Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
To be fair to both sides of the issue, here is something by M. Horne. It is from Hodge's position:
Hodge on RC Baptism
Hodge on RC Baptism
Resources on why we accept any trinitarian baptism
- Thread starter SolaScriptura
- Start date
- Status
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jeff, I´m at least glad you´re being open and consistent enough to acknowledge that this issue is essentially dependent on the question of whether or not Rome is a true church. From my experience (including on this board), most of those who affirm Rome´s baptism do so acknowledging that Rome is not a true church in any sense, and yet still attempt to affirm her baptism. That was Calvin´s position, and it is the inconsistency that I usually see accompanying those who affirm Rome´s baptism.
So concerning the question of Rome´s status as a true church or not, I honestly have to say I´m not sure how to interpret the clause "œin the Church" in the Confession, and would value input from more learned people on the board regarding that clause, and Westminster´s view on Rome as an institution at large. Even so, I have a hard time seeing how the previous section could be interpreted in any way so as to still render Rome a true church in any sense, and how an institution could ever be a "œChurch of Christ" and a "œsynagogue of Satan" at the same time: "œThe purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will." Assuming that the divines were mindful of Rome in writing this section as well, the middle sentence seems to absolutely claim that she is no part of the Church; particularly, the "œnevertheless" would not make sense if those "œsynagogues of Satan" were still true churches in some sense, for the whole point of it is to say (in effect), "œIn spite of that, there will always at least be a true visible Church in which to worship." That would only make sense if the "œthat" was saying that some former churches had ceased to be true visible churches.
Furthermore, if Rome were still a true church in any sense, there would be significant implications for the Reformation, and the legitimacy of the Protestant churches as a whole; it would have been (and would still be) a giant schism, since the Reformers would not have had the right to depart if Rome had still been a true church. That was certainly Calvin´s view, as was shown in the previous threads I referenced near the beginning of this thread. Also, in addition to the implications for the legitimate or schismatic nature of the Reformation and Protestantism, this issue gets to the heart of the Gospel itself: For the teaching of the true Gospel is the first necessary mark of a true church. No Gospel, no church. Hence, if Rome is still a true church in any sense, then the Gospel she teaches, though tainted, must be said to still at least be pure enough to be saving; and in that case, Catholics could be saved not only in spite of their church´s "œgospel," but because of it, and even Catholics who fully believe every bit of the "œgospel" taught by Rome would be saved by it.
Maybe a better question than if you would personally partake of the Mass would be this: If a present evangelical did decide to partake of it at some event, do you think they would have validly (even if not purely) received the Lord´s Supper as a means of grace that day?
Again, the issue is not the personal views or even salvific state of the pastor administering it, but rather the validity of the ecclesiastical institution as a whole, since baptism is a sacrament of the Church. I´m still waiting to hear your answer on whether a low-church evangelical friend of mine baptizing her newly-converted friend in their dorm with water an the Trinity would be a valid baptism.
Well, as I´ve made clear already, no one here is advocating rebaptism, but challenging whether certain so-called "œbaptisms" are baptisms at all. Furthermore, even though I certainly agree with you that rebaptism is a great error and a misunderstanding of the nature of the sacrament, I hope you do not believe the logical implications of your statement above, which would mean that the vast majority of historic Particular Baptists have been teaching another Gospel and have been damned. That is ridiculous.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ben,
Maybe this will help:
It's not at ALL a big "if", it is the nature of the Gospel, Good News. This is the VERY point of any sacrament or sign, as Calvin points out, to help us in our weakness...a how can I know it is "For Me". Just because men abuse it does not mean we are allowed to redefine it any more than abusers of the Gospel do not allow us to alter its pure message. Just because a killer kills with a knife does not foresake the surgeons healing use of it.
A crucial piece of the puzzle that often goes missing is that baptism is God´s work and doing and not man´s, yet God uses men as his arms and legs so to speak to carry it out in time and space. That´s a HUGE difference in baptistic paradigms versus reformed and Lutheran. This is why a first baptism given in His name is valid and a second one NEVER CAN be, God never baptizes again and God never regards HIS first and own baptism as invalid for HE gave it and it is rooted in HIS promise, it is HIS sign, HIS Gospel, HIS, HIS, HIS. Thus, it is NEVER invalid per credo thinking and thus a second, third, fourth or etc"¦baptism is NEVER a valid baptism and NEVER from God.
Ask a Baptist why they rebaptize. They must define the first as invalid thus denying the true work of God and His sign, so that the "œrebaptism" becomes to them the only real baptism. This they can only do if baptism itself is rooted in actual faith rather than the promise and thus it must communicate incorrectly. That is baptism in that paradigm does not communicate the Gospel or the promise of eternal life but the recipient´s possession of faith. This is why when they foist by communication and doubt upon children of infant baptism to be "œrebaptized" they are for them communicating to them that God has NOT promised them eternal life in the Gospel of Jesus Christ in which they (infants baptized) should trust (which IS faith by the way) and onto works.
This is why at the end of the day it is fool hard to even try to argue with a Credo giving credence to that form of doctrine for it is at the end of the day not just eschew a bit but entirely different. It is akin to half-way compromising with arminian theology saying we only differ by degree, we don´t. We differ as in black and white, being and non-being, on this issue.
That´s not being "œmean" or "œcold" but simply straightforward.
Ldh
[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Larry Hughes]
Maybe this will help:
It's not at ALL a big "if", it is the nature of the Gospel, Good News. This is the VERY point of any sacrament or sign, as Calvin points out, to help us in our weakness...a how can I know it is "For Me". Just because men abuse it does not mean we are allowed to redefine it any more than abusers of the Gospel do not allow us to alter its pure message. Just because a killer kills with a knife does not foresake the surgeons healing use of it.
A crucial piece of the puzzle that often goes missing is that baptism is God´s work and doing and not man´s, yet God uses men as his arms and legs so to speak to carry it out in time and space. That´s a HUGE difference in baptistic paradigms versus reformed and Lutheran. This is why a first baptism given in His name is valid and a second one NEVER CAN be, God never baptizes again and God never regards HIS first and own baptism as invalid for HE gave it and it is rooted in HIS promise, it is HIS sign, HIS Gospel, HIS, HIS, HIS. Thus, it is NEVER invalid per credo thinking and thus a second, third, fourth or etc"¦baptism is NEVER a valid baptism and NEVER from God.
Ask a Baptist why they rebaptize. They must define the first as invalid thus denying the true work of God and His sign, so that the "œrebaptism" becomes to them the only real baptism. This they can only do if baptism itself is rooted in actual faith rather than the promise and thus it must communicate incorrectly. That is baptism in that paradigm does not communicate the Gospel or the promise of eternal life but the recipient´s possession of faith. This is why when they foist by communication and doubt upon children of infant baptism to be "œrebaptized" they are for them communicating to them that God has NOT promised them eternal life in the Gospel of Jesus Christ in which they (infants baptized) should trust (which IS faith by the way) and onto works.
This is why at the end of the day it is fool hard to even try to argue with a Credo giving credence to that form of doctrine for it is at the end of the day not just eschew a bit but entirely different. It is akin to half-way compromising with arminian theology saying we only differ by degree, we don´t. We differ as in black and white, being and non-being, on this issue.
That´s not being "œmean" or "œcold" but simply straightforward.
Ldh
[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Larry Hughes]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Or to say as Paul said similarly of circumcision in Romans, Its not as if the Word of God failed just because those circumcised sought their own righteousness in lieu of the righteousness of God (grace and Christ crucified). Similarly unto baptism.
Paul in reality has already answered this very question for us.
Ldh
Paul in reality has already answered this very question for us.
Ldh
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Chris,
You write:
Chris,
I've been pondering the thought. I would have to say, that depends. Maybe this is a challenge to my being consistant. If we were in the Sudan and there were no churches and I baptised you, would it be valid? Here in the states where there are formal churches, I would have to say no. This drags Hodge's view into play; Hodge believed that Rome was not a true church, hence their administrators of the sacraments not true leaders ordained by Christ. Does this answer your question?
By the way, not to sidetrack the thread, How'd you like the cigars?
You write:
Chris,
I've been pondering the thought. I would have to say, that depends. Maybe this is a challenge to my being consistant. If we were in the Sudan and there were no churches and I baptised you, would it be valid? Here in the states where there are formal churches, I would have to say no. This drags Hodge's view into play; Hodge believed that Rome was not a true church, hence their administrators of the sacraments not true leaders ordained by Christ. Does this answer your question?
By the way, not to sidetrack the thread, How'd you like the cigars?
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
One other point. Paul never argued that trusting in circumcision that was the sign of the covenant of grace or the Gospel itself was wrong, in fact that is the correct way to understand it (that is heaven to earth, means of communicating, literally communicating with the Word attached, grace). Paul only argued and corrected vehemently when the sign was used as sign of "œseeking their own righteousness" (i.e. earth to heaven, obedience in this legal sense.) And that´s fundamentally what the reformers were correcting with Rome´s ex opere operato view. It was not that baptism as much as it communicates the Gospel and the forgiveness of sin with the Good News attached to it was to not be trusted in, in fact in this way it IS trusted in and IS saving faith for it is trusting in what it unites us to, His crucifixion and resurrection (for us) as Paul plenteously uses it. Paul actually uses Baptism to reassure the Gospel in numerous places. However, the Anabaptist later come along and over threw the correct understanding of the sign again by linking it not to the Gospel but to the possession of faith itself.
Faith itself is not the Gospel, Christ crucified from start to finish is. If the sign, baptism, is not primarily unto the Gospel but is unto faith, then it is manifestly obvious that such a baptism IS NOT communicating Christ crucified to anyone (the whole point of baptism). We are not to observe baptism and laud over the "œgreat faith" of the recipient, but to the Christ crucified and risen to which it points. That´s two different religious views altogether.
Earthly example: If I write you a check saying "œPay To The Order Of""¦$10,000. That communicates and promises one thing. But if I write a check saying "œPay To The Order Of""¦3 beans, then that communicates and promises something else altogether. Similarly if Baptism is a sign of your faith, that´s in essence saying faith itself will assure me. But if Baptism says as it does Christ crucified and risen for your sin, then that is an entirely infinitely differing level of assurance and true saving faith"¦it has the final element of saving faith; trust in Christ for me, the element of trust not just belief of a things reality.
If the recipient denies "œChrist died for your sins" and finally falls away seeking their own righteousness (which is the ONLY alternative), it is not as if the Word of God itself fails, is that not obvious. It merely proves the point that man by his own effort, will, or an actively exerted faith will NEVER receive the Gospel. Thus, the folly of baptism point to "œmy faith" or "œyour faith".
ldh
Faith itself is not the Gospel, Christ crucified from start to finish is. If the sign, baptism, is not primarily unto the Gospel but is unto faith, then it is manifestly obvious that such a baptism IS NOT communicating Christ crucified to anyone (the whole point of baptism). We are not to observe baptism and laud over the "œgreat faith" of the recipient, but to the Christ crucified and risen to which it points. That´s two different religious views altogether.
Earthly example: If I write you a check saying "œPay To The Order Of""¦$10,000. That communicates and promises one thing. But if I write a check saying "œPay To The Order Of""¦3 beans, then that communicates and promises something else altogether. Similarly if Baptism is a sign of your faith, that´s in essence saying faith itself will assure me. But if Baptism says as it does Christ crucified and risen for your sin, then that is an entirely infinitely differing level of assurance and true saving faith"¦it has the final element of saving faith; trust in Christ for me, the element of trust not just belief of a things reality.
If the recipient denies "œChrist died for your sins" and finally falls away seeking their own righteousness (which is the ONLY alternative), it is not as if the Word of God itself fails, is that not obvious. It merely proves the point that man by his own effort, will, or an actively exerted faith will NEVER receive the Gospel. Thus, the folly of baptism point to "œmy faith" or "œyour faith".
ldh
non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
So baptism is gospel and not law. Then those who have a 'law' understanding of it have another gospel?
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
1. Yes, baptism is Gospel and not Law that is the meaning of being buried with Christ and raised with Him, point blank and without apology.
2. In terms of baptism, yes, but not unto the whole of their doctrine necessarily.
Paul´s entire point unto the Galatians concerning circumcision was to that very point concerning the sign.
This is why it is of no avail to them when they are attacked by the devil. Anyone who has suffered under the "did I get it right" (post faith) of the devil understands this very clearly, those who have never suffered are quite unaware of it. Rather than like Luther saying, "No Satan you are a liar, I am baptized (Gospel)", this person is tormented by their baptism (Law). Satan runs from the Gospel but he certainly being a good lawyer uses false law to make God´s children doubt Christ. This is usually driven by a fear of sin they are struggling with that has driven them to doubt the grace of God for them (as if they ever could earn it), seeing due to this sin no evidence that they are saved, so they are being led to think.
This too is driven by not understanding that Christ died not only for your sins in particular past, present and future and enumerated which by comparison are peccadilloes and effects of a MUCH DEEPER issue. But that Christ died for YOUR NATURE, YOUR turned in upon yourself, whereby sin takes on an entirely different cloak that may be quite pretty on the outside.
The credal position manifestly says, Baptism POST faith, else it is no baptism at all. Like it or not there´s no denying this without denying the position altogether. The struggling Christian, and keep in mind ONLY the struggling Christian is affected this way, the very one the sign is meant to strengthen, is then turned away from the Cross, Gospel, (where the sign should be pointing) and INTO him/herself, Law, (where the sign should NOT be pointing). He must then find out if some evidence of real faith existed post baptism, he's being led astray. The deeper he/she digs the worse it gets, because, again, he is now turned IN upon him/herself (the very definition of the sin nature) and the holy Law is relentless, thus the sin nature as a side effect grows due to the very fear. He/she NOW will be so turned upon him/herself that they will NEVER produce a fruit even if they save lives at their expense. At length finding nothing definitive to trust in, having scrapped himself inwardly raw, he now wonders, "œdid I ever possess true faith". Here, even faith becomes a work and he has diabolically been turned in upon himself in all things to search out these things, the very place he should NOT be turned (keep in mind this is a struggling Christian and not a deluded one). FAITH THAT IS REAL SAVING FAITH NEVER LOOKS AT ITSELF, BUT Christ ALONE, YET BAPTISM THAT POINTS TO FAITH FORCES THIS VERY ISSUE! In effect, this form of teaching on baptism KILLS real saving faith.
His eyes have been torn by the devil and this doctrine from Christ altogether, it matters very little what is preached from the pulpit. Now locked into the devil´s trappings he finds himself hopeless for he can find no reason that he possessed, then, faith (post baptism). Given the definition of the credistic paradigm, baptism only post faith as true, valid and real, he cannot depend upon his baptism for his weakness, the purpose of a sign/sacrament "“ he now must assess, "œWas I truly baptized and should I be baptized again (or really baptized if you will)"? If he/she answers no, then the devil will assault further by saying, "œSee, if you truly were a believer, you´d do this thing." Continually note how Christ crucified "œfor ME" is lost in this, the very purpose for baptism (eyes are completely off of Christ). If the answer becomes "œyes" and he/she does it, then the devil has one his victory of subtle works righteousness and the person goes for rebaptism whereby he can rest in what he falsely thinks it points to, his faith or evidence of his faith. For a time he/she remains solid, perhaps for life, but IF some tremendous sin surprises him/her in the future the whole cycle starts again and the devil tosses them to and fro upon this wind of doctrine whereby he/she doubts God. Thus, many, especially sensitive consciences who REALLY HEAR the Law, are re-baptized multiple times. After all according to credistic paradigm on this issue, "œYou have to get the work right". Again, this is not meant to be mean spirited, its simply fact. This offered as a package of "œgospel" with "œgospel" language annexed to it is clearly another gospel which is NO Gospel at all.
You can preach out of one side of your mouth "œjustification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone", then usurp it by your actions and works (James). A church can hold forth justification by grace alone through faith alone in WORDS, yet its actions (works) can communicate quite another message of another type of faith (James´ whole point). In fact the "œpressure" of the church´s other actions can squelch altogether the Gospel. It can say, "œYou are justified by the work of Christ ALONE, but you better do this or that". Rather than letting the fruit of the Gospel have its own way. In fact to press a man this way is another way of denying that the Gospel and the Gospel ALONE is the power, it doesn´t appear to work so we need to tweak the message a bit.
Thus, setting forth a baptism that is based upon faith itself and not the Gospel itself is a Law (especially if you add to that a secondary law of a particular mode only). If baptism is based upon MY faith and not the Gospel itself and foisted forth as a true sign of the believer, THEN it is another Gospel.
Again, it is as Luther said a rebaptism is nothing less than sacrilege and profanity toward God, it mocks Him and it is obvious it does so for it mocks Christ crucified and the wrath HE bore.
Blessings,
Ldh
[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]
2. In terms of baptism, yes, but not unto the whole of their doctrine necessarily.
Paul´s entire point unto the Galatians concerning circumcision was to that very point concerning the sign.
This is why it is of no avail to them when they are attacked by the devil. Anyone who has suffered under the "did I get it right" (post faith) of the devil understands this very clearly, those who have never suffered are quite unaware of it. Rather than like Luther saying, "No Satan you are a liar, I am baptized (Gospel)", this person is tormented by their baptism (Law). Satan runs from the Gospel but he certainly being a good lawyer uses false law to make God´s children doubt Christ. This is usually driven by a fear of sin they are struggling with that has driven them to doubt the grace of God for them (as if they ever could earn it), seeing due to this sin no evidence that they are saved, so they are being led to think.
This too is driven by not understanding that Christ died not only for your sins in particular past, present and future and enumerated which by comparison are peccadilloes and effects of a MUCH DEEPER issue. But that Christ died for YOUR NATURE, YOUR turned in upon yourself, whereby sin takes on an entirely different cloak that may be quite pretty on the outside.
The credal position manifestly says, Baptism POST faith, else it is no baptism at all. Like it or not there´s no denying this without denying the position altogether. The struggling Christian, and keep in mind ONLY the struggling Christian is affected this way, the very one the sign is meant to strengthen, is then turned away from the Cross, Gospel, (where the sign should be pointing) and INTO him/herself, Law, (where the sign should NOT be pointing). He must then find out if some evidence of real faith existed post baptism, he's being led astray. The deeper he/she digs the worse it gets, because, again, he is now turned IN upon him/herself (the very definition of the sin nature) and the holy Law is relentless, thus the sin nature as a side effect grows due to the very fear. He/she NOW will be so turned upon him/herself that they will NEVER produce a fruit even if they save lives at their expense. At length finding nothing definitive to trust in, having scrapped himself inwardly raw, he now wonders, "œdid I ever possess true faith". Here, even faith becomes a work and he has diabolically been turned in upon himself in all things to search out these things, the very place he should NOT be turned (keep in mind this is a struggling Christian and not a deluded one). FAITH THAT IS REAL SAVING FAITH NEVER LOOKS AT ITSELF, BUT Christ ALONE, YET BAPTISM THAT POINTS TO FAITH FORCES THIS VERY ISSUE! In effect, this form of teaching on baptism KILLS real saving faith.
His eyes have been torn by the devil and this doctrine from Christ altogether, it matters very little what is preached from the pulpit. Now locked into the devil´s trappings he finds himself hopeless for he can find no reason that he possessed, then, faith (post baptism). Given the definition of the credistic paradigm, baptism only post faith as true, valid and real, he cannot depend upon his baptism for his weakness, the purpose of a sign/sacrament "“ he now must assess, "œWas I truly baptized and should I be baptized again (or really baptized if you will)"? If he/she answers no, then the devil will assault further by saying, "œSee, if you truly were a believer, you´d do this thing." Continually note how Christ crucified "œfor ME" is lost in this, the very purpose for baptism (eyes are completely off of Christ). If the answer becomes "œyes" and he/she does it, then the devil has one his victory of subtle works righteousness and the person goes for rebaptism whereby he can rest in what he falsely thinks it points to, his faith or evidence of his faith. For a time he/she remains solid, perhaps for life, but IF some tremendous sin surprises him/her in the future the whole cycle starts again and the devil tosses them to and fro upon this wind of doctrine whereby he/she doubts God. Thus, many, especially sensitive consciences who REALLY HEAR the Law, are re-baptized multiple times. After all according to credistic paradigm on this issue, "œYou have to get the work right". Again, this is not meant to be mean spirited, its simply fact. This offered as a package of "œgospel" with "œgospel" language annexed to it is clearly another gospel which is NO Gospel at all.
You can preach out of one side of your mouth "œjustification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone", then usurp it by your actions and works (James). A church can hold forth justification by grace alone through faith alone in WORDS, yet its actions (works) can communicate quite another message of another type of faith (James´ whole point). In fact the "œpressure" of the church´s other actions can squelch altogether the Gospel. It can say, "œYou are justified by the work of Christ ALONE, but you better do this or that". Rather than letting the fruit of the Gospel have its own way. In fact to press a man this way is another way of denying that the Gospel and the Gospel ALONE is the power, it doesn´t appear to work so we need to tweak the message a bit.
Thus, setting forth a baptism that is based upon faith itself and not the Gospel itself is a Law (especially if you add to that a secondary law of a particular mode only). If baptism is based upon MY faith and not the Gospel itself and foisted forth as a true sign of the believer, THEN it is another Gospel.
Again, it is as Luther said a rebaptism is nothing less than sacrilege and profanity toward God, it mocks Him and it is obvious it does so for it mocks Christ crucified and the wrath HE bore.
Blessings,
Ldh
[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]
Calvibaptist
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
OK, I admit, I am still a little confused. I keep hearing you guys quoting OT references and calling it baptism, when in fact it was circumcision. I understand the concept that baptism replaces circumcision, but Zipporah did not baptize her child, she circumcised him.
There are plenty of instances when those who had been circumcized as children were baptized as adults. Just read the NT. So how can the two be equal if both were done to people? Is there not some difference like, at the very least, a development of the New Covenant?
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
I know this wasn't directed to me, but...
Scott, I might-maybe-possibly would be induced to consider your position if I were smoking on some more of those cigars...
Larry, I will be straightforward also. I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a true church. It long ago abdicated any pretense of being a church that proclaimed the true gospel of grace. It is a false church. I rank it as not much better than the Mormon's, SDA or the JW's. I fail to see how a baptism, that is administered by a religious sect that is an enemy of Christ, can be considered valid.
On a sidenote, John Piper's church no longer requires those who were baptized as infants to be rebaptized (I am not sure on this, but I believe Roman Catholic baptism is not recognized as valid). As a credo, I initially criticized Piper's decision. While not quite there yet, I find myself being more empathetic to his reasoning. If Piper's stance on those who were baptized as infants becomes widely accepted in credo churches, how does that effect the contention of your post? While remaining firmly credo, a Baptist church may recognize an infant baptism in a true church, one that proclaims the gospel of grace. Roman Catholic baptism would not be recognized per reasons I gave earlier.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Chris,
I don't have time to respond to your post at this time, but to say that a I have been challenged on my views of Rome and her status as a church in this thread. It has alot of helpful discussion regarding this topic.
That being said, I have not fully made up my mind, but am leaning in the direction in which I have argued.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is an excellent question and why I love being with the saints, we all grow and learn and are sharpened against ALL the devil´s ploys by ALL OUR struggles and questions. We should as grace saved people not be afraid to ask such great question so as to find the deeper richness of our Lord. Because I assure you somebody else is wonder this.
This does bring up other questions, we have a tendency to see "œlarge" blocks of time and forget the smallest increments and thus draw up a doctrine. Because it is not as if they were babies then boom adults. What about babies STILL babies circumcised on the eighth day and not just babies who were "œthen" adults. Remember the inception of Pentecost was basically one day and not five or so years. So babies circumcised at eight days of age that were so 24 hours earlier to Pentecost were still babies 24, 48, 72, 168 hours later as well as those circumcised the day before Pentecost 365 days, 730 days, 1095 days, 1460 days later? After 1460 days the definition of "œbaby" gets a bit fuzzy.
L
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Bill,
You know and can rest assured that I always appreciate that and I never take your thoughts as ANYTHING less than graciously straightforward. I just think that needs to be said so neither of us take a wrong spirit on this, and I know you whole heartedly agree with that. I really appreciate you bringing that up to keep things "œcool"! A pause and reminder is good because of that terrible flesh that we all still possess. I´m glad you saw that before I steered down a bad path, which I can do!!
Agree without ANY qualifications.
This is because you do not see, as I too did not, that baptism is God´s and supercedes even a sect, Rome in this case. I´ve already explained why Mormon baptism is not the same as Rome´s. But based upon a strict rendering of your own definition, I would have to deny even a Baptistic baptism, which I do not, because it is rendered not as a means of grace but an ordinance, not Gospel but rather Law as I´ve argued before hand. The Baptist paradigm is showing itself. The whole struggle that you are struggling with is seeing it primarily as given either by man´s effort either by the recipient, the institution or even the pastor rather than the work of God. Surely you see the positions problem.
The Mormon church is a "œhomerun" so to speak. Yet, even under the rubric of Credo, do you accept a Seventh Day Adventist? A Church of Christ´s? Which are manifestly BOTH repugnant deniers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and are blantantly works based salvation NO DIFFERENT WHATSOEVER from Rome! I was a SB once, do you accept another Baptist church whose doctrine is more works based than Rome EVER promoted? This is no theory for I KNOW many Baptist congregations that require "œrebaptism" based upon this, sometimes from one door step to the next (my wife for example could give witness of this issue in many SC KY baptistic churches personally). I know MANY Baptist sects this way in KY. So, you see that even under your own paradigm you have a problem, you need not leave the credo paradigm.
Excellent question that I´ve wrestled with NOT AT ALL unlike yourself. I wasn´t going to post on this, but ironically we think at least alike about some issues we are wrestling with in our brains. You bring up a great issue, no doubt. Here is my answer as best I can state it to date, because I really wrestled with that with another brother Baptist, my closest in the faith. And I only post it as thought and not dogmatic!
I see Dr. Piper´s dilemma. He´s wrestling with the same issue on the Credo side that many on the Paedeo side wrestle with in reverse, but his is one by definition of how to deal with it under an exclusive paradigm (immersion/adults only) as opposed to an inclusive paradigm (modes vary/both adults and children of adults), this is KEY difference. He professes this Credistic paradigm, yet the bulk of his teachers who even speak at his conferences, not to mention Luther, Calvin, Edwards, et. Ali. Were baptized as infants and support this position.
It´s quite a dilemma without a doubt!
Here is my thought on that issue. He should not. Why? Because you cannot go half way, that´s why I say its black and white for both sides and not a matter of degree(s). If both sides are honest this must be recognized! To lure in by other wise superb Gospel preaching, those baptized as infants by sprinkling and maintain otherwise, if only by implication, that baptism is by immersion and adult believers only is flying under false colors (even Spurgeon mentions this). All he will succeed in doing is luring children of the promise under that church and make them doubt their Lord´s promise ON THEM by implication. If you would be a Shepherd of the sheep of Christ you MUST look at how you may falsely cause them to stumble. You HAVE to LOOK at the effects upon their conscious for nothing else truly matters for the Christian.
You have to realize that it is GREATER persecution to cause a man to doubt by "œcalling something God´s command", even if by true ignorance, than to make them do it with the sword. You must ALWAYS consider the conscience of the child of God! If one thrusted my body into a rebaptism against my conscience, my conscience is against it though my body is forced. Yet if you pressure me falsely by saying, "œthus says the Lord", my conscience is disturbed ABOVE my body. If my body is forced to do a thing against myself, then I´ve resisted unto the faith, even if burned for it. But if you cause me to doubt God by implied pressure unto say immersion and rebaptism as an adult, then you have caused me to DOUBT God and do a work in order to find assurance and rest.
Thus, though Piper´s struggle sounds ecumenical and peaceful it is really his own struggle and he should not draw in others into his church this way. Because at the end of the day you cannot make a half way house.
It is analogous to this: If someone holds a weapon to you and says "œdo this" that´s one form of persecution. Another form of true persecution, which Paul points out in Galatians, does not involve the sword at all and CAN be worse. It is a form that says, "œThus saith the Lord" when He really doesn´t saith. By example though absurd, it is like this: If I say you should not speed then that is one level. But if I say and somewhat convincingly and can even wring Scripture out to support my position, "œThe Lord says you should not speed", then to one truly loving to do his/her Lord´s bidding even if it is not really their Lord´s bidding, that is infinitely different.
My position is "“ is that they ought not accept into their fellowship said persons for it is deception when all is said and done and it will cause them to sin, or stumble, and as a teacher the accountability is greater.
Ldh
Larry - excellent post. You've given much to ponder and reply to. It is late (12:06 AM), and it officially the Lord's Day. Time for me to get to bed and enter into worship with my church family later today. Rest assured I will give you post an adequate read and reply as thoughtfully as I am able.
May the Lord Jesus Christ be your portion always.
Bill
May the Lord Jesus Christ be your portion always.
Bill
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Jeff,
The link was helpful! It's funny how my position has changed since we discussed this previously. I agree w/ Andrew in this quote from the thread you cite:
In light of this, Rome's baptism would be valid.
[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
The link was helpful! It's funny how my position has changed since we discussed this previously. I agree w/ Andrew in this quote from the thread you cite:
In light of this, Rome's baptism would be valid.
[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
Yep. It's interesting to see my old posts too!
I think that it is important to keep a very clear distinction (such as Andrew's) when speaking of Rome. I think all of us would agree that Rome is a false church, not to be trusted in, and a synagogue of Satan. We must not comprimse this. That being said, what is the difference between calling an institution a "church" in the broadest sense, or just a gathering? What makes a church a church? We can call Rome a false church, but we still tack on the term "church" when speaking of that whore. I wouldn't call Jehovah's witnesses a "church." It's more of a cult. A gathering. Technically speaking, Rome isn't a cult. It may come close (and I might WANT to call it a cult, under the pope), but I don't think it technically meets the qualifications.
Just a couple of early Sabbath
non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
in my opinion a group that holds to the Apostles' Creed is at least visible (Mormons don't qualify because or their tritheism). 'Material' is a great way to put it.
I guess I am departing from the historic Protestant view that a visible church is a true church. The Roman church is false but all too visible.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
A church is only truly visible if it clearly sets forth the Gospel. The standing and falling church is upon "justification by faith alone" regardless of building (physical) or institution (legal construction on paper). Thus, Rome retains the physical while not the true visibility. If an "on looker" cannot see, perceive, hear or some how have communicated to them the clear gospel (hidden either by direct words to that effect or by the churches actions), then the Kingdom of God IS NOT visible to them. Similarly the disobedient shepherds as Jesus says shuts the kingdom of heaven out from themselves and their hearers if "Christ is our Righteousness" is not constantly declared every Lords day and throughout the churches actions. They can be a great "bible teaching" group as where the diligent Pharisees, but they are only "searching the Scriptures thinking that by them they have life when these continually bear witness of Christ."
When "Christ is our righteousnes", alone I might add for emphasis, is not there, then the church independant of physical or institutional status fails to be "visible". In short if I cannot hear Christ for me in your preaching, worship or sacraments then Christ is manifestly not visible to me or anyone.
It would be better for such an institution to fail, die off and cease to be for in reality it has already and just retains the hauntings and empty shells of its former self. The church as an institution should be ready to loose itself for the sake of the Gospel in order to communicate the Gospel if it would be a true church. If the pastor is a faithful shepherd he will preach the Gospel, Christ and Him crucified, in season and out of season...even if EVERYONE in the church leaves him. When the church seeks to saves its institutional status over and above the Gospel, then it will have the form but it is in reality lost altogether. Thus, Rome, thus Seeker friendly churches, thus the SB seeking numbers at all cost, thus regenerate church movements, thus all who seek to sustain the churches institution above the Gospel. If the Gospel be not there in purity and clarity, one should not have to "read between the lines" to hear it, then you have no church but the material form of it only, the empty husk.
What makes a church a church is the Gospel and NOTHING else.
Blessings,
Ldh
When "Christ is our righteousnes", alone I might add for emphasis, is not there, then the church independant of physical or institutional status fails to be "visible". In short if I cannot hear Christ for me in your preaching, worship or sacraments then Christ is manifestly not visible to me or anyone.
It would be better for such an institution to fail, die off and cease to be for in reality it has already and just retains the hauntings and empty shells of its former self. The church as an institution should be ready to loose itself for the sake of the Gospel in order to communicate the Gospel if it would be a true church. If the pastor is a faithful shepherd he will preach the Gospel, Christ and Him crucified, in season and out of season...even if EVERYONE in the church leaves him. When the church seeks to saves its institutional status over and above the Gospel, then it will have the form but it is in reality lost altogether. Thus, Rome, thus Seeker friendly churches, thus the SB seeking numbers at all cost, thus regenerate church movements, thus all who seek to sustain the churches institution above the Gospel. If the Gospel be not there in purity and clarity, one should not have to "read between the lines" to hear it, then you have no church but the material form of it only, the empty husk.
What makes a church a church is the Gospel and NOTHING else.
Blessings,
Ldh
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
September 17, 2006
To be clear concerning the issue of baptism, I´m not trying to set forth a legal path for credo Baptists unto infant baptism, not at all. But in hope show forth the Gospel in it that then the path may be made clear. If all I succeed in doing is in essence say, "œMy law is better than your law towards God", then I´ve failed miserably. What I´m wanting to say concerning baptism is, "œHere is the richness of the Gospel and by holding the other position one is sadly and alas hurting one´s self by it." This is why I have at length attempted to show the real difference in extrinsic versus intrinsic reward/punishment else where. If you don´t eat the food before you, then the problem is not being legally disobedient but just denying the gift that is good for you in and of itself. Like my own father when growing up telling me I ought to drive safely. In rebellion I would hear a "œlegal" component and disobey. When in reality he was not being legal but loving me and saying, "œthis is good for you".
It ought NEVER be that infant baptizers should say, "œI´m being more obedient by do this thing" (legal obedience). If this is the paedeo´s position then he/she should first seek to remove their beam so they can help their brother Baptist and their dear children who TOO are of the kingdom with their speck. Rather the paedeo should think and say, "œIt is better because it is Gospel and a gift, here will you not please consider and see the richness of the grace of our God toward us all in this and give it to your children." Because the effects of baptizing our children go deeper than just unto them, it affects the gospel richness of our own baptisms. To see the infant able to do nothing but RECEIVE the Gospel that is annexed to the Baptismal waters is nothing less than seeing the Gospel in its most naked form. For the infant can DO NOTHING but receive the gift of God. And THIS viewed by adults is a rich rich rich re-preaching of the true nature of the Gospel they themselves have both in Word and Sacrament. Seeing infants so baptized reminds us in the point blank way what the Gospel is to us, that we DO nothing, just receive the richness of the abundance of God´s mercy.
For what adult doesn´t live their life every single week, every hour and every second struggling with the flesh, the world and the devil. Who after a few minutes of weekly life has not already begun to sin and then the doubts assault freshly. Looking inward does absolutely nothing. However, when the Lord´s day comes and if one is blessed enough to see an infant baptized and the Word attending, seeing the pure RECEIVING of the Good News this way, PURE RECEIVING, it reminds us of the nature of God´s goodness and love toward us and then drives us to true Gospel repentance. It freshly breaks us and gives us certain hope that, "œYes this IS the Gospel." And it points back to our own baptism which is specifically upon us. Luther was brilliant in observing that if we cease to baptize children baptism will at length loose its witness. If we are honest in extended version of credo baptism this is EXACTLY what has happened.
It is no small thing to know that baptism is God´s work to us specifically and to each one in particular, that in this seal impressed upon us we have the promise and THAT IS faith and strengthens faith. This KILLS all rededications and rebaptisms and efforts on "œmy" part and says, "œHERE is God´s grace, receive it, rest and have the peace that surpasses ALL understanding." If I were Bill Gates and I wrote Scott a check for a million dollars to be cashed in the far future, what is that to you? But if I have written Bill the same check, then that means something TO YOU, YOUR conscience specifically. Similarly it is no small thing to know God´s Gospel is TO YOU via baptism that comes TO YOU specifically. This is why it must be rooted in HIS name, HIS Gospel and HIS promise and not in FAITH, the receiving instrument itself. For if I doubt my faith (which is faith looking at faith or faith in faith or assurance in faith itself) or the evidence whereby I seek to measure and detect it and I´ve understood my baptism to be based upon "œmy real faith", then baptism which is TO ME is of no avail at all. It in essence disappears at THE VERY moment it ought to be the greatest strength to me, during a struggle and doubt.
When all is said and done in this life, when suffering comes one´s way either by one´s own sin and doubts, failures as a Christian, tragedies such as Katrina or wars, poverty, debt, sickness, cancer, a car wreck, the tragic loss of a loved one, etc"¦the baptism of God which is the Gospel and the promise is ALL one really has. One can then say, "œEven though tragedy besets me and this suffering is REAL and the pain is REAL, I am baptized and God has promised to wash me of ALL my sin and live with Him and Christ and the Holy Spirit with the great saints of all time when I finally depart this trail of tears."
This is what is lost when we no longer baptize our infants. All because of what it can no longer point to due to no longer giving it to them and the man made arguments to sustain the doctrine. What is lost in its witness is very simply that it is a gift to be utterly RECEIVED. This is what in part Jesus meant when "œsuch are the kingdom of heaven and you cannot even enter the kingdom of heaven least you are as these babes and infants". It looses the eschatological element of the coming of the kingdom of heaven here and now, faith itself. We loose the picture when we exclude our infant children, especially infants, from the Sacrament, it looses its Gospel witness as both Luther and Calvin said. Christ was extremely wise when He said this. It is to our hurt that we fail to do this, it is a true loss of the Gospel to fail to do this. It is self inflicted pain. It is to inflict our own hurt and detriment, intrinsic punishment, to so deny God saying to us in the waters of baptism, "œI forgive you." It is folly to say of baptism, "œNo that cannot be what it is, it must be faith." If God says in baptism I forgive you for Christ´s sake and this baptism is unto you specifically, the Gospel specifically to you "“ is not the folly of denying it its pain and punishment? In short, if God says I forgive you and we reply by our wrong ideas of baptism, "œNo". Is not the folly of this obvious. Is not the pain we thus reciprocally inflict upon ourselves its own just reward. In baptism God says, "œYOU are forgiven for Christ´s sake". To spurn this by a redefinition of baptism as unto "œfaith" its self is its own punishment and not a legal punishment for disobedience to the sign that is otherwise extrinsic to it. ALL of this is lost when we no longer baptize our children and the LOSE is no small thing at all, but GREAT INDEED. Yet, the loss is self inflicted and intrinsically given.
What the argument boils down to is "“ is baptism a means of grace or a confirmation of grace. The two are mutually exclusive. For the former gives by its nature while the later by definition does not give. If I do it as an "œobedience" to "œconfirm" grace, that is from earth to heaven communicate, climbing Jacob´s ladder as Rome use to do, then it cannot in any way be a gift from God.
The great error the baptistic paradigm falls under is fundamentally misguiding the true direction of worship of the true God. True worship consists in the direction from heaven to earth, receiving from God not vice versa. Our thankfulness is ONLY in reciprocation of the first. Why is this direction, receiving from God true worship? For it is EXACTLY and ONLY who God really is, "œI am the Lord your God you shall have no other gods before you." The God who is the God of love, true godly love, the law which is in reality love "“ is a God of a love that is utterly outwardly turned and NEVER inwardly turned. This is the entire point and display of the Cross of Christ, this is its foolishness and offense to the fallen nature "“ that God is a God of utterly love and absolute outward turning Who gives and this is the way we were originally created before the fall. Pagan gods and our idolatry of God consists in reversing this worship. Pagan worship consists in "œour doing" to "œmove" God rather than receiving from God. It´s subtle but it is the difference between the real God who was crucified for us and an idol by any name. In all forms of pagan worship either inside or outside of the church itself the effort is directed such that we "œdo" things in order to "œmove" God, rather than "œreceive" from God so that we are "œmoved". Two different religions. This relates to baptism which all affirm as part of worship. If one views baptism as a "œconfirmation of grace" and based upon one´s own faith, then one will inevitably form an idolatrous form of baptism or worship, earth to heaven (hear God I´m being obedient and confirming Your work). That is entirely different from receiving grace and gospel in baptism. The views differ this way: One is a gift from God, the other is an empty badge of confirmation or authentication.
The baptistic paradigm erroneously assumes that it holds baptism higher by making it a badge of confirmation only given to those ALREADY possessing faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Baptism is infinitely the highest when it is the GIFT of God, just as Christ crucified and risen to Whom it points is the ONLY HIGH gift of God "“ even if it is rejected. For HIS love IS HIM and HIS love gives.
Thus, true worship comes about when we receive from God and reflexively give a thanksgiving, the later is the effect of the former and not when we "œoffer up" as if to move God to be gracious to us.
Blessings In Christ Alone,
Larry
To be clear concerning the issue of baptism, I´m not trying to set forth a legal path for credo Baptists unto infant baptism, not at all. But in hope show forth the Gospel in it that then the path may be made clear. If all I succeed in doing is in essence say, "œMy law is better than your law towards God", then I´ve failed miserably. What I´m wanting to say concerning baptism is, "œHere is the richness of the Gospel and by holding the other position one is sadly and alas hurting one´s self by it." This is why I have at length attempted to show the real difference in extrinsic versus intrinsic reward/punishment else where. If you don´t eat the food before you, then the problem is not being legally disobedient but just denying the gift that is good for you in and of itself. Like my own father when growing up telling me I ought to drive safely. In rebellion I would hear a "œlegal" component and disobey. When in reality he was not being legal but loving me and saying, "œthis is good for you".
It ought NEVER be that infant baptizers should say, "œI´m being more obedient by do this thing" (legal obedience). If this is the paedeo´s position then he/she should first seek to remove their beam so they can help their brother Baptist and their dear children who TOO are of the kingdom with their speck. Rather the paedeo should think and say, "œIt is better because it is Gospel and a gift, here will you not please consider and see the richness of the grace of our God toward us all in this and give it to your children." Because the effects of baptizing our children go deeper than just unto them, it affects the gospel richness of our own baptisms. To see the infant able to do nothing but RECEIVE the Gospel that is annexed to the Baptismal waters is nothing less than seeing the Gospel in its most naked form. For the infant can DO NOTHING but receive the gift of God. And THIS viewed by adults is a rich rich rich re-preaching of the true nature of the Gospel they themselves have both in Word and Sacrament. Seeing infants so baptized reminds us in the point blank way what the Gospel is to us, that we DO nothing, just receive the richness of the abundance of God´s mercy.
For what adult doesn´t live their life every single week, every hour and every second struggling with the flesh, the world and the devil. Who after a few minutes of weekly life has not already begun to sin and then the doubts assault freshly. Looking inward does absolutely nothing. However, when the Lord´s day comes and if one is blessed enough to see an infant baptized and the Word attending, seeing the pure RECEIVING of the Good News this way, PURE RECEIVING, it reminds us of the nature of God´s goodness and love toward us and then drives us to true Gospel repentance. It freshly breaks us and gives us certain hope that, "œYes this IS the Gospel." And it points back to our own baptism which is specifically upon us. Luther was brilliant in observing that if we cease to baptize children baptism will at length loose its witness. If we are honest in extended version of credo baptism this is EXACTLY what has happened.
It is no small thing to know that baptism is God´s work to us specifically and to each one in particular, that in this seal impressed upon us we have the promise and THAT IS faith and strengthens faith. This KILLS all rededications and rebaptisms and efforts on "œmy" part and says, "œHERE is God´s grace, receive it, rest and have the peace that surpasses ALL understanding." If I were Bill Gates and I wrote Scott a check for a million dollars to be cashed in the far future, what is that to you? But if I have written Bill the same check, then that means something TO YOU, YOUR conscience specifically. Similarly it is no small thing to know God´s Gospel is TO YOU via baptism that comes TO YOU specifically. This is why it must be rooted in HIS name, HIS Gospel and HIS promise and not in FAITH, the receiving instrument itself. For if I doubt my faith (which is faith looking at faith or faith in faith or assurance in faith itself) or the evidence whereby I seek to measure and detect it and I´ve understood my baptism to be based upon "œmy real faith", then baptism which is TO ME is of no avail at all. It in essence disappears at THE VERY moment it ought to be the greatest strength to me, during a struggle and doubt.
When all is said and done in this life, when suffering comes one´s way either by one´s own sin and doubts, failures as a Christian, tragedies such as Katrina or wars, poverty, debt, sickness, cancer, a car wreck, the tragic loss of a loved one, etc"¦the baptism of God which is the Gospel and the promise is ALL one really has. One can then say, "œEven though tragedy besets me and this suffering is REAL and the pain is REAL, I am baptized and God has promised to wash me of ALL my sin and live with Him and Christ and the Holy Spirit with the great saints of all time when I finally depart this trail of tears."
This is what is lost when we no longer baptize our infants. All because of what it can no longer point to due to no longer giving it to them and the man made arguments to sustain the doctrine. What is lost in its witness is very simply that it is a gift to be utterly RECEIVED. This is what in part Jesus meant when "œsuch are the kingdom of heaven and you cannot even enter the kingdom of heaven least you are as these babes and infants". It looses the eschatological element of the coming of the kingdom of heaven here and now, faith itself. We loose the picture when we exclude our infant children, especially infants, from the Sacrament, it looses its Gospel witness as both Luther and Calvin said. Christ was extremely wise when He said this. It is to our hurt that we fail to do this, it is a true loss of the Gospel to fail to do this. It is self inflicted pain. It is to inflict our own hurt and detriment, intrinsic punishment, to so deny God saying to us in the waters of baptism, "œI forgive you." It is folly to say of baptism, "œNo that cannot be what it is, it must be faith." If God says in baptism I forgive you for Christ´s sake and this baptism is unto you specifically, the Gospel specifically to you "“ is not the folly of denying it its pain and punishment? In short, if God says I forgive you and we reply by our wrong ideas of baptism, "œNo". Is not the folly of this obvious. Is not the pain we thus reciprocally inflict upon ourselves its own just reward. In baptism God says, "œYOU are forgiven for Christ´s sake". To spurn this by a redefinition of baptism as unto "œfaith" its self is its own punishment and not a legal punishment for disobedience to the sign that is otherwise extrinsic to it. ALL of this is lost when we no longer baptize our children and the LOSE is no small thing at all, but GREAT INDEED. Yet, the loss is self inflicted and intrinsically given.
What the argument boils down to is "“ is baptism a means of grace or a confirmation of grace. The two are mutually exclusive. For the former gives by its nature while the later by definition does not give. If I do it as an "œobedience" to "œconfirm" grace, that is from earth to heaven communicate, climbing Jacob´s ladder as Rome use to do, then it cannot in any way be a gift from God.
The great error the baptistic paradigm falls under is fundamentally misguiding the true direction of worship of the true God. True worship consists in the direction from heaven to earth, receiving from God not vice versa. Our thankfulness is ONLY in reciprocation of the first. Why is this direction, receiving from God true worship? For it is EXACTLY and ONLY who God really is, "œI am the Lord your God you shall have no other gods before you." The God who is the God of love, true godly love, the law which is in reality love "“ is a God of a love that is utterly outwardly turned and NEVER inwardly turned. This is the entire point and display of the Cross of Christ, this is its foolishness and offense to the fallen nature "“ that God is a God of utterly love and absolute outward turning Who gives and this is the way we were originally created before the fall. Pagan gods and our idolatry of God consists in reversing this worship. Pagan worship consists in "œour doing" to "œmove" God rather than receiving from God. It´s subtle but it is the difference between the real God who was crucified for us and an idol by any name. In all forms of pagan worship either inside or outside of the church itself the effort is directed such that we "œdo" things in order to "œmove" God, rather than "œreceive" from God so that we are "œmoved". Two different religions. This relates to baptism which all affirm as part of worship. If one views baptism as a "œconfirmation of grace" and based upon one´s own faith, then one will inevitably form an idolatrous form of baptism or worship, earth to heaven (hear God I´m being obedient and confirming Your work). That is entirely different from receiving grace and gospel in baptism. The views differ this way: One is a gift from God, the other is an empty badge of confirmation or authentication.
The baptistic paradigm erroneously assumes that it holds baptism higher by making it a badge of confirmation only given to those ALREADY possessing faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Baptism is infinitely the highest when it is the GIFT of God, just as Christ crucified and risen to Whom it points is the ONLY HIGH gift of God "“ even if it is rejected. For HIS love IS HIM and HIS love gives.
Thus, true worship comes about when we receive from God and reflexively give a thanksgiving, the later is the effect of the former and not when we "œoffer up" as if to move God to be gracious to us.
Blessings In Christ Alone,
Larry
In reflecting on this question a bit more, I think it is important for us to keep in mind the logical order of things.
1. Is a church a true church because she administers the word, discipline and sacraments validly?
Or...
2. Are the word, discipline and sacraments valid because they are adminstered by a true church?
In my understanding, the former is the reformed position. Therefore, if Rome's baptism retains enough orthodoxy (i.e. water & Trinity), then in some sense, she is still a true church, but not a orthodox church. She may be completely laid to waste on the Lord's supper and gospel, but her baptism still valid.
I encourage all to read the thread In what sense is Rome part of the Church?
1. Is a church a true church because she administers the word, discipline and sacraments validly?
Or...
2. Are the word, discipline and sacraments valid because they are adminstered by a true church?
In my understanding, the former is the reformed position. Therefore, if Rome's baptism retains enough orthodoxy (i.e. water & Trinity), then in some sense, she is still a true church, but not a orthodox church. She may be completely laid to waste on the Lord's supper and gospel, but her baptism still valid.
I encourage all to read the thread In what sense is Rome part of the Church?
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Jeff,
That's an excellent ordering of thought. Your scientist is coming out in you!
Thanks, very helpful.
Ldh
[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]
That's an excellent ordering of thought. Your scientist is coming out in you!
Thanks, very helpful.
Ldh
[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
That's a great point.
Because the implications are far reaching. What if PCUSA maintains her renaming of the Trinity and carries that forth into their baptisms? Is she then the "infant" version of the "credo" version of the Mormons on baptism and the Trinity? Yet, all along she retains the formality of "holding to the WCF" (though this doesn't).
This is not out of the realm of possibility and theory only. Churches could be faced in a nearer future than farther with assessing this if some left and came to say PCA or other Reformed infant baptizing church or even the Lutherans, all those within the ruberic of infant baptizing.
Is PCUSA in danger of being the first to acheive real cultic status out of the infant baptizing realm yet retaining the span of baptism (adults and children) akin to Credo counter parts (i.e. Mormons or JWs)?
Something to chew on for sure.
L
Because the implications are far reaching. What if PCUSA maintains her renaming of the Trinity and carries that forth into their baptisms? Is she then the "infant" version of the "credo" version of the Mormons on baptism and the Trinity? Yet, all along she retains the formality of "holding to the WCF" (though this doesn't).
This is not out of the realm of possibility and theory only. Churches could be faced in a nearer future than farther with assessing this if some left and came to say PCA or other Reformed infant baptizing church or even the Lutherans, all those within the ruberic of infant baptizing.
Is PCUSA in danger of being the first to acheive real cultic status out of the infant baptizing realm yet retaining the span of baptism (adults and children) akin to Credo counter parts (i.e. Mormons or JWs)?
Something to chew on for sure.
L
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Seriously, guys... you need to consider facts.
1. It is not "THE" historic thing to acknowledge the validity of Rome's baptism. In fact, with only one exception, ALL American Presbyterian/Reformed GAs/Synods have declared to Roman baptisms unvalid.
2. Hodge's "influential" article was written in protest of a resounding defeat at GA.
3. Reformed theology calls for more than simple formal compliance in terms of element and words of institution for the right administration of the sacraments.
So you guys go on and side with this imaginary notion of what (supposedly) true Reformed theology calls for - a notion that literally ignores the actions of just about ALL American Presbyterian/Reformed church bodies on the subject. As for me, I'm going to side with my ecclesiastical forefathers.
1. It is not "THE" historic thing to acknowledge the validity of Rome's baptism. In fact, with only one exception, ALL American Presbyterian/Reformed GAs/Synods have declared to Roman baptisms unvalid.
2. Hodge's "influential" article was written in protest of a resounding defeat at GA.
3. Reformed theology calls for more than simple formal compliance in terms of element and words of institution for the right administration of the sacraments.
So you guys go on and side with this imaginary notion of what (supposedly) true Reformed theology calls for - a notion that literally ignores the actions of just about ALL American Presbyterian/Reformed church bodies on the subject. As for me, I'm going to side with my ecclesiastical forefathers.
Mr. Duncan,
If you are so serious about maintaining the doctrine of our ecclesiastical forefathers, then I beg you, can you name one of the reformed ministers that expressed the position that Roman baptisms are invalid before that of Thornwell? Unless, that is, you believe that Presbyterianism began in America...
Thanks in advance,
If you are so serious about maintaining the doctrine of our ecclesiastical forefathers, then I beg you, can you name one of the reformed ministers that expressed the position that Roman baptisms are invalid before that of Thornwell? Unless, that is, you believe that Presbyterianism began in America...
Thanks in advance,
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Calvin (Book IV, chs 15, 16)"By this consideration, the error of the Donatists is effectually refuted, who made the force and value of the sacrament commensurate with the worth of the minister. Such are our modern Katabaptists, who strenuously deny that we were properly baptized, because we received the rite from impious idolators in the papacy; and they are therefore ferocious for re-baptism. We shall, however, be sufficiently guarded against their nonsense, if we remember we were baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and therefore baptism is not of man, but of God, no matter by whom it was administered."
[Edited on 9-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]
[Edited on 9-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Then it places the church above the Word of God for ecclesiastical trappings and is to be rejected. And nothing you can say will bind me otherwise. For the Words of institution are of the Word of God its self and what works and validates the Sacrament, and not the administers which can be hypocrites, the church which could retain form but be apostate and not the recepient who too could be a hypocrite.
"This is My blood shed for the forgiveness of sin" can be given by the devil himself and yet it gives what it says it gives and institutes the sacrament as valid and true IN SPITE of ANYTHING else surrounding it.
Or as Luther rightly points out, one can receive the Sacrament from the devil's steaming claw so powerful is the Word of God and His Sacrament.
L
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ditto on Calvin!
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Lets not forget Judas' baptisms.......
- Status
