Randy,
We’ve discussed this at length and all this does is prove the point. Baptism is thus tied subjectively to the “view” not its giving in the objective name of the Trinity and of God.
This will help. Prior to Luther’s famous tower experience Romans 1:17 was viewed as a legal doctrine (heresy). The entire Medieval view understood that “righteousness” even under “gospel” was to be achieved by change and works, hence the entire indulgence system. But upon Luther coming to light upon that passage as not God’s righteousness whereby He is intrinsically righteous but the righteousness He purely imputes to the believer, truster in Christ alone/nakedly, the entire passage opened up to Luther and the Reformation began recovering the Gospel. Rome’s heretical view of those Words did not negate the objective reality of those Words. Man can lie about the Gospel, attach things to it (like Galatians) heretically turning it into another gospel but it doesn’t change the Word of God. Man can do this by adding to a sentence (extra words) OR more insidiously sneak in a thought element that redefines a Word (e.g. like children in Acts 2). E.g. Man = sentient, living, rational, self contained being. That’s a rough set of thought elements that means man. So man is understood this way every where we read of him in sentences. That definition carries through and sets forth what we read about him. But someone could come along and add or delete a thought element and “call it” man entirely changing the sum of the elements whereby everything before hand read about and said about him changes everything. This is the GREATEST danger and trick of the devil in Scripture because it is very subtle.
Anyway, just because someone had a heretical understanding of baptism does not make objective baptism given in the name of God not real baptism at all. Not at all for it is rooted in His name and promise not ANY subjective thing of man: not who receives it, not who gives it, not even a misdefinition of it as long as it is given in God’s name. Else by your own definition EVERY reformed, PCA, Lutheran, Methodist, and etc… would have to deny completely “credo” baptism for it would be heretical by definition according to those groups. In fact according to your definition, not one I’m supporting, you would have to be considered an unbaptized member the PCA church in which you attend. But of course they don’t and your not unbaptized but baptized.
It really boils down to you not seeing the Gospel objectively IN baptism. I’m not talking about regeneration but the Gospel in water itself. You see baptism ultimately as Law not Gospel. That’s just being honest about it.
Ask yourself:
Does baptism save? And I don’t mean Rome’s view.
You will surely say, “no”.
Ergo, No Gospel in it. Because if you ask the same question this way you will at least see the difference for ideas do have consequences:
Does the Gospel save?
You would surely not say, “no” but, “yes”.
At the end of the day and all the big discussions and debates…that’s the fundamental difference. There you go.
God WAS faithful to His name in the first baptism IN SPITE of the churches heresy or your faith or unbelief. THAT’s the REAL testimony, HE DID His NAME with you ANYWAY. You were just like a baby, receiving in spite of your ability to receive even through the heresy of that false church. That’s real testimony of baptism.
Theologies of glory testimonies focus on the change in the individual’s life. Theology of the Cross testimonies focus on the work of Christ in history for us. Note I said history NOT even to the self. Baptism is objectively real not subjectively. That’s why we don’t nor should not panic about ‘did I get baptized right’ but glory in the name of God. I don’t have to go, anymore, hunting and pecking endlessly about baptism because it was HIS name in spite of me and the ones that put it on me.
Even the devil himself can baptize you and yet he hates Christ. No you might think. Then who orchestrated the crucifixion of Christ on the earthly level? Judas, Pharisees and the Romans ALL under the hand of Satan. And what was Christ’s Crucifixion? A circumcision (from life) and a baptism (Christ explicitly called it a baptism). Was it false because the Jews, Rome and the devil “did it”? No, Peter says plainly that all these were set forth by the predetermined purpose of God. What man means for evil God means for good. Now you can begin to see what it means that God hides Himself to reveal Himself.
Take care brother, you know I always love you even though we have some strong disagreements and truly know that of you toward me too. I don’t say that to smooth over our debates/discussions, I say it because I really mean it.
Blessings,
Larry
