Baptist error in common with Judaizers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the believers only position says fundamentally we are to have a “regenerate church”, at least hypothetically speaking, “HERE and NOW”. It attempts to “drag” the Kingdom into today as quasi consummate and final status, just like the Judiazer’s did and just like Rome attempted with “Christendom”, hence a hypothetical pure regenerate Kingdom.


Dr. Scott Clark has a term for this:

The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty
or
QIRC

We all have this quirk as you pointed out. It is a temptation of man to make everything nice and tidy. It's really a kind of fig leaf isn't it?
Good post sir.
 
Larry, just going to reply briefly to your main ideas because of the length of your post ...

Baptists are not attempting to drag the kingdom into today. There are very few postmillennial baptists, in fact. Most are futurist in their eschatology, meaning that they don't see the fulfillment of the kingdom until Christ comes back. There are far more paeedobaptists who are trying to inaugurate a postmillennial earthly kingdom.

Nor do we presume all that we baptize and take into membership are regenerate. "Regenerate church membership" is the ideal we strive for, but not what we claim to have.

Baptists are merely trying to make the present church the best witness possible. We unite with conservative Presbyterians in the acts of church discipline in that we want to keep the purity of the church by putting out those who are not living by faith.

But in addition, Baptists are also guarding the front door as well as keeping the back door open in that we are (or should be) just as cautious who we take into church membership. Thus, we aren't going to just baptize someone just because of who their parents are. This is how unbelievers get into the church.

Don, you saved me the trouble of responding. Thank you! :handshake:

If the discussion is about regenerate church membership then yes, all who are members of the invisible church are regenerate. The visible church? Only God knows the heart. As and elder in a Baptist church I strive (along with my fellow elders) to determine that all who desire to join our church are regenerate and scripturally baptized. We are fallible and therefore quite capable of errors in judgment. That is why I like Don's comments on the front door and back door.
 
Even within the signs themselves there's an emphasis on physical versus spiritual. Circumcision is a physical sign on an organ that is used to further physical lineage. Water is a symbol of spiritual life. Even the sign itself speaks to the sign not being by physical lineage any longer.

Wrong. Circumcision was a sign and seal of the faith that Abraham had while still uncircumcised. It did not signfiy or emphasize the physical but the spiritual.

Frankly, Don, you need to be careful here on how you deprecate the significance of circumcision and make something with profound spiritual significance into a physical act.

In fact, I recommend that you read the end of Romans 3 through Romans 4 completely to get the context for the significance of circumcision. Paul labors the fact that the promise of Abraham is not according to strength of the flesh whatsoever.
 
By treating circumcision as a mere physical sign devoid of spiritual significance, it turns circumcision into an instrument by which we are justified, and hence the error of the judaizer. I didn't understand the title of this discussion at the beginning, but the unfolding of this discussion has really been proving the point. :think:

On the other hand, if both circumcision and baptism are signs of the covenant of grace, we are not justified by the sign itself, but what it signified. Only in this understanding will 1 Peter 3:21 and Romans 3-4 make sense.

Blessings,
 
By treating circumcision as a mere physical sign devoid of spiritual significance, it turns circumcision into an instrument by which we are justified, and hence the error of the judaizer. I didn't understand the title of this discussion at the beginning, but the unfolding of this discussion has really been proving the point. :think:

On the other hand, if both circumcision and baptism are signs of the covenant of grace, we are not justified by the sign itself, but what it signified. Only in this understanding will 1 Peter 3:21 and Romans 3-4 make sense.

Blessings,

What is the spiritual significance of circumcision (under the Abrahamic Covenant) to an individual who did not believe?
 
What is the spiritual significance of circumcision (under the Abrahamic Covenant) to an individual who did not believe?

Brother, similar to the spiritual significance of baptism to an individual who was baptized but do not believe - covenant curse signified by the covenant sign. (i.e. Mark 10:38-39, 1 Cor 11:29)

I think the key is to see that in the covenant of grace, there are external administration of the covenant sign and the internal reality signified. Not everyone who receive the external administration have the corresponding reality. Not everyone circumcised have the internal reality, just as not everyone baptized have the internal reality.

Am I drifting into another baptism discussion? :D
 
What is the spiritual significance of circumcision (under the Abrahamic Covenant) to an individual who did not believe?

A promise rejected. Again, the significance does not change based on the individual. Circumcision was the sign and not the reality. It always pointed to a work of God to bring Christ and save His people which is why Abraham received it in conjunction with his belief in the Gospel. Don't confuse the sign with the thing signified.
 
David,

Thanks I appreciate your kind words.

It is a temptation of man to make everything nice and tidy. It's really a kind of fig leaf isn't it?

Yep, that's what it is a legal approach at the end of the day. It's a tendency no matter how nice we "put" the language to attempt to justify the 'purification process' of the kingdom here and now, which is the confounding of the kingdom. The very attempt to ‘make a regenerate church no matter how much you caveat the language about ‘heart reading’ is the thing that confounds the kingdom/church that suffers here and now verses attempting to bring it about in a more pure way. Even the Judiazers knew the kingdom was still to come but the STILL attempted to bring it about on earth. This is expressly forbidden by Jesus the Lord of the church Himself in the kingdom parables, in spite of the apparent 'laudableness' of such an idea to do so by anyone. It sounds laudable but it’s actually not, that’s Jesus’ point about us suffering evil here and now amidst our selves. The one's that actually 'get' hurt the most in this are ironically the true believers as Jesus also points out, and it blows right past most hypocrites the theoretical it is aimed at.

Unbelievers "get into the church" not because infants are baptized and Jesus makes clear who is of the kingdom of God. Unbelievers ‘get into’ the church because God allows unbelievers to “get in” here and now, not because our manmade invented systems of screening fail. They fail because they are never authorized as such. Unbelievers also "get into the church" because Law and Gospel are not maintained and sacraments are misused, not because infants are baptized as the Anabaptist said. Infants are horribly blamed like escape goats for the apish buffoonery of men’s misuse of the Sacraments. It's notable that Luther and the earliest reformers saw the problem the loss of the Gospel, that constituted start to finish the ENTIRE reformation. But then the Anabaptist saw the baptism of infants as the problem a return ironically to Rome. Luther saw the similarity between the two because he clearly saw the issue regarding justification, the laymen had become the new monk.

Once again we find believer’s only policy in direct contradiction to Jesus who explicitly upholds the infant and child as the exemplar of the kingdom of grace and equally specifically not adults. Jesus says, "you must be as one of these infants", He did not sit an adult on His lap and say, "you must be as an adult". No amount of glaze can cover this up. Nothing could be more obvious than this.

Something else seems increasingly clear to me as a Christian that relates to these debates, an observation if you will:

When Christians broadly, and I mean those within the church walls, perceive something as law or (the) Law whether it is in reality law or the Law or not (only perceived as a law, like making the gospel a law, sacraments as law), they always divide, fight and split. But when it is perceived truly as Gospel, naked grace, by all involved they unit. The exception is when a true Gospel thing is indeed perceived in some things but is feared due to a “law” mindset afraid of it in other things (like sacraments), then a split still occurs again, but it is the legal mindset always driving the splitting away from Grace.

This is most significantly true when we all unite, denominationally around something very simple like the statement, “you are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone”. In and of itself we all hear that Gospel and unite around it and even fight together for it. The Gospel unites the body of Christ when it is heard in Word and for those Gospel in Sacrament. But when it is an issue of law/the Law or something implicitly perceived as law, whether it is or is not or even if we don’t perceive ourselves “living under the law” that way though we are in fact ACTING it out as law, then division must occur. This sets forth the fallen man’s ENTIRE problem with ‘doing the law’ in any form. It’s as old as Cain and Able, trying to ‘do’ for God rather than “receive” from God so that God is God and man is truly man, that is dependant upon God. God is not God if he needs from man, but is truly God when He is giving to man. It’s hard to pull us out of “doing” our way to heaven, it’s hard to actually HEAR the Gospel, in fact it’s impossible for the old man.

E.g.s:

1. If the sacrament of baptism is perceived as only do it ‘this way’ or ‘that way’, two laws, then a split is inevitable because we are trying to “do” the law. This is an example of the first item concerning law/Law causing a split.
2. If a sacrament is perceived by one as Gospel while another retains a ‘legal’ strain or grain within it, then a split will result. Again the issue is mostly a law issue and our misuse of it.
3. When a sacrament is perceived as Gospel by all, then unification occurs.

We even see principle #1 under very specific denominational use of law. E.g. the Baptist broadly do not agree on how exactly to apply baptism as law under their own system. They agree in principle as to “believers only” but begin splitting within themselves over how, when and why into the various camps. Broadly between Calvinistic leaning Baptist and arminian leaning Baptist, but even the “reformed” Baptist are not in unity as they should be and today many types of strains of reformed Baptist have formed and continue to form, disunity rather than unity. And its not JUST Baptist lest I be accused of “picking on Baptist”. This is even evident with some legal strains within the Reformed, narrower sense of the term, communities where the sacrament is not as much a Gospel sacrament as it was back in the earliest days of the reformation. Thus, reformed groups split out within themselves. Every split is predicated upon one of two or both parties, whoever they be, having a legal strain in their doctrine, a hidden working their way to heaven. One may actually be attempting to protect the Gospel and the other legal, and the split thus arises. The Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians of Jesus time are an example of the people of God going legal and loosing it all and being split all over the place. A brief period of unity began at the on set of the Gospel at Pentecost, but it wasn’t too many centuries later that the devil began working afresh. EVEN the reformation’s first breakout Luther against Rome was predicated on at least ONE party having a legal doctrine, Rome, even while the other party was pure Gospel, Luther. The later splits among the reformed broadly speaking where just legal strains causing this. This is why at the fundamental level if you read Luther and that history he understood the two, Rome and the Anabaptist as two sides of the same coin.

The sum of which is that law/Law always divides both inside and outside of the church, because man cannot use the law rightly and the splitting proves it. Islam, well outside of the church, for example is fractured all over the place, ‘my law is better than your law’, or the Cain principle of worship is the rule of the day. And so they kill not only outsiders but each other.

In the church, though, the Gospel unites when both or all parties actually “hear it” on an issue, BUT it does divide when one party may hear Gospel but the other party still retains some law/Law. The jest of the later is we always go wrong with the law/Law, we cannot handle the holy Law or law without violating it which proves the fallen nature of man as impossible in pleasing God as to the Law. Which is the very nature of “doing law” and why the split occurs, a “you are more pleasing to God than I am” or “your law is more pleasing to God than my law”, or vice versa, again the Cain principle.

It’s as simple as this to fallen man’s evil: If one way is right as fallen man thinks to return to God (meaning law) and another way is wrong (meaning law) then we need to do it the “right” legal way, so we think, to please God. Hence, the splitting apart or sectarianism and murder within the heart of fallen man, ironically trying to do the Law it is violated utterly as Cain himself did. However, if a thing, sacrament or message, is pure unadulterated Gospel, then there is no reason for the split which is murder in the heart…since free food is food for one dying beggar just as much as it is for another dying beggar. But it must be food (Gospel) and not poison (sin’s incurable nature as to Law), that is Gospel and not law (man made) or the Law (God’s).

Earthly analogy:

Two men are starving to death and they are utterly destitute.

Situation number 1: Life giving food is presented before them. But both perceive it as law, for they fail to see their destitution truly! Man A says, “You must eat it with a fork” or you cannot live. Man B says, “No, a spoon.” They divide and go away eating with fork and spoon respectively, both thinking their legal method of eating, fork or spoon only, is what is saving them. Both are blind to the real food and both are blind as to their real destitution. Ignorantly they miss it’s the food itself and neither have a damn thing to do with it. This is two Cain principles of worship (doing for God) and murdering each other.

Situation number 2: Life giving food is presented before them. One perceives the food as life giving food and another perceives it still as Law. Man B says, “It’s the food that saves us not eating it with a fork or a spoon only, we are destitute…it’s the food brother.” However, man A retains his legal burden, “NO, you must eat it with a fork or you are not being fed truly.” Man A still thinks the fork is the saving thing, Man B is beginning to see that it is in fact the food itself and trying to awaken man A, his brother to this so they are strong together. Alas, due to the residual legal burden/strain on one side, they remain divided. One Cain principle of worship and one Abel principle of worship coming about (doing for God versus receiving from God, respectively or worshipping Moloch thinking it to be God versus worshipping God – the direction of how things flow earth to heaven Vs. heaven to earth shows forth idolatry or not even if the name “God” is retained).

Situation number 3: Life giving food is presented before of them. Both perceive it as Gospel, both begin to see their destitution and dire need as beggars. Man A and B both come to realize, “Hey it’s the food!” They come together in true love as mutual starving beggars needing that very same food. A food they both legally perceived and divided over at various times and many ways (religious ideals, interpretations and paradigms on a subject/sacrament or item of worship). Both now are receiving from God respectively and NOW God is truly God to them in which they find, alone, life and the sustaining of it, not just in mouth profession but in reality and walk of life; AND both are now truly man as man is created and related to his Creator. As God gives to them, they now give to each other in true love. As to where before they had to hate each other because God was not God to them, but one they thought they gave worship UP to rather than receiving from, from which arose Cain to slay Abel.

When men realize in all things Word and Sacrament God in Christ has given all to you and NOTHING is lacking AT ALL, really and truly given to you forgiveness of sins and ALL His righteousness so that you DON”T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, THEN one can in turn just give to all themselves how ever one wants, desires from the heart to do so. This is how the Christian is the servant of none but the dutifully loving servant of all. How? God doesn’t need your works as you supposed since Christ did it all, it is finished for Christ’s sake. And you/I don’t need your/our works as you/we supposed since Christ did it all, it is finished for Christ’s sake. When we, thus, quit the Satanic competition for God’s love which is TRULY satanic we are THEN truly free to give as you’ve been given! God’s love is truly creative and shows Him as God in that it, love, doesn’t seek its own. God’s love creates what it will love. Thus, as Luther pointed out, the sinner (the truly unattractive, ugly and evil) is attractive and beautiful to God because God first loves the unattractive (true love and true God), the sinner is not loved because he is attractive and beautiful (satanic fallen love which is false love or no love at all, in fact hatred).

As we grow in Christ to realize this more and more, true sanctification is knowing more and more Christ for you, then you will love more and more and more as the true fruit of this faith that fixes and steels it’s eyes upon Christ crucified and risen FOR YOU.

Blessings,

Larry
 
Great post Larry. I wish more understood what you're getting at.

Because the mode and recipient is so divisive a priori, when I'm teaching the brethren at the Church I attend I don't even mention my views on recipient and mode. I just try to get them to understand the surety of the thing signified.

I've had a young brother in the Lord who struggles mightily with sin. When I taught on Romans 4 and 5, I could see his head nodding as he began to understand that our baptism signifies something extra nos and, because of that, the promise is unassailable.

In some ways, it's not even the mode or the recipient issue that is really the sad part about the whole thing for me but it's the fact that many are not able to see the promise in the Sacrament because they've always implicitly understood the meaning of their baptism to be found within themselves.

Again, this is one of those issues where the shoe fits some better than others but this impoverishment is very heartbreaking to see among people who get conflicting messages week in and week out, especially when Sacrament does not reinforce Word. They may hear with their ears Gospel but then see with their eyes a Lord's Supper that is a mere symbol, a Baptism that begins with them, and, in the worst case, an altar call that beckons to them to be more sincere in their faith.
 
They may hear with their ears Gospel but then see with their eyes a Lord's Supper that is a mere symbol, a Baptism that begins with them.......

Very good point, Rich. Certainly a child could misconstrue this very easily. I believed this for years. But when I became Reformed, the issue of infant baptism clicked for me in about two seconds because I understood for the first time that it was God who was doing the work- we are passive.

Taking our sacramental cues from the will and whim of young children didn't seem right either.
 
I've had a young brother in the Lord who struggles mightily with sin. When I taught on Romans 4 and 5, I could see his head nodding as he began to understand that our baptism signifies something extra nos and, because of that, the promise is unassailable.

In some ways, it's not even the mode or the recipient issue that is really the sad part about the whole thing for me but it's the fact that many are not able to see the promise in the Sacrament because they've always implicitly understood the meaning of their baptism to be found within themselves.

Rich - I've said this before (previous thread) and never received an adequate response. In my struggle with sin I do not look to my baptism 'extra nos.' I look towards the cross and the shed blood of Christ for 'the remission of sins.' I don't look towards the promise in the sacrament, I look towards the promise provided by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14). How this translates to my finding baptism within myself is something I do not see.
 
I don't look towards the promise in the sacrament, I look towards the promise provided by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14). How this translates to my finding baptism within myself is something I do not see.

Brother, please allow me to interrupt again. Perhaps the reason that you don't look towards the promise in the sacrament is because you see baptism as primarily a sign of your faith, rather than a sign of God's faithfulness in His promise? Your refusal to trust in your own faith is probably out of a good instinct. But what is a sacrament? Isn't it a visible sign signifying the promise provided by the Holy Spirit? God has designed the sacrament this way to strengthen our faith, to view it otherwise is to neglect a gift from God, and would only weaken us. Do not our hearts burn within us with thankfulness and grief for our sins when we see the bread broken in front of our eyes? ;)

Blessings,
 
Brother, please allow me to interrupt again. Perhaps the reason that you don't look towards the promise in the sacrament is because you see baptism as primarily a sign of your faith, rather than a sign of God's faithfulness in His promise? Your refusal to trust in your own faith is probably out of a good instinct. But what is a sacrament? Isn't it a visible sign signifying the promise provided by the Holy Spirit? God has designed the sacrament this way to strengthen our faith, to view it otherwise is to neglect a gift from God, and would only weaken us. Do not our hearts burn within us with thankfulness and grief for our sins when we see the bread broken in front of our eyes? ;)

Blessings,

Brother, I'm trying to keep my view of baptism and the promise of heaven biblical. My heart is often stirred during the Lord's Supper. But that is not a biblical argument. My emotions are aroused in others areas of worship (singing, prayer and preaching of the word), but I don't view those items as sacraments.

Water baptism is not salvific. Spirit baptism is. I am not trying to dismiss or minimize baptism. It is a biblical command. I have no problem in stating that baptism represents (or is a sign) of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Additionally I have no theological dispute with baptism representing believers sharing in Christ's death, burial and resurrection spiritually. But the efficacy of baptism is found in the actual events, not the water.

And as far as God's faithfulness in His promise, that is the role of the Holy Spirit who has been given to us as a down payment of what is to come.
 
Rich,

Exactly, it’s a self inflicted sad thing far too often that actually hurts the one’s needing it most. Faith then becomes something somehow “generated” from within rather than fed objectively. It’s just like the issue with the Lord’s Supper and the fact of the real presence. Reformed and Lutheran differences regarding the mode of that presence aside, there should be tight unity against all ideas of “no real presence”. Because it’s no small thing to know that what you “see” and taste the bread (body) and wine (blood) of Christ. It provides strong Gospel to us personally. From an exert from an article, cannot recall the article all I have is these exerted quotes, but it was a Lutheran paper show this even the covenantal significance:

“The double significance of the Supper as sacrifice and sacrament is suggested by the accounts of Matthew and Mark, on one hand, and Luke and Paul, on the other. Matthew and Mark see the institution of the Supper primarily as a conclusion to the sacrifice for sin as required by the Old Testament. The use of the terms "body" and "blood" signify that death as sacrifice is already accomplished. Reference to the blood as concluding the terms of the covenant emphasizes the idea of sacrifice even more. The old covenant, which cried for satisfaction by blood, has been satisfied by the blood of Christ. Now in the Supper Christ's blood is PRESENTED (emphasis added –ldh) to God's people as EVIDENCE and PROOF (emphasis added –ldh) that the former covenant can make no claims upon them. The Lucan and Pauline accounts stress the Supper as the sacrament which is the new covenant. Since the terms of the old covenant have been satisfied, God is able to establish a new relationship with man commemorated in the sacramental celebration. The sacrificial blood of the Supper becomes evidence for faith in the sacrament.” - end quote

Thus, the whole idea that the bread and wine presenting the body and blood of the sacrifice of Christ to the people of God as a “see here it is, the proof, in the here and now” that the Old Covenant is fulfilled and we need not fear the necessity of the old covenant (the law covenant in the OT, not the grace covenant shadowed there) is powerful REAL Gospel. Here it is not as Rome suggests a reoffering of the sacrifice but the testimonial evidence of “see here the body and blood already sacrificed” very REAL and BEFORE the very eyes of the people of God, this they eat and drink. The Lord’s Supper then becomes strong evidence for faith, not just a memorial, that Christ was indeed crucified to fulfill the old covenant. So equally is it that the bread and the wine are presented as the body and blood as a sacrament gift in which faith may look and rely as the New Covenant promises life by trust alone in Christ alone. That’s powerful and tangible Gospel, and NOT a vain memory I have to drum up…it is in a word, right IN MY FACE. This is why the mere 'memorial' position is empty of Gospel, it requires the works righteousness of mind and imagination drumming it up, an event none of us today actually witnessed. That is counter to Gospel given as gift. It's like a "receipt" for a bill paid. The receipt presents evidence that my bill was paid and I can rest easy, the receipt is a presentation of it in REALITY, not an empty memorial or exercise of the intellect or facilities of imagination (works). But its more, it’s a living presentation for the believer in times of trial and suffering. "Am I really saved we ponder in the darkness of our souls and sins”. How do I know since I see myself no better or so sinful. We vainly try to work up a better life but the Law will slaughter that to pieces and as such it is a double dry well for the Law of God, the Old Covenant is clear. So, we have the trial from the devil, 'are you really saved seeing how you are so sinful, surely God has abandoned you.' Then comes the sacrament of the bread and wine, 'here is the sacrifice of the blood that fulfilled what you fear, the Law/Old Covenant...you eat it, trust it, it comes TO YOU FOR YOU and it is finished! Just like, “no Satan, I am baptized into God’s name, I am baptized not another, the Gospel is ON me and I trust it…God baptized me. Gospel, pure unadulterated Gospel.

The article powerfully concludes,

“…The discussion of the Real Presence immediately involves Lutherans and Reformed disputants in the philosophical possibilities of the finitum non capax infiniti, with final discussion centering in different understandings of incarnation. This discussion is vital to sacramental and incarnational theology…nevertheless, the discussion on the nature of the Real Presence should not prevent us from recognizing the presence of Christ in the Supper not only as a sacramental, but also as a sacrificial presence. He is not present as the "whole Christ," or as "Christ with body and soul" or as "Christ by the power of the Spirit." He is present with His body and blood, those evidences indicating that His sacrifice is for us accomplished but for God present and continued reality. The distinction between the body and blood means that life has ceased, death has occurred, and the sacrifice has been offered to the Father. Today we call the element of bread the host, i.e., the victim of sacrifice. The blood of the sacrament is poured out as sacrificial blood. The sacramental elements of body and blood need no further blessing from an omnipotent God. The elements are present in the sacrament not as a demonstration of God's omnipotence, but as the presence of the eternal sacrifice of Christ within the context of the worshipping congregation. The appropriation of the forgiveness of sins does not depend on the form in which it comes, but the word, baptism, and the Supper must be distinguished in regard to form. The word proclaims what God has done in Christ. Baptism involves the baptized in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Supper presents to the believer the actual sacrifice, i.e., Christ's body and blood. Here is more than simply another form of the word of God, since the sacrament conveys to Christians the actual elements sacrificed to God. “

Is that not some of the most powerful Gospel testimony you’ve ever heard. Think about that the next time you take the bread and wine, there it is before you FOR YOU. That’s eternal life enough to be even tortured for! I tell you brother it gives me chills of GREAT joy!

Blessings,

Larry
 
It’s just like the issue with the Lord’s Supper and the fact of the real presence. Reformed and Lutheran differences regarding the mode of that presence aside, there should be tight unity against all ideas of “no real presence”.

The reformed maintain the mode is everything. It is the Spirit of God Who conveys the benefits of Christ's death, and He does so to the elect alone. There should be tight unity amongst the reformed guarding against Lutheran non-particularism. The Reformed maintain the same "legal" approach with regard to baptism. It carries conditions. Which makes me wonder why the reformed on this board have bought into Larry's Lutheranism so readily.
 
Last edited:
Polo,

That’s a good point you made, I never thought about it exactly like that. According to that paradigm you wouldn’t find strength in it because you wouldn’t have faith in faith. The unfortunate self inflicted wound analogy. It’s similar to the idea that believer’s only doctrine is not so much biblical as it is reactionary to Rome or anti-Rome. I think Luther actually saw that point to, rather than repair the sacraments to their Gospel position and strength, the over reaction led to the other side of the street error. Given the paradigm I suppose its right not to until you do see it, the Gospel actually in it.

If people could just believe and “get” that, see the Gospel and Cross there and FOR THEM in baptism (and by extension the Lord’s Supper), God’s work, not ours, not the pastor’s the Gospel would be so much richer for them/us. I’ve discussed this with a dear dear dear Baptist friend/brother of mine, who is a pastor and elder, and all the usual stuff over baptism arise. But at last what is not understood is how sure and why it is certain to me that ‘BB’ is in error. It’s not because I’m trying to be mean or trying to ‘be right’ for the sake of winning the argument or even that some arguments are better than others. Arguments alone will NEVER get you there, you have to SEE the Cross for you there, faith alone sees it, not incredulous faith but faith upon an objective reality. Thus, ALL credistic arguments, and I mean the BEST of them, even if better than my own in form and intellect, are at the end of the day like so many dust balls tossed at a Abrams Tank…worthless. Why? Because they are “bad arguments”? Not always, no not at all. Rather, because if you see Christ, the Cross, the blood in the water, the name of God written upon you FOR YOU, the Gospel in baptism objectively real no miserable argument no matter how well formulated and by the greatest of saintly men produced can pull Jesus out of your hands or rather you from Jesus’ hands. God’s name in baptism FOR YOU is so powerful, THAT Gospel is life itself such that the Cross FOR YOU in baptism is worth being tortured to death for before EVER giving it up, even to the best of friends and even well meaning brothers. Because of what it is TO YOU and to others…In short it’s Christ crucified for me, it’s the Christian faith! So, much less are mere arguments of men than the sword on one’s throat to give it up.

I maintain constantly and FIRMLY believe that if a Baptist could just see that and trust it, they’d never turn back, I’m convinced of it. But the legalism strain blinds people from it, just as I was and we all struggle in various ways with it, and we all have that “legal” bone still in us, it’s the old man for goodness sake. Legalism darkens not enlightens scripture, I cannot plead that enough with people.

E.g. In the account in the Acts of the Apostles where the Ethiopian Eunice is reading in Isaiah, that very OT passage as Gospel, even as the Ethiopian Eunice saw it, is just like a blacked out page to “believers only”, the doctrine’s legal stain effectively blacks it out, blacks out the Gospel in it. If you reference the passage he’s reading it ends in the preceding chapter where it says that I (God) will sprinkle the nations (of which the E. Eunice is, a Nations/Gentile person, i.e. not of the Jews). Believer’s only doctrine misses, due to the view, as I too did, the great Gospel there in the OT – namely that the EE rejoiced over and how he understood to be baptized and Who was doing it. Because in that OT passage it clearly states that it is God doing the sprinkling (baptizing) and that it will, in that day, go out to the nations (Gentiles) FOR THEM. To this the EE says, “what prevents me”. Indeed and amen! And then he went away rejoicing MOST assured of salvation because of his ‘profession”, no, he KNEW God just baptized him, it was FOR HIM the Gospel. WHO WOULDN”T go away REJOICING having known what God just did, there’s the ‘voice’ of Jesus, the FOR ME/YOU, saying, “_____, your sins are forgiven YOU, YOU specifically”! But in ‘believers only’ thought, due to the legal strain in the doctrine this passage as the Gospel is as if it was never written, blackened out and useless, even though the physical words are still “visible” to the eye. Two reasons show this legal black paint over the text:

1. The legalism of “immersion” blackens it out because surely “sprinkling” has nothing to do with baptism since ‘surely’ real baptism is by immersion only (you must become a Jew first by circumcision) as the Scriptures are searched so that ‘by them we think we have life’ (they went down and came back up - legalism). See how clever the devil indirectly attacks the Gospel! Something as simple as a legalistic ‘mode of baptism’ inserted shuts out the Gospel there for the reader since the it certainly cannot be baptism and surely the Spirit works unmediated. Yet, it is that very thing the gentile/nation EE saw and the reason he said ‘what prevents me’, a gentile heretofore not allowed in, from receiving the gift of God NOW post first advent and thus TOO receiving like the Jew’s alone before God’s very name in baptism, and specifically the blessed name of “Jesus” written upon him meaning “He will save His people from their sins”, upon his OWN body. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ FOR HIM ON HIM.
2. The legalism of “believers only” itself kills the Gospel doubly in this OT passage again. Since the OT Isaiah passage on God sprinkling the gentiles is not about baptism, it cannot be that God does the work in baptism which is contained in that very same verse on “sprinkling”. So, the believer only doctrine forces one to again take up and “search the scriptures and think that by them one has life”. And not surprisingly at all such a legal search for method and mode leads back to the Acts passage in which the EE actively believing becomes a NEW work and the “great” thing to be shown in the passage, the active moving of faith, and upon that subjective basis the EE is baptized. Again the cleverness of the devil is here as he shifts the object of faith from the Gospel and the Gospel in baptism as the word of God upon and FOR YOU to “faith” itself and the EE’s confession itself. Then we are to supposedly believe this is why the EE greatly rejoices.

Thus, not reading the scriptures knowing, “…but these continually testify to Me (Jesus)” the OT passage is locked and blackened out for what it is and the Gospel is obscured as the EE and his profession of faith and mode become the “thing”. Thus, by this believers only understanding the EE does not rejoice because God worked ENTIRELY upon him FOR HIM in spite of him, but supposedly because he intellectually was made to understand it and affirmed his faith by confessing it. The EE rejoices because, “Wow I was immersed after I showed my faith”?

Which is truly preaching Christ in baptism, the whole point? God sprinkling/baptizing Gentiles as He prophesied He would for the surety of the truth of His Word/promise to do so. GOD not man doing the baptizing (sprinkling here) with very real otherwise ordinary water into His name by the hands of the pastor who is a mere instrument or ink pen for baptismal ink (water). God taking this “pen” and writing His name, Gospel and promise upon YOUR OWN BODY and primarily writing upon you the name of “Jesus” which means “He will save His people from their sins” and this water does and WILL bear open witness of God’s will toward and FOR you in Jesus and thus faith is created and sustained and strengthened. OR is this “really” preaching Christ: That what we are led to believe that what is primary here is that they “went down and came up” proving immersion and that the profession of the EE’s faith is the Gospel. Is “going down and coming up” Gospel? Is any man’s own confession/profession of the faith Gospel? No! Simply put it’s the difference in pointing and saying, “Look at that mode and look at that profession of faith” and “look at that Cross as He is lifted up for you”, in the view of baptism. Thus, Jesus words are vicariously true, “you search the scriptures and think that by them you have life, BUT, BUT (emphasis added) it are these that continually bear witness/testimony to ME (Who IS life)”. Or as Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life”, NOT “I show you the way, the truth and the life”.

And here I’m not talking about the Word preaching of Gospel itself, many good Baptist preach that clearly, better than some Reformed. Rather, the view of baptism (and the Supper by extension), for one can have the naked Word right, even better than some infant baptizing pastors, but one can simultaneously err on the Sacraments though one’s Word of Gospel is beautiful. Would it be that if we could mingle the preaching of Spurgeon and Luther with the Sacramental grasp of Luther and Calvin we’d have a MIGHTY preacher of Gospel in Word and Sacrament in our day…and SURELY the devil would attach most viciously for that man letting the ‘cat out of the bag’.

Blessings always,

Larry
 
David,

Hahaha, tis true!

My poor kids are already inheriting their good ole dad and mom’s KY accent. It’s funny though, depending upon which part of KY one is from one can actually pick up on the variances within the accent, north vs south vs east vs west. My “neck” of the woods Louisville is “Leweyville”, my wife’s “Looaville”, Louisville area itself “Luvul”. My area “eggs” (real short e), my wife’s “eeeggzzz”, far western KY “aiyggs”. There are parts of southern and far western KY that it’s hard for someone from my area to follow, I’m sure likewise for them. Outside of KY, we all sound the same!

Another funny note: Once on one of my adventure trips to Montana we stopped in at an Applebee’s to eat, ordered “ice tea”, immediately the waiter said, “You all are from the south aren’t you, we don’t get that a lot hear.”

So which is true, spoon or fork?

I’m fork man myself. Gotta watch out for those spoon folks, but it’s the chop stick heretics that are the real danger;-)

Larry
 
Rich - I've said this before (previous thread) and never received an adequate response. In my struggle with sin I do not look to my baptism 'extra nos.' I look towards the cross and the shed blood of Christ for 'the remission of sins.' I don't look towards the promise in the sacrament, I look towards the promise provided by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14). How this translates to my finding baptism within myself is something I do not see.

You seem to miss the point. Baptism points to those things. "Extra nos" means outside of ourselves. The shoe fits some baptists better than others (hence I stated that).

Ultimately, however, credo-baptism is unstable because it makes the promise dependent upon the recipient and points the significance of the sacrament away from the promise of God to the believer. It also places undo emphasis upon mode. Together, insistence on mode and the idea that the sincere response is the arbiter of efficacy is what makes the baptism deficient and leads to something that people cannot look to even though, Biblically, we are encouraged to look to our baptism for strength. That you see no meaning in that encouragement points to the poverty of your view of the Sacrament that was given for our strengthening. It's not the water or the recipient but the Promiser that makes it sure for all who believe.
 
Matthew,

I wasn’t arguing that the mode is not important, but the fact of presence is more important than no presence. That was the point as Calvin even says the sacraments are not vain empty signs against the Anabaptist. On this the Reformed and Lutheran have MORE in common than do the Reformed and Memorialist, at least the early reformed did. The Gospel gives what it requires, the Spirit actually DOES GIVE and it is the Gospel which the Spirit testifies to our spirit so that we know we are sons of God, or do you not know that you are a Son of God?

In fact to say
The reformed maintain the mode is everything
then to have a greater problem with Lutherans mode of presence (the point of the quote) over the "mode of NO presence" is unreasonable to say the least and shear contradiction at worst. If the mode for the reformed is EVERYTHING, then surely the mode of "no presence" is exceedingly problematic.

Blessings,

Larry
 
Last edited:
To the elect, Larry, to the elect. Faith is given only to the elect. The Holy Spirit gives faith to the elect. Gospel and sacraments are only means.
 
The reformed maintain the mode is everything. It is the Spirit of God Who conveys the benefits of Christ's death, and He does so to the elect alone. There should be tight unity amongst the reformed guarding against Lutheran non-particularism. The Reformed maintain the same "legal" approach with regard to baptism. It carries conditions. Which makes me wonder why the reformed on this board have bought into Larry's Lutheranism so readily.

Rev. Winzer,

I don't believe I have argued for a form of Lutheranism. Insofar as Larry has stated things I agree with I have agreed with the broader principles of viewing baptism and the Lord's Supper as Gospel. My own writing has been more compact and I don't want it to be misconstrued as Larry has already answered for his own views.

I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that the Spirit only conveys the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection to the elect alone and that baptism does not unite to Christ but faith alone.

My main point to emphasize over and over again is that baptism points to the promise of God - if you believe then you will be saved. Because the significance is found in the promise and not the person then the adult confessors that are baptized are given the same promise - whether elect or not. I understand, however, that the promises are only sealed to those who actually believe in faith.

Nevertheless, the problem I'm trying to guard against is viewing faith as the object of salvation in the rite. If a man is wavering in his faith because of the attack of sin, ought he to find strength in his baptism on the memory of the genuineness of his faith? I know your answer but some answer that question poorly and baptism is impoverished because of it.
 
John Calvin:

"Now baptism was given to us by God for these ends (which I have taught to be common to all sacraments): first to serve our faith before him; secondly, to serve our confession before men...Accordingly, they [e.g., the Zwinglians and Anabaptists] who regarded baptism as nothing but a token and mark by which we confess our religion before men, as soldiers bear the insignia of their commander as a mark of their profession, have not weighed what was the CHIEF point of baptism"

"For inasmuch as [baptism] is given for the arousing, nourishing, and confirming of our faith, it is to be RECEIVED as FROM THE HAND OF THE AUTHOR HIMSELF. We ought to deem it certain and proved that it IS HE WHO SPEAKS TO US THROUGH THE SIGN; that IT IS HE who purifies and washes away sins, and wipes out the remembrance of them; THAT IT IS HE who make us sharers in his death, who deprives Satan of his rule, who weakens the power of our lust; indeed, that IT IS HE who comes into a unity with us so that, having put on Christ, we may be acknowledged God's children. These things, I say, HE PERFORMS for our soul within AS TRULY AND SURELY AS WE SEE OUR BODY OUTWARDLY CLEANSED, SUBMERGED, AND SURROUNDED WITH WATER...And HE DOES NOT FEED OUR EYES WITH A MERE APPEARANCE ONLY, BUT LEADS US TO THE PRESENT REALITY AND EFFECTIVELY PERFORMS WHAT HE SYMBOLIZES"

"The FIRST thing that the Lord sets out for us is that baptism should be a TOKEN AND PROOF of our cleansing; or (the better to explain what I mean) it is like a sealed document TO CONFIRM TO US THAT ALL OUR SINS ARE SO ABOLISHED, REMITTED, AND EFFACED THAT THEY CAN NEVER COME TO HIS SIGHT, BE RECALLED, OR CHARGED AGAINST US."

"Baptism also brings another benefit, for it shows us our mortification in Christ, and new life in him...[T]HROUGH BAPTISM Christ MAKES US sharers in his death, that we may be engrafted in it"

"Lastly, OUR FAITH RECEIVES FROM BAPTISM THE ADVANTAGE OF ITS SURE TESTIMONY TO US that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers IN ALL HIS BLESSINGS...Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from THE FACT THAT WE ARE PUT ON Christ IN BAPTISM [Gal. 3:26-27]."

"But we are not to think that baptism was conferred upon us ONLY FOR PAST TIME, so that for newly committed sins into which we fall after baptism we must seek NEW REMEDIES of expiation in some other sacraments, AS IF THE FORCE OF THE FORMER ONE WERE SPENT...For, though baptism, ADMINISTERED ONLY ONCE, seemed to have passed, IT WAS STILL NOT DESTROYED BY SUBSEQUENT SINS"
 
Yes, it is because, because, because of the elect, elect and elect that it is given. All things for the sake of the elect, for the ASSURANCE and FAITH of what they are elected TOO! The Gospel is NOT altered just to save hypocrits the trouble of their own hypocrisy, which of course would be to "do all things for the sake of the 'unelect'", contra Paul.
 
Larry,

I think the point that Rev. Winzer is making is that what Calvin is speaking about is truly efficacious for the elect alone.

I do believe that ministerially, the words of Calvin above are useful to encourage believers and to look with faith upon what has been signified in their baptism. Thus, the minister can rightly enjoin the congregation to look to their baptism in the way above.

The language you have quoted finds its way into the Hiedelberg as well. It is powerful stuff but we ought not forget that, even though some are enjoined to look to their baptism, some never do because they don't believe. And so we conclude that they were never truly united to Christ even though the sacrament was rightly administered and they have been given every injunction to believe and rest on the promise.

I think what I hear Rev. Winzer saying is that you can't press Calvin's language too hard (as the FV has) and neglect him elsewhere as he teaches that the benefits are only truly communicated to the elect.
 
Yes, it is because, because, because of the elect, elect and elect that it is given. All things for the sake of the elect, for the ASSURANCE and FAITH of what they are elected TOO! The Gospel is NOT altered just to save hypocrits the trouble of their own hypocrisy, which of course would be to "do all things for the sake of the 'unelect'", contra Paul.

So we come back to saying that NOTHING is GIVEN in the gospel and sacraments to the non-elect. We should therefore modify the language of Lutheranism to conform to the Reformed view.
 
So we come back to saying that NOTHING is GIVEN in the gospel and sacraments to the non-elect. We should therefore modify the language of Lutheranism to conform to the Reformed view.

It certainly doesn’t take long for the issues to get off of the Cross, dare we look there too long or much and live, and onto piddling does it? The shame of the Cross is very shameful is it not!

No, we DO NOT modify the Gospel at all for the unelect, not one iota, not one jot, not one tittle, not one single implication, in Word or Sacrament, not for anyone lest we fall under the Apostolic curse. In fact to do so is to hate the very elect one pretends to love. Lutheranism has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The message communicated is still giving its very message, the unelect simply don’t receive it BECAUSE of the given message that gives. It’s the “giving freely” they reject and NOTHING else. Thus, their condemnation is greater because they have actually heard the message and so rejected it. That is the TRUE and REAL bondage of the fallen will of man because he loves his works he must necessarily reject free grace, whether the means lands upon his ears by the physical means of creation via the creature of air compression from the breath and the creature of the voice of a witness, the creature of metal elements in the creature of a liquid medium of ink upon the creature of carbon atoms strung together to form the creature of paper, the creature of electromagnetic waves of radio translated via the creature of silicon circuitry or the creature of the waters of baptism, the creature of bread or the creature of wine all carrying the Message which is pure and gives life. The hypocrites within the church do not reject mere water, bread or wine nor sound waves or ink or paper, but the Gospel signified and Word of Gospel annexed to them just as they reject the very Cross it gives NEWS of. The Gospel is hated by those who reject it not because it’s not what it is, but because it is EXACTLY what it IS. The unelect, whoever they are, do not reject the Gospel thus, “Well, it’s not for me I’m not elect so being not elect I reject it, I can do no otherwise”. It’s not as if the Word of God fails or is a lie. When I’ve witnessed to a Muslim in the past or an atheist, for example, their rejection of the Gospel was its VERY MESSAGE. They REJECTED the Gospel, not their “unelection” if they at the end of the day are, which I do not know. They may yet come to faith, that is for God to do, I just a worthless clay deliver of the grand treasure of the Message. At the end of the day a preacher or witness to the Gospel is a paper boy, he doesn’t alter the news in the news paper he is to be busy about delivering. They reject it, as I once did as an atheist, because it gives freely grace, as only the nature of NEWS can be, it’s a message GIVEN by its very nature and essence. When I rejected it, I rejected the VERY message of the Gospel and what it GAVE, not some false shadow of it or whether or not I was elect. Was I unelect to the eyes of men in 1996, SURPRISE the PURE message in 1997, not the efforts of men or myself but the Gospel, called me into being and election. It is because it does freely give grace that the fallen old man who wishes to vainly work his selfish hide to heaven, MUST reject it lest the fallen man find himself, well, fallen. He rejects it for the VERY message it IS thus the rejecter says, “I reject free grace because I don’t believe it is necessary for I’m not that beyond repair and can handle my own sins quite nicely thank you very much.”

The spirit does not strike out of the clear blue sky but by the means of creation transmitting the message delivered once for all because we are creatures ourselves, not disembodied spirits. When an unbeliever who will remain an unbeliever - unbeknown to me and you mind you for we cannot know if God’s word at last converts or not even at the last moment and most extreme cases and I refuse to play God – actually hears the Gospel, its not as if he’s not hearing the words spoken, but he’s not receiving it and openly rejecting it, the very very real and pure Gospel itself. All these rejections prove is the total and utter depravity of man - that the natural man will not receive the Gospel of free grace as given, it proves that the natural fallen man has absolutely NO ability within himself what-so-ever to accept it because he beholds the glory of works. Works keeps him from free grace (a redundancy admittedly). Essau actually rejected a thing, his birth right as Paul says.

In order for total depravity to ACTUALLY be real and total, man must reject the real message given, actually given, something is rejected. The fallen man actually throws off the Gospel. And this testifies openly to the reality that man is so fallen and depraved that he throws off a pure gift. Anywhere else in earthly reality we would call this stupidity and it is, its utter pride and depravity to the nth degree.

So the Gospel IS given in the Word and Sacraments, it is what it is and nothing more and nothing less. As Calvin says does God sing to the deaf…that’s the wrong question…no rather natural man is THAT depraved (paraphrased) and gets what he deserves for what he rejects.

I’m spent for the night, suffering a bit of illness too, have a good and restful evening.

Larry
 
It certainly doesn’t take long for the issues to get off of the Cross, dare we look there too long or much and live, and onto piddling does it?

I would not regard the clarification of the soteriological significance of the cross and its relation to the sacraments as "piddling." The reformed confessions have taken much time and effort to ensure that the matter is stated according to its biblical balance for the express purpose of helping people to centre their believing attention upon the death of Christ and not upon external means. The "real presence" is a distracting and mischievous doctrine which carnalises the cross of Christ. Speak of a spiritual presence of Christ manifested to the believer, and the true virtue of the cross is magnified in the Supper; but to speak of Christ being really present in the elements and giving Himself to all who partake of the elements is to focus attention away from the cross onto the flesh, which profiteth nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top