What do you all think: Mark Horne's comments on Paul....

[openairboy]

[quote:9a8f37c702="Craig"][quote:9a8f37c702]I don't, however, believe Luther had everything right, especially when it comes to the issue on which the Church stands or falls[/quote:9a8f37c702]
uzzled: uzzled: Please consider re-reading Galatians.[/quote:9a8f37c702]

I will re-read Galatians in due time. As it is, I believe the revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man is the Rock on which Christ will build His Church. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you shall be saved. It is not confess with your mouth justification by faith alone and believe in your heart that you are justified by faith in faith alone and you shall be saved. It is amazingly Christocentric and not centered upon me.

openairboy

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:3cf6c997bb="Scott"][quote:3cf6c997bb]Somehow I think a doctrine that has been unanimous among the Reformed, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and even Romanists qualifies as an essential of the faith. The only thing that probably has greater uniform witness in the church is the Trinity and the Second Coming (Oh, I forgot, that is under attack today also by hyper-preterists). [/quote:3cf6c997bb]

Fred: You have been careful to limit your observations to Western Christiainty, evidently to exclude Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox are thes second largest denomination in the world, with approximately 200 million adherents worldwide (compared to PCA, 300,000 or Roman Catholic, 1 billion). My understanding is that they practice PC. We should take this into account in the debate, as this is not a small number.

BTW, I deny PC.[/quote:3cf6c997bb]

Scott,

You are correct that I excluded EO. I do that because I have really no knowledge of their practices and I don't wish to get into a debate about something I don't know about.

I do know that the EOs deny the filioque, which is a significant departure from the critical Biblical doctrine of the Trinity (notice that it was earlier stated that PC is not like the Trinity), and that they also deny justification by faith alone, to an even greater degree than Rome's synergy. So to lean on them for a practice does not carry much weight in my book.

In the final analysis, my comments about the breadth of non-PC views was merely to show how significant an issue it was.

I'm not claiming that you were saying otherwise, but I just wanted it to be clear for all.

 

[openairboy]

[quote:8b2dee585c]

Actually, advocates of PC are demonstrating in published writings that they are doing just that - undermining the FAITH. A perusal of "Reformed is not Enough" screams "undermine historical orthodoxy!" Not to mention the writings of Shepard, Dunn and Wright.[/quote:8b2dee585c]

Whether you assume that certain advocates are undermining the faith is different than saying PC undermines the faith. Shepherd, Dunn, and Wright, to my knowledge, make no statements on paedo-communion. Wright may, b/c of its practice in certain Anglican circles that he may travel, but lumping all these names together is unhelpful.

openairboy

 

[openairboy]

Re: Keith, are you rC?

[quote:d80921279c="john_Mark"]openairboy said [quote:d80921279c] I don't, however, believe Luther had everything right, especially when it comes to the issue on which the Church stands or falls. I believe the central thrust of the Church is Christology, note the aforementioned (ecumenical) Creeds, and a fruit of that is my justification (I fully affirm the WCF's statement on justification).[/quote:d80921279c]

I am curious as to what way you see that affirming sola fide as the correct understanding of faith as it relates to the gospel adversely effects one's Christology? (I hope I am understanding that this is what you are saying.)[/quote:d80921279c]

Mark, may I ask you to restate the question? Before I attempt to answer I would like to make sure I understand you correctly.

thanks, openairboy

 

[DTK]

With all due respect, there really is no doubt that Augustine embraced a form of baptismal regeneration. After my own study, I don't think that can be accurately denied. But for Augustine, baptism only initiated regeneration, since Augustine viewed regeneration as a life-long process (in contradistinction to an instantaneous act) only completed at one's death. Thus for Augustine, all the regenerate attain glory, for the simple fact that regeneration is only completed at death. He likewise held that justification and sanctification were processes, along with regeneration. At times, he failed to distinguish adequately between regeneration, justification and sanctification.

Now, as a side note, when I read Mark Horne's comments on Paul's writings as referenced by Peter, I instantly thought of the words of another ancient commentator...

[b:ebd24c903f]Ambrose (c. 339-97):[/b:ebd24c903f] In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser. Letter 37. See Goode, [i:ebd24c903f]The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice[/i:ebd24c903f], Vol. 3, p. 262, Chemnitz, [i:ebd24c903f]An Examination of the Council of Trent[/i:ebd24c903f], Vol. 1, p. 167, and Whitaker, [i:ebd24c903f]A Disputation on Holy Scripture[/i:ebd24c903f], pp. 398, 492, who all render [i:ebd24c903f]plerisque[/i:ebd24c903f] as "most."
[b:ebd24c903f]Latin text:[/b:ebd24c903f] In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat sermonibus, ut is qui tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere. Jacques Paul Migne, [i:ebd24c903f]Patrologiae Latinae[/i:ebd24c903f], Epistola XXXVII.1, 16:1084 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-87). The translation found in [i:ebd24c903f]Fathers of the Church[/i:ebd24c903f], Vol. 26, Saint Ambrose: Letters 54. Ambrose to Simplicianus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), p. 286, has mistranslated this word [i:ebd24c903f]plerisque[/i:ebd24c903f] to read "in some instances" rather than the correct translation of "most places."

Blessings,
DTK

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:0eb518b6d5="openairboy"][quote:0eb518b6d5="webmaster"]

Actually, advocates of PC are demonstrating in published writings that they are doing just that - undermining the FAITH. A perusal of "Reformed is not Enough" screams "undermine historical orthodoxy!" Not to mention the writings of Shepard, Dunn and Wright.[/quote:0eb518b6d5]

Whether you assume that certain advocates are undermining the faith is different than saying PC undermines the faith. Shepherd, Dunn, and Wright, to my knowledge, make no statements on paedo-communion. Wright may, b/c of its practice in certain Anglican circles that he may travel, but lumping all these names together is unhelpful.

openairboy[/quote:0eb518b6d5]

Wright is an open advocate of paedcommunion. This may be confirmed in a number of places, including http://www.paedocommunion.com/whoswho/. He is so because it fits in perfect with his soteriology.

 

[DTK]

[quote:87644b9429] Of course our presuppositions come into this discussion and if we denounce "baptismal regeneration" the way most people around here do, then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. Anyway, the majority of my sources on Luther are discussions with professors and students from Concordia Theological Seminary, so the Missouri Synod Lutherans could have it wrong, but I find them a capable source. [/quote:87644b9429]

This is simply not true. I do not embrace baptismal regeneration, and yet can plainly state that this was the view of Augustine without any invective. I firmly believe that both Augustine and Luther, while admired and respected by myself, were wrong on baptismal regeneration as well. Thus overstating your case isn't helpful to the discussion.

I have read E. Brooks Holifield, [i:87644b9429]The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720[/i:87644b9429]. And he made an interesting comment about the controversy that arose in the time period he covers, which sheds some light on the present day controversy...

[b:87644b9429]E. Brooks Holifield:[/b:87644b9429] The vocabulary of the sacramentalists revealed their intention: to elevate baptism by combining two theological traditions, Reformed orthodoxy and medieval scholasticism. To speak of the Christian life in terms of potency, or form, and actualization, or matter, was to appropriate scholastic imagery. "Initial grace" was a Reformed adaptation of the medieval gratia prima, also given to children in baptism. Baxter recognized later the similarity between "seminal grace" and the scholastic notion of infused habits. Burges and Ward carefully inserted the older language into their orthodox Calvinism, but they could not entirely eliminate the incommensurabilities. The medieval language depicted the Christian pilgrimage as a gradual development, approximate to salvation in ascending stages and levels of growth, nourished by sacramental grace from beginning to end. Earlier Reformed theologians spoke of progressive sanctification after the effectual call, and they argued about preparatory development in adults prior to the experience of saving grace, but the sacramentalist language seemed to depict the whole of a man's spiritual life, from infancy to glorification, as an unbroken continuum beginning with baptism. The problem was to combine that vocabulary with a traditional Puritan notion of genuine conversion as a specifiable experience, restricted to the elect, moving them into a new sphere of life, discontinuous with their past. Puritan theology often consisted of the artful manipulation of images, and Burges and Ward accordingly proposed a sacramental theology based on medieval images of salvation as a new creation.
Few of their Puritan contemporaries shared their vision, however, and the initial response was therefore hostile. When Ward first published his ideas around 1627, a close friend, John Davenant, advised that he not "sett that controversy on foot," and when Burges published his treatise he complained that he received for his effort nothing but "clamors, slanders, and revilings without end or measure." E. Brooks Holifield, [i:87644b9429]The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720[/i:87644b9429] (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 85-86.

I think it is wrong to view the sacraments as "converting ordinances," and that we may do so without in any way detracting from their efficacy.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[openairboy]

[quote:67c1bf514e="DTK"][quote:67c1bf514e] Of course our presuppositions come into this discussion and if we denounce "baptismal regeneration" the way most people around here do, then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. Anyway, the majority of my sources on Luther are discussions with professors and students from Concordia Theological Seminary, so the Missouri Synod Lutherans could have it wrong, but I find them a capable source. [/quote:67c1bf514e]

This is simply not true. I do not embrace baptismal regeneration, and yet can plainly state that this was the view of Augustine without any invective. I firmly believe that both Augustine and Luther, while admired and respected by myself, were wrong on baptismal regeneration as well. Thus overstating your case isn't helpful to the discussion.[/quote:67c1bf514e]

Hi,
I would recommend reading through this thread and others and look at the language used against "baptismal regeneration" and/or its "advocates" (read: assumed advocates). There is little question that much of it is invective; after all, they are not to be trusted, etc.

A generalization, which I made, by definition includes exceptions, and I am glad that you are one, but I still stand by my initial statement that people are interpreting Augustine and Luther in light of their presuppositions that whatever they taught it couldn't have been any form of "baptismal regeneration" (as an aside: amazing what a divesity of uses of regeneration, sanctification, and justification is used throughout the history of the church), because we want to denounce Hornes, etc., but still want to hold up Augustine in some capacity.

So, assuming for arguments sake that the Federal Vision guys, Mark Hornes, etc., believe in baptismal regeneration and you want to denounce them as being deceiving, preaching another gospel, etc., just apply this to Augustine and Luther. That is all that I am asking, especially in light of what you say about Augustine's views on justification, sanctification, and regeneration. Folks, just apply your condemnations consistently. Go on and join the "Outside the Camp" gang and pronounce your anathemas on everyone that differs with you.

Improving my baptism,
openairboy

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:c3a171be39]Whether you assume that certain advocates are undermining the faith is different than saying PC undermines the faith. [/quote:c3a171be39]

First, those who hold to PC undermine faith. As I said, this is seen vividly in one of the largest proponents of PC in Doug Wilson, and in his recent writings both in articles and in his books.

Second, unless you have the ability to know whether one is converted or not, it is impossible to properly enforce communion upon any other ground than profession as commanded (as both the OT and NT demonstrate with both Passover and Communion.) The [i:c3a171be39]non-exegetical [/i:c3a171be39]gymnastics done to overthrow the plain teaching of 1 Cor. 11 is astounding to me by proponents of PC. They are attempting to invent something that is simply not in the text, or reinterpret something they want to read into the text, not because of the text, but because of their new theological slant.

Third, as Fred said, Wright does affirm PC, and does so because of his soteriology. If one denies that they are following Wright or Shepherd but are advocates of PC, then they are simply not logically following their "new" theology.

[quote:c3a171be39]but lumping all these names together is unhelpful. [/quote:c3a171be39]

Actually, lumping birds of a feather together is very helpful because they compliment each others theological stance. To read one is to get to know the others by default. To say they are not birds of a feather is to simply overlook their writings altogether.

 

[DTK]

[quote:3f167e4434] ...then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. [/quote:3f167e4434]

This is the particular accusation to which I took exception. I simply haven't seen this in these exchanges.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[openairboy]

[quote:90f47abab4="webmaster"][quote:90f47abab4]Whether you assume that certain advocates are undermining the faith is different than saying PC undermines the faith. [/quote:90f47abab4]

First, those who hold to PC undermine faith. As I said, this is seen vividly in one of the largest proponents of PC in Doug Wilson, and in his recent writings both in articles and in his books.[/quote:90f47abab4]

To me, this is the same that saying infant baptism is the road to Rome. Rome holds to the Trinity, incarnation, etc., etc., so I'm going to reject, b/c clearly they are corrupt. Hang out with some Bible Believers and your argument, to me, is in the same vein.


[quote:90f47abab4]Second, unless you have the ability to know whether one is converted or not, it is impossible to properly enforce communion upon any other ground than profession as commanded (as both the OT and NT demonstrate with both Passover and Communion.) The [i:90f47abab4]non-exegetical [/i:90f47abab4]gymnastics done to overthrow the plain teaching of 1 Cor. 11 is astounding to me by proponents of PC. They are attempting to invent something that is simply not in the text, or reinterpret something they want to read into the text, not because of the text, but because of their new theological slant.[/quote:90f47abab4]

More apples and oranges. My friends at Southern Seminary tell me the same thing when it comes to infant-baptism, so this is a minimal charge.

[quote:90f47abab4]Third, as Fred said, Wright does affirm PC, and does so because of his soteriology. If one denies that they are following Wright or Shepherd but are advocates of PC, then they are simply not logically following their "new" theology.[/quote:90f47abab4]

Are you saying Wright, Shepherd, etc., are Eastern Orthodox? This is a nice sleight of hand, but rather irrelevant. Oh, and all those that believe in infant baptism are in Rome.

openairboy

 

[openairboy]

[quote:00ddb5e27c="DTK"][quote:00ddb5e27c] ...then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. [/quote:00ddb5e27c]

This is the particular accusation to which I took exception. I simply haven't seen this in these exchanges.

Blessings,
DTK[/quote:00ddb5e27c]

Well, instead of wasting time putting together a list, I will simply quote from this thread earlier:

"The issue with 'Shepherdism' ('Wilsonism', 'Federal Visionism', call it what you like) as I understand it, is the nature of baptism as not only signifying, but in some sense 'activating' election, or, perhaps less hamfistedly, the conclusion that the language of most Reformed baptismal rites implies a greater connection between the Sacrament and ones election beyond anything vaguely 'presumptive'." Earlier this individual describe the "Shepherdites" as "mad ramblings", "heresy", and the sarcastic, "do these chaps really think they are smarter"...

I just happen to see language like "mad ramblings", "heresy", and to sarcastically mock their position as being invective.

That will be my last comment in this particular issue, but feel free to respond, b/c we will just have to agree to disagree at this point.

openairboy

 

[DTK]

[quote:d06f9f0cde] Well, instead of wasting time putting together a list, I will simply quote from this thread earlier:

"The issue with 'Shepherdism' ('Wilsonism', 'Federal Visionism', call it what you like) as I understand it, is the nature of baptism as not only signifying, but in some sense 'activating' election, or, perhaps less hamfistedly, the conclusion that the language of most Reformed baptismal rites implies a greater connection between the Sacrament and ones election beyond anything vaguely 'presumptive'." Earlier this individual describe the "Shepherdites" as "mad ramblings", "heresy", and the sarcastic, "do these chaps really think they are smarter"...

I just happen to see language like "mad ramblings", "heresy", and to sarcastically mock their position as being invective. [/quote:d06f9f0cde]

Well, by lumping in the names of Augustine and Luther, you simply engaged in the very thing of which you've accused others. Now, I have endeavored to be specific in my critique concerning your "lumping in by way of reference Augustine and Luther," and though I have clarified it the second time, I think you have still missed it.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[JohnV]

Getting back to the original question:

I read the quotation in the first post, though I did not look up the website. But what I read is questionable at best. It is notable for the lack of saying anything substantial. There is the suggestion of taking Paul in context with the rest of Scripture, which insinuates that this is not normally done. But we all know that is not true, not after so many years, decades, and even centuries of struggle in the Reformed churches. We also know most of the letters in the NT are written by Paul, that it is he that concentrates more on doctrine than others, especially in Romans and Galations, and that even Peter recognized the place and importance of Paul's letters in all the churches. So even if we were to determine that something substantial is being said, it must then be noted that it says far too much for it's intent.

One does not need to be a doctrinal expert to see the indications of pretenses. The quotation above does not address what it should have, and what it does address it shouldn't have.

 

[openairboy]

[quote:9e664c746d="DTK"][quote:9e664c746d] Well, instead of wasting time putting together a list, I will simply quote from this thread earlier:

"The issue with 'Shepherdism' ('Wilsonism', 'Federal Visionism', call it what you like) as I understand it, is the nature of baptism as not only signifying, but in some sense 'activating' election, or, perhaps less hamfistedly, the conclusion that the language of most Reformed baptismal rites implies a greater connection between the Sacrament and ones election beyond anything vaguely 'presumptive'." Earlier this individual describe the "Shepherdites" as "mad ramblings", "heresy", and the sarcastic, "do these chaps really think they are smarter"...

I just happen to see language like "mad ramblings", "heresy", and to sarcastically mock their position as being invective. [/quote:9e664c746d]

Well, by lumping in the names of Augustine and Luther, you simply engaged in the very thing of which you've accused others. Now, I have endeavored to be specific in my critique concerning your "lumping in by way of reference Augustine and Luther," and though I have clarified it the second time, I think you have still missed it.

Blessings,
DTK[/quote:9e664c746d]

Huh? What lumping are you talking about? What invective language, which is the original flow of our discussion, have I used? I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about and I don't find any specific critique of my "lumping", because our (the two of us) discussion has had nothing to do with lumping, so I am confused on this one. Please reread my posts and carry on the context of whatever "lumping" you see, because there is simply no abusive language leveled towards these men or "lumping", depending on what you are trying to say with this word, of any kind.

If you are trying to say that I've lumped Augustine with Luther with Hornes with Federal Vision, etc., then you are reading something that isn't there. If you take the original context of how their names entered the discussion, I think this will clarify any "lumping" issues you think you see.


openairboy

openairboy

 

[DTK]

Your questions indicate to me that you haven't understood me, and I'm not willing for my part to press the issue any further.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[fredtgreco]

This is pretty much done. Closing.