each other but seem to be clueless to what their opponent believes. I typically don't foray into the discussion because I would be spending more time correcting the straw-men arguments than I would presenting my case. So as I observe the, often, heated exchanges I can find myself thinking "what" as the Baptist says something like, "The Reformers couldn't fully break from Rome where infant baptism came from!" Sounds like someone has, either, ignored Church history or wasn't paying attention in class. Historically speaking, it can be traced explicitly back to the third century, which is before the institutional church at Rome (the Roman Catholic Church). Perhaps, if my fellow Credo's were sincere in the discussion, then this type of fallacious argument wouldn't surface.

When I hear the Paedobaptist argue- "We don't exclude our children from the fellowship of the saints and ignore them at church," I often hang my head and chuckle and then murmur "he said what!?" Sounds like someone has never stepped foot in a Reformed (or covenantal) Baptist church. Maybe you can ask one of the children what they have learned about Christ or if they feel "excluded" from the rest of the body? And just try asking us what, exactly, we believe about children in our churches rather than telling us what we believe. Dialogue is a must in this conversation.

Part of the problem is that both sides are far more concerned with attempting to prove the other wrong without first having listened to what the other believes. When this approach is taken (it usually is) the conversation doesn't get very far before it turns into a verbal slugfest and defeats the whole purpose. Often I can sense a bit of elitism coming from both sides. The Paedobaptists tend to make themselves "Truly Reformed" since the Reformers were for infant baptism. The Credobaptists, on the other hand, tend to swing their elitism in another direction. They- "stand upon the Word of God and not on the traditions of men." Sadly,  for the most part, neither camps have taken the time to demonstrate brotherly love by listening or reading what the other side believes and interact with that argument. The times when I have discussed the subject of baptism with Paedobaptists, it is as if they do not recognize that their is even a covenantal reason why Reformed Baptists do not embrace infant baptism. There are Credobaptists-far too many- that haven't a clue to the case from Paedobaptists on the continuity between circumcision in the O.T. and baptism in the N.T. Have we learned nothing from Proverbs 18:13: "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame."

Of course this argument is worth having. Absolutely. It is even good to have some wood thrown in to stoke the fire but we must never forget that we are brothers in Christ and must never lose sight of the goal-our growth and His glory. We should not make this into a discussion to feed and fuel our pride and to divide over, for that brings more shame and dishonor to Him than being wrong on the subject! 

While we stand as Reformed Baptists on this blog, we love and respect our Paedobaptist brothers. So much that we wrote two articles about it here and here. We reject much of what comes out of most modern day Baptist churches and, quite frankly, have more in common with our Paedobaptist brethren than we do contemporary Baptists. This is why we have no problem sitting at the feet of our infant baptizing brothers and learning from them and recommending their books and sermons. If one must look through the eyes of superior and inferior, then we readily acknowledge we are inferior but receive us, love us and teach us, as I have found no greater theologians in the history of the Church than Ursinus, Witsius and Owen- all Paedobaptists! Let both sides remember: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother" (1 Jn 4:20–21). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,

Fernando