# Repent!



## Herald (Jun 24, 2007)

Okay, so I have your attention (at least I hope I do). I'm a bit bothered at some of the recent threads where individuals are called to repent because they hold to doctrines that are consistent with their confession. I want to put this issue in its own thread and have it dealt with. 

First, isn't membership on this board predicated (partly) on subscribing to a confession? Would it be the consensus of PB members that the doctrinal positions held by the approved confessions would be within the sphere of orthodoxy? If not among the membership, how about the owner, mods and administrator? I believe this is a question that warrants an answer. If the PB allows members who are not orthodox in their doctrine, doesn't that under-mind the purpose of this board? We've seen PB leadership react strongly to the FV and NPP. They are to be applauded for that. But shouldn't that consistency be shown in all doctrines that would be deemed unorthodox? I'm open to correction if I am wrong.

Second, is repentance routinely called for outside of the local church? One of the more prolific passages on confrontation and repentance is Matthew 18:15-17:



> Matthew 18:15-17 15 "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.



What is interesting about this passage is that discipline is seen within the confines of the local church. James indicates the same line of reasoning:



> James 5:14-15 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.



The call to repentance is part of church discipline. Botched church discipline has harmed more people than it has helped. The PB is not a local church. It cannot practice church discipline and I question whether a formal call to repentance can be made outside of the local church. 

So what constitutes accepted orthodoxy? Does the PB allow members who do not hold to the orthodox faith? Are the approved confessions of the PB within the sphere of orthodoxy? If a person holds to one of these confessions can we say that they are orthodox and stop calling on them to repent?

?


----------



## Greg (Jun 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> We've seen PB leadership react strongly to the FV and NPP. They are to be applauded for that. But shouldn't that consistency be shown in all doctrines that would be deemed unorthodox?



Hi Bill,

Just curious, what other unorthodox doctrines besides the FV and NPP have you noticed here on the PB that were not addressed or dealt with?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 24, 2007)

Greg said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> Just curious, what other unorthodox doctrines besides the FV and NPP have you noticed here on the PB that were not addressed or dealt with?



If I understand Bill's point, he's saying that the PB does *NOT* allow unorthodox doctrines on the board. As such, the call to "repentance" isn't needed. I agree! I find the entire "You need to repent" cry (they are always in the baptism board) to be arrogant, and unnecessary, and I've said so several times.

If the baptists here meet the qualifications to be members they should not have to be subject to this "call of repentance". Unless we are going to say that baptists are not welcome.

Now, if the baptist forum is a place where paedo's try and convert the poor, confused credo's it needs to be labeled as such. B oth sides go into that forum expecting to be respected for "holding to their confession". A call to repentance from either side is not respect in any way shape or form.

I am at a loss (and have been) as to how anyone cannot see or understand that. I guess they need to repent!


----------



## Herald (Jun 24, 2007)

Greg said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> Just curious, what other unorthodox doctrines besides the FV and NPP have you noticed here on the PB that were not addressed or dealt with?



Greg - I believe you misread what I said. I said the the PB _has_ dealt with unorthodox doctrines.


----------



## raderag (Jun 24, 2007)

Bill,

I think you are missing the point. It is much more fun to use works like repent, heresy, etc.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 24, 2007)

lol


----------



## JohnV (Jun 24, 2007)

Bill:

I understand what you are saying. I agree. 

But it's part of being a member of a public discussion board like this one. We just have to learn to take it on the cheek. 

I can't remember a time on this Board when we didn't have this problem, except may right at the first when we were still feeling each other out. It only took a bit of time before the prejudices came out. That's just part of growing. 

A Presuppositionalist can accuse me, a Classicalist, of being sinful in how I approach the Scriptures all day long. Let him go. An EPer can accuse me of being a lawbreaker for singing "Amazing Grace" in church all day long; let him go too. That doesn't make me a sinner. It just shows where they're coming from, that's all. It's their business if they want to be juvenile in their logic and reasoning. What others do ought not to determine what I do. I just know that I can't call them legalists, so I find other ways to address the concerns.

Moderation is a tricky business, because those who moderate are no more nor any less than we are. They can be taken up in things just like anyone else. Do you think that moderators are above the baptism issue? Or the EP issue? They're also struggling with things. And they too miss the same things that we miss. They too often can't see the unfairness, just as we do not. 

My wife has an answer for the kids when they say, "That's not fair!" She says that its not about fairness. I wondered about that, until I finally asked her about it. She said that she was only quoting me. This surprised me. Did I say that? But I did, and I knew it. But now I also understood how deeply this had affected her. She understood what I said this way, that fairness is about how we treat each other, but how we treat each other is not about fairness. Fairness is not the goal, it is the means to the goal. Well, that's what I meant, but all I could say at the time was that it was not about fairness; I just couldn't muster the words to explain it at the time. But my wife could. 

I think this is something that we have to learn on this Board. Fairness is the means to an end, not merely an end in itself. It is an end in itself, but not by itself. It's about something that we have to be fair about.


----------



## Greg (Jun 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Greg - I believe you misread what I said. I said the the PB _has_ dealt with unorthodox doctrines.



I'm sorry Bill. I misread you as saying that, just as the FV and NPP has been addressed, so should all unorthodox doctrines, ones that have not been addressed here...that your call to consistency in all areas was due to a lack of consistency in a few. My apologies.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 24, 2007)

Bill,

I agree with you for what it is worth, (sides and issues aside) because more often than not the ‘psychology’ behind it is not biblical at all, that is the true way in which a person uses it. First, repent is far too often used as a cheap out and often a hidden ad hominem, and I am not thinking of any particular cases here just in general. Second, “repent” is more often than not a legal cry rather than to the mercy of God cry. God clearly grants and gives repentance by the power of His word, it is not “engendered” up from within, like something akin to a pagan practicing witch craft in attempting to move a cup across the table, lot’s of sweat and inner consternation but in the end utterly nothing (faith is often falsely viewed this way). Repentance is too a gift just as faith is and this gift comes from God’s Word alone, not the urgings of other men nor engendered from within. Thus, often such calls become a “hidden” repent unto ‘my law over your law’ as a way to heaven. Third, when “called for” in debate it’s most often a misuse of “repentance”. For a man must be laid broken by God’s Word alone, like the prodigal AFTER his father already forgives him and gives him his cloak, ring and full restoration in spite of his great sin. This and this alone is true sorrow over sin in true passive contrition wrought about by the mercy of God and not the deluded false attrition too many understand as repentance. That is a true heart broken sorrow for one’s doing, not fear of punishment or hope of reward (false repentance). Fourth, it becomes an “upper hand” cry. One may in fact be correct doctrinally but false in that doctrines reality. It is correct according to the doctrines of science that on earth gravity causes all things to fall back to earth. That’s correct over an opposing doctrine that denies this. But you would not call a man to ‘repent’ from his doctrine and to that doctrine just BECAUSE ‘you are right’ and he is wrong. That would be arrogance and pride. You would desire to call him to the right doctrine because the meaning of it is life giving and moving him from the danger of death to life. There’s a difference in “being doctrinally correct” and why a doctrine is in fact true. No one receives life because they move away from where they were (repentance) and toward a more correct position intellectually, they receive life because “HERE” is life in and of itself. You can be working your way to heaven with every doctrine in line. That is the exertion of the power of the mind to reach perfection or “reach up to heaven”, one of the three towers of Babel constructs, some call it intellectual speculation.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## Herald (Jun 24, 2007)

> agree with you for what it is worth, (sides and issues aside) because more often than not the ‘psychology’ behind it is not biblical at all, that is the true way in which a person uses it.



Larry - I suppose I wouldn't have been as tweaked if it weren't for the very reason you stated. Scripture tells me that you go to your brother in private. The PB doesn't allow that. I suppose you can use a PM to correct your brother, but the PB isn't a church. The principle of Matthew 18 may apply, but it can't be employed fully. 

The rest of your post made sense. I thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## Herald (Jun 24, 2007)

Greg said:


> I'm sorry Bill. I misread you as saying that, just as the FV and NPP has been addressed, so should all unorthodox doctrines, ones that have not been addressed here...that your call to consistency in all areas was due to a lack of consistency in a few. My apologies.



 It's cool brother!


----------



## Herald (Jun 24, 2007)

> But it's part of being a member of a public discussion board like this one. We just have to learn to take it on the cheek.



John - you're right. For the most part I do take comments I don't agree with in the right spirit. This one just go under my skin and I had to say something. I have been blessed by many of my Presbyterian brethren on this board. God has used their words to drive me to scripture and He has changed my understanding on more than a few issues. I believe that is what Larry was getting at in his post in this thread. So long as we are in the faith and consistent with orthodoxy it is the Lord who will effect change when it is needed. Debate and discussion may be the tool that God uses to bring that change to pass. But the call to repent? It makes the issue too personal.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 24, 2007)

Here is a banner for the Baptism board


----------



## Ivan (Jun 24, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Here is a banner for the Baptism board



Ouch!


----------



## turmeric (Jun 24, 2007)

Let's everybody calm down here - I'd suggest a little cool water but an argument might start about the mode of administration, so maybe I won't...


----------



## Ivan (Jun 24, 2007)

turmeric said:


> Let's everybody calm down here - I'd suggest a little cool water but an argument might start about the mode of administration, so maybe I won't...



How 'bout.... or  or  or  Not all water, but it's wet.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 24, 2007)

First, Adam:

You and I haven't conversed much on this Board. There's nothing personal about that. It's just that our interests in the different forums don't cross that much. 

I like your poster, except for one spelling mistake. I think that we need it. We didn't at first, but some of the Paedo's got it in their heads that they won the debate, and therefore could call the Credo's to repentence. It's too bad that this was all it was about for some of us. Personally, I've learned a great deal about the Paedo view by interacting with the Credo's. I never doubted their spiritual integrity. Maybe their powers of reason from time to time. But not their spiritual integrity. In that we all stand in the exact same place. Did you confess Christ as you saviour? So did I. The rest is up the the Spirit's sanctifying work. It's not a matter of salvation, but of sanctification. Have you ever heard of salvation being contingent upon how much the Spirit sanctifies you? Neither have I. 

I don't know why my beliefs don't change your mind. And you don't know why your beliefs don't change mine. But we're brothers all the same. You won't hear me calling you to repentance if you're Credo. That's just not part of the unspoken agreement we have here. In my view that's uncalled for.

Bill:



BaptistInCrisis said:


> John - you're right. For the most part I do take comments I don't agree with in the right spirit. This one just go under my skin and I had to say something. I have been blessed by many of my Presbyterian brethren on this board. God has used their words to drive me to scripture and He has changed my understanding on more than a few issues. I believe that is what Larry was getting at in his post in this thread. So long as we are in the faith and consistent with orthodoxy it is the Lord who will effect change when it is needed. Debate and discussion may be the tool that God uses to bring that change to pass. But the call to repent? It makes the issue too personal.



As I said to Adam, the views expressed by those with whom I differ, or whom I would outrightly oppose if they brought these things up in a church setting, have yet helped me a great deal to express my own beliefs and views, and even to come to understand that sometimes my own presuppositions had more of a say in things than I thought. My own presuppositions should have no say whatsoever. Period. That the intent of these discussions as far as I'm concerned, to help me see and cast out my own presuppositions, so that I can embrace to pure truth of the gospel. 

Having said that, I agree with Larry's post. I think he addressed what is important here. We can't be afraid to speak honestly and from the heart, nor about how we feel. But we also need to be careful. Some things don't need to be said. Some things are outrightly ridiculous when you think about them; stupid if they're your own words. 

Maybe it'll help a bit if I tell you how I handle them, in my saner moments. I'm not always consistent, but I try my best. When it gets to accusations for "not meeting up to my presuppositions" it's time to ignore the argument altogether, right or wrong. If you're more proficient in your understanding and abilities then you can see through it, and just address the argument as it ought to have been stated, not as it was stated. But things like "the great majority of ancient and learned scholars have always believed..." are often just ways to hide ignorance, even by very learned people. In most cases it takes but a moment's reflection to determine that such is not the case at all. You just have to get around this, because others' personal opinions and accusatory remarks really don't have any bearing on the real issue at hand. You're here to learn and grow, just like I am. These types of things help me at least to see these types of things in action, and to avoid doing the same. 

But they do get to me, just like they get to everyone else. You can get away with saying, for example, "Credo's need to repent." but look out if you say, "Paedo's need to repent." Let me be one, a Paedo, who insists that Paedo's need to repent. They do. And as a Paedo I'm allowed to say it. And I do. But that's all beside the point. The fairness in our discussions and in the moderating of them is often lacking. I agree with you. 

What I am saying is that if you relegate me and my posts to the "ignore" column because I start confusing my own presuppositions with orthodoxy, and with the truth of God's Word, then I don't blame you. I'm on your side for that. We're not here for that. At least I'm not. As many that are here to try to impose their own presuppositions as orthodoxy, I am here to cast aside my own presuppositions that I may embrace orthodoxy. I don't do so because my own views are so much better, but because this is what someone else has taught me, at my great pain. It's not my ideal, it's his, and therefore mine now too.


----------



## Herald (Jun 24, 2007)

Ivan said:


> How 'bout.... or  or  or  Not all water, but it's wet.


----------



## Herald (Jun 24, 2007)

> As many that are here to try to impose their own presuppositions as orthodoxy, I am here to cast aside my own presuppositions that I may embrace orthodoxy.



Good stuff. I appreciate your sane response. My feathers don't normally get ruffled, but once in a while....


----------



## Ivan (Jun 24, 2007)

JohnV said:


> As many that are here to try to impose their own presuppositions as orthodoxy, I am here to cast aside my own presuppositions that I may embrace orthodoxy.



Excellent, John!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 24, 2007)

Yep, great points John! And I knew I should have used the Paint Shop spell checker!!


----------



## JohnV (Jun 24, 2007)

Thanks guys. What Bill (and Adam before that, and Pastor Way before that) has said has been a going concern of mine too.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 24, 2007)

Is there a better way of saying, you need to repent? What other ways could I say that that would not be unbiblical for an individual to say? Is it okay when you are talking to an unbeliever to explain repentance as turning away form your sin and turning to Jesus and receiving his death on the cross? Then is it better not to say, "You need to repent?" I would like to say the right thing...Any suggestions?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 24, 2007)

Calling for repentance is something we MUST do and is not done enough!!!! We're simply talking about not doing that in the baptism threads between paedo and credo believers.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 24, 2007)

Oh, okay, I thought you all were talking about just the church doing it.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 24, 2007)

eternallifeinchrist said:


> Oh, okay, I thought you all were talking about just the church doing it.



We are, Amanda. If a church makes a decision on something, and the church would call someone to repentance on a matter, then it is within the judgment of the church when we call someone to repent. They don't do so because WE say so, but because the church says so. 

When it comes to open discussions on baptism, it is understood between the parties that we are presenting our confessed Christian understanding before others of different confessed Christian understandings. We want to come to a consensus, if possible. If we come to it as if we were going to win the debate instead of the understandings, then we're going about it all wrong. 

I'm Paedo, so I know I'm right. But that doesn't meant that all that I say is going to be right. Where I cross the line, as far as both parties are concerned, provided they are both fair-minded and not partisan, I need to be called to repentance. But if all that I say is in line, decent and cogent, well-founded, and all that, and Adam or Bill is still not convinced, it is because they do not yet see what I see. And it could just as well be that I don't see what the Spirit wants me to see. At any rate, there is here no place to be name-calling, and to be calling the "other side" to repentance. It is their Scripture-grounded belief, and none of us need to repent of that until we ourselves see that we are going against Scripture. I fully expect Adam and Bill to have the same expectation in regard to what they believe the Bible to be teaching concerning baptism. 

Hitting someone over the head with the mallet of authority has never convinced anyone. You can only do that when they are doing it deliberately, when they know its not right but still go ahead. 

And you and I personally don't have the authority to call people to repent. Only the Spirit can do that. He can do it through us, but taking it upon oneself to judge as to personal sin is not our place.


----------



## Herald (Jun 24, 2007)

> And you and I personally don't have the authority to call people to repent. Only the Spirit can do that. He can do it through us, but taking it upon oneself to judge as to personal sin is not our place.



John - I concur. Repentance is a spiritual matter that is called for within the context of a local church. That is I why posted my thoughts on Matthew 18 in the OP. We certainly can approach a Christian friend who is not a member of our local church and share our concerns if we see sinful behavior. But what can we do beyond that? I suppose it depends on the relationship. I do believe scripture has given a clear road map for confrontation and the call to repentance in Matthew's gospel and James' admonition on calling the elders in chapter 5 of his epistle.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 24, 2007)

If we have the same standards in common, then I think the church affiliation does not matter. You're calling him to live up to his own standards. Of course we're not saying that everyone has to be sinless, because then none of us would qualify as members of this Board. 

We might have a difference concerning baptism between us, but the lines that get crossed are the same for both of us. I'm crossing the same line, for both Paedo's and Credo's alike, if I were to call you to repent of your wicked baptist views, or you of mine. That isn't about baptism, but about authority, fellowship, agreed guidelines, common and decent behaviour between us, and mutual respect. It is just dumb to call a Baptist to repent of Baptist-ness. I would expect, fully expect, that you are holding your views as Scriptural with all the integrity that you can muster. I wouldn't bother with you if I didn't believe that. So if I called you to repent that would say more about me than it does about you.


----------



## Dagmire (Jun 25, 2007)

One of the threads where someone called credobaptists to repentance was the only baptism thread that I've read on this board. I have never been a fan of debating doctrines like that. I think it is much more divisive than helpful.


And correct me if I need to be correct, but I honestly don't think that holding to either supposition helps anyone behave more like Christ. I am much more concerned with godliness than I am with baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 25, 2007)

I've been pretty tied up lately. I don't want to spend a lot of time weighing in on this. I did read what the main concern is.

I agree with John that some statements need to be handled like water off of a duck's back for lack of a better analogy at this point.

I think the EP example is very apt John. Let's be honest that those the hold to EP do so out of a love for the Word. Let's also be honest of the fact that, due to their Scriptural convictions they ascribe instrumental hymody to the category of "strange fire."

Folks, I've been in the middle of such threads. What do we do about such convictions?

I'm really not a big fan of creating a bunch of rules about where people are and where people are not allowed to be Scripturally convinced of a position when their convictions especially parrot a Reformed Confession. If it's in a Confession then it ought to be allowed convicted expression.

Seriously, for those convinced otherwise, why is it not so much "sticks and stones"?

As a methodology for argumentation I think it's kind of lame to use it too often. Threads can certainly be moderated if that discussion is overwhelming the discussion.

I honestly could write a list of rules two pages long that prevented such things as:
- EP's accusing instrumental people of strange fire.
-instrumental people accusing EP's of legalism
-Baptists comparing infant baptism to the Judaizing heresy
-Paedobaptists comparing credo baptism to the Judaizin heresy
-People saying that Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual songs are all Psalms
-People saying that Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual songs are three different things
-People saying that those who believe in head coverings are legalists
-People saying that those who don't practic head covering are disobeying God's Word
-People who accuse some of adding to the Gospel because they condemn Arminianism
-People who accuse some of denying the Gospel because they don't condemn Arminians enough

OK, my fingers are tired.

Just realize that there are several peaves on this board that other members like to adopt as pets. It's usually when the issue crosses the line into rancor that it becomes an issue.

Personally, I don't find it helpful in the Baptism forum to call Baptists to repentance over their Confessional beliefs. It's assumed from the outset by the nature of our Confessions. That said, I'm not going to create a policy that outlaws it because it would be an arbitrary rule considering all the other things that we consider "in bounds".


----------



## Herald (Jun 25, 2007)

Rich - I don't disagree. I wasn't looking for a set of rules. Hopefully most of the regulars on the PB know that about me. I had heard the call to repentance one too many times and I allowed frustration to set in. Brother John was most gracious in sharing his wisdom by suggesting that I let this type of thing roll off my back. I'll try to heed that from now on. I apologize if I gave the appearance of being a complainer. It was not my intent.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 25, 2007)

Rich:

We already have the rules that are needed. They're already in place. It's just that we don't recognize them anymore.

Like I said to Adam: when the lines are crossed, they're crossed on matters that are common to both sides. It really doesn't matter which side of the debate you're on.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 25, 2007)

Bill:

No. It's right that you complained. Adam did too, before you did. And others too have done so. 

Yes, you should just let it roll off you; but just because you're not speaking out anymore because it's gotten your goat doesn't mean that you shouldn't speak out. We all need to be shaken up sometimes for the carelessness that takes a hold on us as we take too many things for granted.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 25, 2007)

JohnV said:


> Rich:
> 
> We already have the rules that are needed. They're already in place. It's just that we don't recognize them anymore.
> 
> Like I said to Adam: when the lines are crossed, they're crossed on matters that are common to both sides. It really doesn't matter which side of the debate you're on.


Understood. Let's just say that they are recognized at times. We're all fallen.


JohnV said:


> Bill:
> 
> No. It's right that you complained. Adam did too, before you did. And others too have done so.
> 
> Yes, you should just let it roll off you; but just because you're not speaking out anymore because it's gotten your goat doesn't mean that you shouldn't speak out. We all need to be shaken up sometimes for the carelessness that takes a hold on us as we take too many things for granted.



I agree. Bill, I didn't think you were complaining. I was only pointing out my rationale.

Incidentally, Bill, James 5th Birthday was today. He loves his Casa De La Tires!


----------



## JohnV (Jun 25, 2007)

> Understood. Let's just say that they are recognized at times. We're all fallen.



I stand corrected. Thanks, Rich.


----------



## CDM (Jun 25, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Here is a banner for the Baptism board



"Many" paedobaptists believe credos are in sin. . . ? I've been assuming they _all_ did:

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

*V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13]* yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]​


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 25, 2007)

Fine...I had it as "All" and changed it because I thought one or two would say they didn't. Then again you couldn't get away with that in the baptism board!


----------



## Herald (Jun 25, 2007)

You know, this entire discussion makes me think what some of the early church councils must have been like. We have the benefit of reading their findings and conclusions. But I can imagine the eyes popping out of their heads and the heated debate that preceded their agreements.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 25, 2007)

mangum said:


> "Many" paedobaptists believe credos are in sin. . . ? I've been assuming they _all_ did:



I should hope so. We all know that going in, I hope. At least I'm counting on that from my Baptist brothers. That's the unspoken understanding we have in coming to a common forum to discuss this. And as true Christians, I would take it that we don't have to remind each other of that, and both our interests are how we are before God in our faith. Nobody goes into these things without that, I would hope.


----------



## Herald (Jun 25, 2007)

JohnV said:


> I should hope so. We all know that going in, I hope. At least I'm counting on that from my Baptist brothers. That's the unspoken understanding we have in coming to a common forum to discuss this. And as true Christians, I would take it that we don't have to remind each other of that, and both our interests are how we are before God in our faith. Nobody goes into these things without that, I would hope.



And this is what makes the cry to repent fall on deaf ears, at least on the baptism topic. Both camps believe they are right. They point towards God's word and our respective confessions. Every so often a credo will turn paedo and vice versa. It happens. But for the majority of us we are firm in our convictions. This is the norm. Discussion is good but it often times centers on arguments that are centuries old. I doubt there are any new views on baptism. 

As far as the sin issue goes, I don't see a baptismal view on the same level as lying, stealing or adultery. There is no debating those actions. Both sides would viem them as sin. But baptism is different. Godly men have held to either the credo or paedo view throughout the centuries. I wouldn't presume to say that their entire life and ministry is tainted by sin because of an errant belief on baptism. Not that it's unimportant. It isn't. But it isn't so important that it becomes the nexus of constant debate.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 25, 2007)

*AMEN BILL!!!*

I wish we could all agree to this so we wouldn't have to "ignore" anyone. Sadly I don't suspect that will happen, but it's always been my goal.


----------



## KMK (Jun 25, 2007)

mangum said:


> "Many" paedobaptists believe credos are in sin. . . ? I've been assuming they _all_ did:
> 
> *V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13]* yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]



Interesting... I always understood this phrase of the confession as referring to people who are saved but refuse to be baptized. I have never thought of Paedos as 'contemning' or 'neglecting' baptism. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe those Paedos are sinners after all!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 25, 2007)

Christ only indwells sinners, baptist, reformed or otherwise, so I’ll gladly be called a sinner and confirm it and confess it.

If I could take a “neutral” examination point of view, I know, I know, boos and hisses from all quarters. And I’m not arguing FOR neutrality as an end unto itself so as to comprise true doctrine, just a “time out” for the purpose of pause and thought. I don’t think one side or the other despises baptism. I despised baptism as an atheist/agnostic, truly that was despising it, I wouldn’t have it, nothing to do with it. That’s completely different than understanding its richness and desiring it! Satan has caused a great confusion among us and that is the real tragedy. And in this one side - per se if we can generously speak of ‘sides’ as Christian - of the issue is true to Scripture, but Satan gets a double jolly. The other side, again from a neutral view, whoever that side is, I’m not arguing here a side in this venue, is left bereft of a richness of the Gospel. Then yet the OTHER side, the “right side” struggles with the pride of that in a legal way. If I might offer myself as a case study: When I was a Baptist I struggled with that pride against eh other and likewise as a Reformed person that is a struggle in ‘the heat of the moment’. And I think most of us do if we just disarm ourselves and think about it.

My apologies to Bill, I didn’t mean to rabbit trail the post! But to bring it back around, I see what Bill is saying and agree. In debate one needs to be tough and mature and need not ‘wet their pants’ at every disagreement or strong counter argument, but when one makes another feel they are not Christian or some how less and one is themselves superior (and I’ve been guilty of this myself), therein is a problem and we’ve entered the realm of James’ warning, and Paul in many places about pride in the use of gifts!

Blessings to all,

Larry


----------



## KMK (Jun 25, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> Christ only indwells sinners, baptist, reformed or otherwise, so I’ll gladly be called a sinner and confirm it and confess it.



 For Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. May I be found among the sinners!

My question is this: Is it even *possible* to repent from something you do not understand? If I do not understand how the Credo position is in error, nor how the Paedo position is correct, of what am I repenting exactly? My stupidity? If that's what the Paedo is calling for, then you got it! 

I officially repent from stupidity!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 25, 2007)

KMK said:


> For Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. May I be found among the sinners!
> 
> My question is this: Is it even *possible* to repent from something you do not understand? If I do not understand how the Credo position is in error, nor how the Paedo position is correct, of what am I repenting exactly? My stupidity? If that's what the Paedo is calling for, then you got it!
> 
> I officially repent from stupidity!





I have so often wanted to say something like this!


----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2007)

I doubt the propriety of calling believers "sinners." I know it has a "pious" history, but it just isn't biblical.

A sinner is an enemy to God but a believer is reconciled to God. Rom. 5:8-10, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

A sinner will not inherit the kingdom of God. For the believer there has been such a break with the past life of unrighteousness that the apostle can say "such WERE some of you, but ye ARE washed," etc. 1 Cor. 6:9-11, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

In biblical terminology, justification alters a man's relation to God so radically that he is no longer considered a sinner. 1 Peter 4:18, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" So whence arises the pious self-denomination of "sinner" if it is not from the Bible?


----------



## Herald (Jun 26, 2007)

Matthew - I concur. Theologically speaking we are no longers sinners (although we sin). It's a categorical difference although I understand the meaning when a believer refers to himself as a sinner. If a person steals they are a thief. If a person lies they are a liar. If a person sins they are a sinner, although in the eyes of God the Father our indentify is hidden in Christ and we are clothed with His righteousness. 



> 1 Peter 1:15-16 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."


----------



## KMK (Jun 26, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I doubt the propriety of calling believers "sinners." I know it has a "pious" history, but it just isn't biblical.
> 
> A sinner is an enemy to God but a believer is reconciled to God. Rom. 5:8-10, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."
> 
> ...



 once again, to Rev Winzer!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 26, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Okay, so I have your attention (at least I hope I do). I'm a bit bothered at some of the recent threads where individuals are called to repent because they hold to doctrines that are consistent with their confession. I want to put this issue in its own thread and have it dealt with.
> 
> First, isn't membership on this board predicated (partly) on subscribing to a confession? Would it be the consensus of PB members that the doctrinal positions held by the approved confessions would be within the sphere of orthodoxy? If not among the membership, how about the owner, mods and administrator? I believe this is a question that warrants an answer. If the PB allows members who are not orthodox in their doctrine, doesn't that under-mind the purpose of this board? We've seen PB leadership react strongly to the FV and NPP. They are to be applauded for that. But shouldn't that consistency be shown in all doctrines that would be deemed unorthodox? I'm open to correction if I am wrong.
> 
> ...



Greetings:

In reading the above posts it seems to me that most here are confused about what it is to call one to repentance. I think that most of this confusion has been propounded by the OP by Baptist in Crisis. Consider the following for example:

Repentance is a call - not simply to "brothers" in the church - but to all men everywhere:

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.

Paul's famous sermon on Mars Hill is not calling simply church-members to repentance, but the gentiles as well. God once winked at the ignorance of people, but now that they have been confronted with the truth they are required to repent of their ways. I think this can be said of people who consider themselves Christians as well. Sin still dwells within them, and willful ignorance is a far more deadly sin than ignorance itself.

Public sins are to be dealt with publically. Such is not a violation of Matthew 18 principles:

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 

To withstand such sins publically is for the benefit of the people of God. It makes an example that such sins are not to be tolerated. Thus, the objection that the Puritanboard "is not the church" is factitious to say the least. It is a public forum, and, as such, members should be rebuked publically when they err.

Certainly, in matters "essential," as Augustine would say, are matters that people should be called upon to repent when they are found to err. Does Baptist in Crisis wish to imply that there have been matters that are "non-essential" in which he has been called upon to repent?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 26, 2007)

Oh good grief.

I believe fully that you understand what is being said here yet continue to post as if you don't, for what ever reason that may be. Up until this point just about everyone who has posted in this thread has plainly stated that while paedo's may believe that credo's need to repent of error, it does not have to be said all the time because it is *KNOWN* the moment anyone clicks on the baptism forum. Your supposed *need* (isn't it odd how it seems to be only you that has the pressing need continually) to call Baptists to repentance is not necessary because they all know you and others feel this way already. 

Ken's even repented of stupidity because some (I am going to say YOU) have made people feel like this is what you're asking for, yet you continue to post as if you don't understand the issue others are bringing up here. It's getting quite sad really. I may be the only moderator willing to continually try and help you understand and maybe even be sensitive to this, but I won't stop just because I am the only one.

Please, stop already. At least long enough to run off and tell on me for being abusive or some other made up issue you have from being willing to stand up to your constant repetition of the same post over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over (see how annoying that is?)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 26, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> In reading the above posts it seems to me that most here are confused about what it is to call one to repentance. I think that most of this confusion has been propounded by the OP by Baptist in Crisis. Consider the following for example:
> 
> ...



Robert,

Let's give the open call to repentance a rest for a while. Our Confession clearly states that credo-baptists are in sin by not baptizing their children. The fact that we believe they are in sin is apparently obvious to the casual observer as is the fact that they believe we are sinning. Of course, my commitment to my Confession does not grant truth to their position but theirs is, nevertheless, an acceptable Confession on this Board. It may be like oil and water at times but it is what it is. This _isn't_ the public, this is a board where we're all _guests_.

I bear you no ill will and we see eye to eye on many things. On this point, however, I don't think discussion and debate is served by continuing to poison the well and making it difficult for others to hear the arguments presented.

Present your arguments, assume the other side knows your Confession considers them to be in disobedience to the Word of God, and let's move on.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Robert,
> 
> Let's give the open call to repentance a rest for a while. Our Confession clearly states that credo-baptists are in sin by not baptizing their children. The fact that we believe they are in sin is apparently obvious to the casual observer as is the fact that they believe we are sinning. Of course, my commitment to my Confession does not grant truth to their position but theirs is, nevertheless, an acceptable Confession on this Board. It may be like oil and water at times but it is what it is. This _isn't_ the public, this is a board where we're all _guests_.
> 
> ...




No problem brother. I did not start this thread, though, Just thought to answer a tangential criticism.

Blessings,

-Rob


----------



## JohnV (Jun 26, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Oh good grief.
> 
> I believe fully that you understand what is being said here yet continue to post as if you don't, for what ever reason that may be. Up until this point just about everyone who has posted in this thread has plainly stated that while paedo's may believe that credo's need to repent of error, it does not have to be said all the time because it is *KNOWN* the moment anyone clicks on the baptism forum. Your supposed *need* (isn't it odd how it seems to be only you that has the pressing need continually) to call Baptists to repentance is not necessary because they all know you and others feel this way already.
> 
> ...




Adam, (and everyone):

Don't get me wrong, Adam, I'm on your side on this one. So please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say.

Differences on the issues is one thing, but having a right to your own views as if that is true for you is another story. That's not on the table, as far as I'm concerned. 

I know you didn't mean to say it that way, and maybe it is even a great surprise to you that I read that in your post and often in others' posts. But I do. 

What I'm saying is that, sure, you and I both know that we're coming to the table with different senses of what's orthodox. But the Bible stands on its own, not on our presuppositions. The Bible doesn't need OUR presuppositions to speak truth to us. For us to understand the Bible we have to, as the Spirit enlightens us, cast out our presuppositions and embrace the revealed truths. We, Credo's and Paedo's alike, are always reforming, but the Bible does not need reforming. 

That's what we're doing here. We *don't* have a right to our own views in that sense. That's the one thing that we're here for, to throw them out, and to make sure that our credo is not based upon our views, but rather that our views are based upon what we should believe. 

Those given to that particular brand of Presuppositionalism that cannot allow this sort of thing into their way of thinking will not understand what I am saying. That's nothing new. But they're still covenant children. And if Christ called them to His Word, then it is not up to me hold them as outside that covenant. They're wrong, to be sure, but they're still covenant children. 

That's basically the idea behind infant baptism too. But what is also included is that, sure, your view of baptism might be wrong (or maybe mine is) but you are still a covenant child even if you weren't baptized as a baby. It's just not my place to be questioning the Holy Spirit's work. I don't know why He hasn't enlightened you about these things. But I can see that He is surely working in you in other ways. So He is working in you. And you've tied yourself to a church's confession which you believe to be in conformity to the Word. What we differ on is the mode, but not baptism itself. 

Let me tell you that I have had my sense of orthodoxy rocked a few times here on this Board. I'm glad for it, because as much as I might not like others' views on things, I hate my own more. That's what I'm doing here. Not to cast out others' views, but to cast out my own. (Otherwise I would have been in a head-to-head battle with Presuppositionalists from the start, and done nothing else but that.) I'm interested in what the Word says, not in justifying my own perspectives. Whatever others believe is their business; this is a discussion board, not a church. But whatever truth I embrace, I have to make sure, is to be not my own; but I try to make it my own, whatever the Word reveals. 

God uses means. He teaches us through each other. Even wrong views have teachable qualities in them. We have to discern them, and be taught by them.

I am hoping that we are all here for the same reason. I'm counting on that. We don't have much to talk about if we're not here on that common ground.


----------



## Herald (Jun 26, 2007)

John - your post articulates the exact reason why I am a member of the PB. This is a community of ideas. As you so eloquently asserted, it's not our ideas that matter, rather it is what the scriptures say. We are on a never ending quest to know the scriptures in every facet. In that pursuit it is not a simple matter of epistemology or spirit, it is both. We approach the living word with our whole being; the material and the immaterial. Our hope and prayer is that the Father will give us understanding of the truth through the Spirit, and conform us more to the image of His Son. All of us occupy different places on the journey. Some are ahead while others bring up the rear. Since we are all one body our goal should be to see each other grow into full stature in Christ (Eph. 4:13).

I started this thread to verbalize my frustrations. God has turned it into something wonderful as my heart as been encouraged.


----------



## Herald (Jun 26, 2007)

joshua said:


> *
> **I'm just here to PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARTY!!!*
> 
> Me toastin' at the wine party.
> ...




Josh - me thinks you've been dipping to the sauce a wee early today.


----------



## jenney (Jun 26, 2007)

joshua said:


> And this is me, trying to find a wife at the party.  (joke!)



But Josh, there are _lots_ of wives at the party. How could you have missed us?


----------



## JohnV (Jun 26, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> John - your post articulates the exact reason why I am a member of the PB. This is a community of ideas. As you so eloquently asserted, it's not our ideas that matter, rather it is what the scriptures say. We are on a never ending quest to know the scriptures in every facet. In that pursuit it is not a simple matter of epistemology or spirit, it is both. We approach the living word with our whole being; the material and the immaterial. Our hope and prayer is that the Father will give us understanding of the truth through the Spirit, and conform us more to the image of His Son. All of us occupy different places on the journey. Some are ahead while others bring up the rear. Since we are all one body our goal should be to see each other grow into full stature in Christ (Eph. 4:13).
> 
> I started this thread to verbalize my frustrations. God has turned it into something wonderful as my heart as been encouraged.



I'm glad, Bill. It's also been a place for me to vent some of my frustrations too. I'm glad to get some of these things out, and I am blessed by what I read in others' posts when they also speak of the witness of truth to their hearts. There have been good and truth-bearing posts by both credo and paedo alike. The Spirit is working in the hearts of those He is sanctifying.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 26, 2007)

And then there's Josh...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 26, 2007)

You know what John, I don't have a solid view on baptism! I am pretty much credo because that's what I've always been and it's the only thing I see in scripture "plainly". The entire covenant child thing messes with my mind to the point of frustration thus why I liked Ken's "repenting of stupidity" comment.

My views don't matter, but neither does anyone else's and that's what I felt like I had to stand up against, the idea of someone else having the answer and everyone else unable to "get it" were in sin and only need to repent of their wickedness in order to understand it all just like someone else has!

Sorry, I don't buy that. Do you know what it reminds me of actually? The crazy Pentecostals that used to tell me that all I had to do was ask God and believe and I would talk in tongues! If that didn't happen, there must be some other "spiritual" reason because all the good, smart Christians spoke in tongues.

I used to read the baptism forum in search of one solid truth and do you know what I've discovered? No one has it! Baptists have solid footing on what they believe and so do paedobaptists! I think if scripture showed one case of infant baptism I would be convinced, without it I simply am not. I don't think I should have to use flip charts, note cards, 10 concordances, learn Greek and Hebrew, and speak to my Pastor and six of his mentors to understand baptism. I don't think scripture would make something so important so complicated but I am convinced that you and others believe it and can show scripture to back up what you believe too! I would never tell you to repent of sin in order to come to my simple conclusion of "well I don't see it in practice in the bible". Outside this one post, I thought I would never even admit to such here less some of the educated shake their head at the poor idiot house parent who has not earned the divine gift of understanding covenant children and why baptism replaces circumcision, I mean it's so obvious (duh!) (not that you think that way John, but MANY, MANY seem to and some are not ashamed to openly say as much boldly on these forums.

One final admission, I HATE the baptism board. It causes division and has since the day I arrived here. I suspect it always will and that makes me sad. 

I am NOT upset with your comments, or you. They simply made me feel that I had to let it all lose so I am clearly understood.

Blessings!


----------



## JohnV (Jun 26, 2007)

Adam:

I think you got the gist of what I was saying. We're on the same track. 

One example that your comment about crazy Pentecostals reminded me of, which you will likely understand quite readily: the Dispensationalists hold to their own millennial view, and Reformed theology rejects that. As far a the millennium itself is concerned, which is premil, the Reformed do not reject that. What the Reformed reject is that this speculative thing manages to determine how Scripture is interpreted by them. They put it before theology proper. That's what Reformed theology rejects. It's not premillennialism itself.

Well, guess what. Some Postmillennialists are doing the same thing. It's not Dispensationalism, but it's still putting speculative issues as determinitive to interpretation. So I reject that on the same grounds that I reject Dispensationalism. To me its the same thing. Dispensationalism is just a name, but that doesn't mean they're the only ones making that mistake. 

As much as mode of baptism might be an issue between you and I, there are much worse things going on. My point was that I accept, by entering into discussion on this Board with you, that you have come to your view honestly, by reading the Bible and praying about it. And I take it that you give me the same courtesy. 

I don't see any reason to doubt that. What you said above only satisfies me more concerning that. What I won't accept is that orthodoxy is narrowed down to personal views and interpretations. It could just as well be Dispensationalism then. Or crazy Pentecostalism. 

I think you and I are on the same page. We're both coming to the discussion with teachable hearts, with repentent hearts, with contrite hearts. And we're hoping to learn from each other. We don't need someone stepping in calling us to repentance over our views. That's exactly what we're trying to do, together.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 26, 2007)

Sweet! (My girls make fun of me when I say that)


----------



## JohnV (Jun 26, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Sweet! (My girls make fun of me when I say that)



I sometimes like put the word "like" like in every other word in like a sentence. Like, you know what I mean? My kids like laugh at me when I like do that. I don't like talk that way, like in normal conversation. And "sweet" is how I like my coffee. They know that too. What blows them away is "Far out!". That's a new one to them. Or is was, anyways. Not anymore. And they like "Leave it to Beaver" shows that we rent sometimes; so "swell" isn't so strange to them anymore.


----------



## Herald (Jun 26, 2007)

> We're both coming to the discussion with teachable hearts, with repentent hearts, with contrite hearts. And we're hoping to learn from each other. We don't need someone stepping in calling us to repentance over our views. That's exactly what we're trying to do, together.



John, Adam (and to everyone else reading this thread) - this is it in a nutshell. We don't need to be called to repentance over our confessional beliefs. A call to repentance essentially ends discussion on the matter. If both sides disagree and one side calls the other to repentance, what is left to discuss? And while I share some of Adam's frustration about the baptism boards, one of the reasons they exist is to offer a venue for continued discussion. A call to repentance ends that discussion.

Now, I am not suggesting that we don't challenge doctrinal positions. We should. Some teachings are not debatable (i.e. FV and NP) for most of us. Others are not so clear cut (i.e. the Clarkian threads). Again, these are some of the reasons why we are here. In my case the PB has been instrumental in moving me from dispensationalism into a more covenant-friendly view of scripture. I'll be the first to admit that I am not a WCF-Reformer. 

But...*semper reformanda!*


----------



## JohnV (Jun 26, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> *semper reformanda!*


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 26, 2007)

Josh, did the girl friend thing work out or something?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 26, 2007)

JohnV, Bill, and others. This is not an attack but a collection of thoughts that concerned me as I read a few posts this AM. I started a new thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=22641


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 27, 2007)

That's sooo funny Josh! Creative


----------



## Herald (Jun 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> JohnV, Bill, and others. This is not an attack but a collection of thoughts that concerned me as I read a few posts this AM. I started a new thread:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=22641



I'm participating in the new thread and have no problem with it. In fact I deem it as necessary. I'm glad this thread allowed a lot of things to be aired out. Will they have a noticeable difference in how certain folks act on the board? Probably not. But at least I feel better, and isn't that what Christianity is all about? How *I * feel?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 27, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I'm participating in the new thread and have no problem with it. In fact I deem it as necessary. I'm glad this thread allowed a lot of things to be aired out. Will they have a noticeable difference in how certain folks act on the board? Probably not. But at least I feel better, and isn't that what Christianity is all about? How *I * feel?


"I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am attractive person. I am fun to be with."

Bill Brown is a caring nurturer, a member of several 12-step programs, but not a licensed therapist.

"I'm going to do a terrific show today! And I'm gonna help people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!"


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 28, 2007)

The category “sinner” depends on how one is using it. Yes theologically and toward God a sinner is no longer a sinner. But the justified remain simultaneously just and sinner in this life, 1 John, Romans 7 for example, esp. 1 John which states that if we say we no longer sin the truth is not in us. To BE IN the state of faith is to BE IN the tension of now and not yet for much sin, both much of good prideful acts (self righteousness = unrighteousness) and concupiscence remain in the believer. The Lord’s prayer presupposes the old nature remains in conflict with the new nature. For when we ask ‘forgive us our sins…’ we are asking forgive us our sins that are of the “negative” ilke and the sins attaining to the “positives” we do (the prideful self righteousness). To BE IN faith that is IN Christ is to continue to suffer the old man’s existence. For Christ said I came save the unrighteous (sinners who know themselves to be sinners) not the righteous (self righteous = unrighteous and know themselves to not be sinners). Thus, it was the Pharisee who was unjustified when he said ‘thank God I’m not like those sinners and tax collectors’, but the man justified, says Jesus, could not even raise his eyes toward heaven and cries out to God, “forgive me a sinner”. The man in true saving faith remains in this tension and justification (in which is repentance and faith continuously) though complete is not reduce to a mere formality of transaction once in time (which would be more likes say Zane Hodge and the likes understanding of it).

So it depends on the category one is speaking of. Yes, one way we are not sinners, theologically toward God, but we are sinners in that we recognize ourselves to be sinners and lay in the tension of faith in Christ alone. The man who does not view himself a sinner is not in the faith at all, he/she are not IN Christ. The Scriptures CLEARLY speaks to both of these.

Ken,

Something I once read helped me a bit and it could apply to this issue of “repent” in this posting. Debate is not wrong. However, more often than not, when we argue with each other it can REALLY be reduced down to “I’m right and your wrong” and vice versa. If we are honest Christians I think we all know that within ourselves. AND that, “I’m right and your wrong”, boils down to me/the other person mutually justifying ourselves. When we are DOING this we bear witness openly that we don’t really believe (trust) what we confess we believe, namely that I’m justified by Christ’s blood ALONE. This was James’ entire point about what visibly is coming out and showing itself. We’ve fallen back into a form of self justification that comes out as “I’m right and your wrong” in whatever we are doing/debating.

It is THAT to which I think Bill has keyed in on a crucial thing in this call to “repent”. It’s not really a call to the mercy the other believes in for himself, a stop pursuing death and trust in life, but a “repent to my justified position, I’m right and you are wrong”.

The stronger brother, if he is going to be stronger is stronger in grace FOR the weaker and does not seek to be “right” as in justified in himself (the opposite of grace) and thus should endeavor to teach and discuss with his other brother these issues. It’s hard I admit, and I’ve been on two sides of a Christian issue many times and failed miserably. The old man always wants to be right, that is justified. It only shows the depths of real total depravity in us. Christian maturity takes time and we slip back a lot, I don’t profess to be there or near there, though in my sinful nature I pretend to be much!

Hopefully, that helps and I only pass on what I learn, I far too stupid myself to come up with anything of ANY value;-)

Blessings,

larry


----------



## MW (Jun 28, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> The category “sinner” depends on how one is using it. Yes theologically and toward God a sinner is no longer a sinner. But the justified remain simultaneously just and sinner in this life, 1 John, Romans 7 for example, esp. 1 John which states that if we say we no longer sin the truth is not in us.



1 John and Romans 7 are usually brought forward to show that believers still sin. This would be a valid conclusion. But at no point do they call the beliver a "sinner." Quite the opposite. 1 John 3:6 says, Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." Calvin remarks, "They are said not to sin, because they consent not to sin, though they labour under the infirmity of the flesh; but, on the contrary, they struggle with groaning, so that they can truly testify with Paul that they do the evil they would not." Rom. 7 says the believer inwardly delights in the law of God and hates the sin that he does, and that to such a degree that there is a legitimate sense in which it can be said that he no longer does the sin, that is, it is done against his will.

A sinner is one who delights in sin, who lives in sin as in his element. This is impossible for those in Christ. Calling believers "sinners" is misguided pietism and downright dangerous because it leads men to sit at ease with thoughts and actions which are contrary to the new creature in Christ; it thus produces an opposite effect from the godliness which is exemplified in Scripture -- one of continual wrestling against sin and mortifying the lusts of the flesh.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 29, 2007)

> A sinner is one who delights in sin, who lives in sin as in his element. This is impossible for those in Christ. Calling believers "sinners" is misguided pietism and downright dangerous because it leads men to sit at ease with thoughts and actions which are contrary to the new creature in Christ; it thus produces an opposite effect from the godliness which is exemplified in Scripture -- one of continual wrestling against sin and mortifying the lusts of the flesh.[\quote]
> 
> The reality is that someone who remains a gross sinner does not see himself a sinner he’s back under the self justifying self righteous delusion. He may loosely today use the term “sinner” (not often though) but he really doesn’t mean SINNER. He doesn’t see himself a true sinner, that’s why he justifies his actions, just as much as the deluded false saint does. Both the open sinner and false saint are puffed up upon themselves and far from broken by the Law of God.
> 
> ...


----------

