Follow
This week we conclude our series on Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church. The purpose of this series has been to evaluate Called to Communion‘s attempts to find Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Fathers, and we have limited our discussion to a critique of their analysis. We encourage our readers to read the full text of Called to Communion‘s arguments at the link above. Each week in this series we have provided hyperlinks to the Church Fathers where we cite them, so that our readers may read them in their context. We have thus far covered Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas of Alexandria, the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Pamphilus of Caesarea.
Before we proceed with Methodius of Olympus, the last Ante-Niceæan Father cited by Called to Communion, we thought it would be worthwhile to interact very briefly with David Waltz who blogs at Articuli Fidei and has also commented at this site as well. We appreciate Waltz’s interaction and his willingness to engage on this topic.
Waltz responded to our posts, analyzed two fathers that we cited, and concluded that we were really “0 for 2” in our analysis thus far, due in no small part to his reliance on Dr. Everett Ferguson’s Baptism in the Early Church. Waltz wrote here last week that Ferguson “is one of the (if not THE) foremost authorities on the NT and early [Church Fathers] teachings concerning baptism,” and thought that “perhaps [we] would not so easily dismiss” him.
But we do dismiss Ferguson, and we do so advisedly. There is very much we could write on this, but we will give only a few examples to make our point. Ferguson’s work is helpful as a resource, but it simply cannot be the final say on baptism in the fathers.
When Dr. Ferguson analyzes Hippolytus’ Discourse on the Holy Theophany, which we covered in part 4 of our series, he gives a chapter-by-chapter summary of Hippolytus’ view on Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan river. He extracts from each chapter what he thinks is Hippolytus’ view on the sacrament. But in this process, Ferguson never points out, and appears not to have noticed, what Hippolytus plainly believed—namely that Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan was a figure for what Jesus accomplished for us on the Cross, and particularly that his audience must not take him literally here:
“When you hear these things, beloved, take them not as if spoken literally, but accept them as presented in a figure” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 2).
Thus, Ferguson proceeds through the Discourse thinking he has found Hippolytus’ mind on baptism, and does not realize that he has instead found Hippolytus’ mind on the Crucifixion. As we highlighted two weeks ago, Hippolytus was consistent in his thinking that Jesus’ baptism was a figure for the Cross, and even imagined that the robe that Jesus wore at the Jordan was itself a figure for the nations which “are washed and purified” by the “two streams of blood and water” that flowed from Jesus side at Calvary (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 11). It is Jesus, in chapter 2, not the baptismal font, Who “came down as the rain, and was known as a spring, and diffused Himself as a river … The illimitable Spring that bears life to all men” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 2), offering Himself on the Cross.
Thus, in chapter 8 when Hippolytus implores his audience to give him their “best attention, … for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 8), it is to Jesus that he refers, not the baptismal font. Yet Ferguson, misunderstanding this, arrives at precisely the wrong conclusion:
“Chapter 8 contains the high doctrine of baptism. It is the fountain of life.” (Ferguson, 334)
That is a gross misreading of Hippolytus. We understand that Ferguson’s work was nearly 1,000 pages, and he could not expound exhaustively every nuance in every Church Father and still cover the the full breadth of his topic. But we also hope our readers will understand that we cannot read Ferguson as if he were more of an expert on Hippolytus than Hippolytus.
When Ferguson reads Origen’s Commentary on John, Book 6, Chapter 17, a chapter we analyzed in part 4, he commits a similar error:
“The passage begins with a reference to the miracles of healing by the Savior, which had the spiritual benefit of summoning people to faith:
‘In the same way the bath through water is a symbol of the purification of the soul, which is washed clean from all filth of evil, and is in itself the beginning and source of divine gifts to the one who surrenders to the divine power at the invocations of the worshipful Trinity. …’ [Origen, Commentary on John, Book 6.17]
The baptismal bath of water is presented here as an effective symbol. The washing of the body is a symbol of the cleansing of the soul, but it also effects what it symbolizes, being ‘in itself; the origin of the divine gifts.” (Ferguson, p. 407)
Here again, we believe that Ferguson has decontextualized Origen. As we highlighted last week, Origen did not merely “[begin] with a reference to the miracles of healing by the Savior,” as Ferguson alleges. Rather, he began with a statement that Jesus’ miracles themselves affected the body, but did not affect the soul, and were rather “symbolic of those who at any time are set free by the word of God.”
Origen was emphasizing the inefficacy of the miracle in healing the soul, and emphasizing the efficacy of the Word of God to set the soul free from the more significant diseases of sin and death. In this he is consistent with Jesus’ own words, for Jesus pursued the man whom He had healed and warned him, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (John 5:14). This is one of the few times that Jesus did not say, “thy faith has saved thee.” Jesus’ miracle had healed the body, but had not healed the soul. In that sense, Jesus was acknowledging the inefficacy of the miracle to heal the man’s much worse spiritual disease. Only faith could do that.
It is to this that Origen compares the sacrament of baptism when he says, “as the wonderful works done by the Saviour in the cures He wrought, which are symbolic … so the washing with water which is symbolic” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, chapter 17). The inefficacy of baptism is similar to the inefficacy of Jesus’ miracles. Origen makes the similar point in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, explaining that Jesus’ miracles were symbolic of the “palsied in soul,” the blind of soul, and deaf of soul (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XIII, Chapter 4), and that the Pharisees should have endeavoured to “wash the hands of [their] souls” instead of criticizing Jesus’ disciples for not washing their hands of flesh (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XI, Chapter 8).
Thus does Origen deny the efficacy of the sacrament and emphasize the efficacy of repentance and faith in the Word of God, for which the water of baptism is merely a symbol. For, says Origen, “the laver of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit; … and does not come to all after the water” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, chapter 17). But Ferguson arrives at the opposite position, and represents it as the core of Origen’s belief:
“The baptismal bath of water is presented here as an effective symbol. The washing of the body is a symbol of the cleansing of the soul, but it also effects what it symbolizes…” (Ferguson, 408).
That is the very opposite of Origen’s point in comparing the water of baptism to Jesus’ miracles, for in Origen, the water was much an ineffective symbol for the healing of the soul as Jesus’ miracles were.
Ferguson makes the same mistake in his analysis of Origen’s Commentary on Romans. As we noted last week, Origen observes that “reborn from above” in the Gospel of John, “refers to being baptized in the Holy Spirit,” and further that it is not the visible waters below that regenerate the soul, but rather the invisible waters from above:
“And although all of us may be baptized in those visible waters and in a visible anointing, in accordance with the form handed down to the churches, nevertheless, the one who has died to sin and is truly baptized into the death of Christ and is buried with him through baptism into death, he is the one who is truly baptized in the Holy Spirit and with the water from above.” (Origen, Commentary on Romans, 6:3-4, section 8.3)
In Origen, being dead to sin is evidence of rebirth (Origen, Commentary on Romans, 6:3-4, section 8.4), which rebirth takes place apart from the visible waters. It is by the invisible waters from above that a man is “reborn from above,” not by the visible waters of the Church which is below. Thus does Origen separate regeneration from water baptism. But Ferguson truncates the above citation, picking Origen up in mid-sentence, and ends up getting him exactly backwards:
“Sometimes Origen understands being baptized in the Spirit as occurring in Christian water baptism.
The one who has died to sin and is truly baptized into the death of Christ and is buried with him through baptism into death [Rom. 6:3-4], he is the one who is truly baptized in the Holy Spirit and with the water from above [John 3:5].” (Ferguson, 408)
That is a gross misreading of Origen. At the very point that Origen is separating rebirth from water baptism, Ferguson puts them back together, and represents it as Origen’s position on receiving the Spirit in the visible waters of baptism—the very thing Origen was denying.
Part of Ferguson’s problem is that he relies quite heavily on Crouzel and Daniélou in his attempt to systematize Origen on baptism. He acknowledges this:
“Origen could be quite flexible in his interpretations, at one time giving one explanation and at another time a different one. … I would, therefore, be cautious about committing too rigidly to any scheme of synthesizing his comments on baptism, but Crouzel’s and Daniélou’s classifications may provide a framework for looking at Origen’s texts.” (Ferguson, 401)
We agree that Origen vacillated prodigiously. We disagree that Crouzel and Daniélou can help us decide which way to tip the scales in our analysis of him. Henri Crouzel and Jean Daniélou were both French Jesuits, and we are, shall we say … disinclined … to let Jesuits be the final arbiters in a debate over whether the Early Church Fathers taught Roman Catholic doctrine. Better, we think, is to let the Fathers speak on their own, rather than through men whose very name has come to be synonymous with prevarication, subtlety and equivocation. We trust that readers of both stripes—Catholic or Christian—will forgive us for refusing to bend the knee to the disciples of Ignatius of Loyola as a condition of discussing the Church Fathers.
Let us now return to our series, and bring it to its conclusion.
Methodius of Olympus (early 4th century)
Called to Communion: St. Methodius, bishop of Olympus (d. 311), in his Discourse on the Resurrection, writes:
For while the body still lives, before it has passed through death, sin must also live with it, as it has its roots concealed within us even though it be externally checked by the wounds inflicted by corrections and warnings; since, otherwise, it would not happen that we do wrong after baptism, as we should be entirely and absolutely free from sin. But now, even after believing, and after the time of being touched by the water of sanctification, we are oftentimes found in sin. For no one can boast of being so free from sin as not even to have an evil thought. So that it has come to pass that sin is now restrained and lulled to sleep by faith, so that it does not produce injurious fruits, but yet is not torn up by the roots. For the present we restrain its sprouts, such as evil imaginations, “test any root of bitterness springing up trouble” (Hebrews 12:15) us, not suffering its leaves to unclose and open into shoots; while the Word, like an axe, cuts at its roots which grow below. But hereafter the very thought of evil will disappear. (Discourse on the Resurrection)
White Horse Blog: We here invite the reader’s attention to Called to Communion‘s propensity for assuming that any mention of water and baptism is a reference to Baptismal Regeneration. Since “sanctification” means literally “to be set apart,” and Christians are set apart by the visible sign of baptism, there is nothing in the text to suggest that “water of sanctification” means anything else than what it sounds like. “After believing … sin is now restrained … by faith,” not by “the water of sanctification,” and it is “the Word, like an axe” that cuts sin at the roots, not “the water of sanctification.” Water here sets apart, but does not restrain sin or cut at its roots. Given what we know of the Fathers of the first three centuries, the use of the term “water of sanctification” cannot simply be assumed to refer to Baptismal Regeneration. It must be proven, and Called to Communion does not do so.
Called to Communion continues with with Methodius’ Oration.
Called to Communion: In his Oration on Simeon and Anna, he writes:
Wherefore with divine wisdom did he, who had foreknowledge of these events, oppose the bringing in of the thankful Anna to the casting out of the ungrateful synagogue. Her very name also pre-signifies the Church, that by the grace of Christ and God is justified in baptism. For Anna is, by interpretation, grace. (Oration on Simeon and Anna, 12)
White Horse Blog: A careful perusal of Methodius in his Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna will reveal evidence of corruption, such that the later chapters appear to have imported anachronisms that were foreign to Methodius. By way of example, we notice that in Chapter 1, he understands that Christ is the Ark of the New Covenant, and unlike the Ark of the Old Covenant, He may be freely touched unto Justification; but by Chapter 5, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and therefore she cannot be touched:
Chapter 1: “No second time is an Uzziah [Uzzah—2 Samual 6:7] invisibly punished, for daring to touch what may not be touched; for God Himself invites, and who will stand hesitating with fear? He says: “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden.“ Who, then, will not run to Him?” (Methodius of Olympus, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, Chapter 1)
Chapter 5: “For if to the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity, such honour was paid of God that to no one but to the priestly order only was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it, the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen, what, and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us who are of creation the least, to thee who art indeed a queen.” (Methodius of Olympus, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, Chapter 5)
It makes little sense for a man to allege that the Ark of the New Covenant is unlike the Ark of the Old Covenant, in that He can be touched; and at the same time to allege that the Ark of the New Covenant is like the Ark of the Old Covenant in that she cannot be touched. That contradiction is evidence of corruption. It is for this reason, among others, that Phillip Schaff acknowledges that, apart from the Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Methodius on the whole is unreliable:
“The Banquet [of the Ten Virgins] appears to me a genuine work, although, like other writings of this Father, it may have been corrupted. Tokens of such corruptions are not wanting, and there can be little doubt that Methodius the monkish artist and missionary of the ninth century has been often copied into the works of his earlier namesake.” (Schaff, General Note on Methodius, AnteNicene Fathers, Volume 6)
We will therefore pass over Called to Communion‘s use of Methodius’ Oration on Simeon and Anna and Discourse on the Resurrection and proceed with his Banquet of the Ten Virgins.
Called to Communion: In the third Discourse of his “Banquet of the Ten Virgins,” he writes:
[I]t was for this cause that the Word, leaving His Father in heaven, came down to be “joined to His wife; ” (Ephesians 5:31) and slept in the trance of His passion, and willingly suffered death for her, that He might present the Church to Himself glorious and blameless, having cleansed her by the laver, (Ephesians 5:26-27) for the receiving of the spiritual and blessed seed, which is sown by Him who with whispers implants it in the depths of the mind; and is conceived and formed by the Church, as by a woman, so as to give birth and nourishment to virtue. For in this way, too, the command, “Increase and multiply,” Genesis 1:18 is duly fulfilled, the Church increasing daily in greatness and beauty and multitude, by the union and communion of the Word who now still comes down to us and falls into a trance by the memorial of His passion; for otherwise the Church could not conceive believers, and give them new birth by the laver of regeneration, unless Christ, emptying Himself for their sake, that He might be contained by them, as I said, through the recapitulation of His passion, should die again, coming down from heaven, and being “joined to His wife,” the Church, should provide for a certain power being taken from His own side, so that all who are built up in Him should grow up, even those who are born again by the laver, receiving of His bones and of His flesh, that is, of His holiness and of His glory. (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3)
White Horse Blog: As we have noted repeatedly in this series, Roman apologists read Baptismal Regeneration into every mention of “the laver” in the Fathers, yet the Fathers repeatedly use “laver” to refer to Christ, His Passion, the Gospel, the Holy Spirit and the preaching ministry of the Church. Here, Methodius sees it as Christ’s Passion, but Called to Communion misses it because their eyes are ever trained to see the Roman baptismal font. We invite our readers to re-read the citation from Discourse 3 of the Banquet of the Ten Virgins, and note that Methodius states explicitly that the “laver” by which the Church is cleansed is Christ’s Passion:
“and it was for this cause that the Word, leaving His Father in heaven, came down to be
joined to His wife;[Ephesians 5:31] and slept in the trance of His passion, and willingly suffered death for her, that He might present the Church to Himself glorious and blameless, having cleansed her by the laver, [Ephesians 5:26-27] for the receiving of the spiritual and blessed seed'” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3, Chapter 8).
This is Methodius’ first use of “laver” in Banquet, and it refers to Christ and His Passion, not to the baptismal font. With the understanding that Methodius has the Church cleansed by the laver of Christ’s Passion so that she could receive “blessed seed,” let us continue with Methodius. Notice that as he refers to “the laver of regeneration,” he continues referring to Christ’s Passion and the ministry of the preached Gospel as the means of regeneration, but does not mention baptism. Rather it is by the laver of “the memorial of His passion” and “the recapitulation of His passion,” that the Church conceives believers:
“For in this way, too, the command, ‘
Increase and multiply,’[Genesis 1:18] is duly fulfilled, the Church increasing daily in greatness and beauty and multitude, by the union and communion of the Word who now still comes down to us and falls into a trance by the memorial of His passion; for otherwise the Church could not conceive believers, and give them new birth by the laver of regeneration, unless Christ, emptying Himself for their sake, that He might be contained by them, as I said, through the recapitulation of His passion, should die again, coming down from heaven, and beingjoined to His wife,the Church, should provide for a certain power being taken from His own side, so that all who are built up in Him should grow up, even those who are born again by the laver, receiving of His bones and of His flesh, that is, of His holiness and of His glory.” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3, Chapter 8).
Flesh, bones, power flowing from His side, recapitulation and memorial of His Passion are all symbolic references to a communion meal, not of a baptismal rite. We could understand if Called to Communion wanted to read Eucharistic regeneration into this, for Methodius has the Church conceiving new believers by “by the memorial of His passion,” “receiving of His bones and of His flesh,” apparently by believing in what the elements of bread and wine signify.
Of course the Roman Catholic apologist will want to see the baptismal font signified by that water that flowed when Jesus was pierced, enabled as it is to regenerate by a “certain power being taken from His own side.” But Methodius will not allow such an interpretation, for bones and flesh are “Wisdom,” “understanding and virtue,” and what flows from Jesus’ “side” is the Spirit of Truth by Whom we are illuminated unto regeneration, indwelled by the Spirit and raised from a spiritual sleep:
“For he who says that the bones and flesh of Wisdom are understanding and virtue, says most rightly; and that the side is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, of whom the illuminated receiving are fitly born again to incorruption. For it is impossible for any one to be a partaker of the Holy Spirit, and to be chosen a member of Christ, unless the Word first came down upon him and fell into a trance, in order that he, being filled with the Spirit, and rising again from sleep with Him who was laid to sleep for his sake, should be able to receive renewal and restoration.” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3, Chapter 8).
Here, Methodius has regeneration occurring by the preaching ministry of the Church, the climax of which is the representation of the regenerating laver of Christ’s Passion as signified by the memorial meal. It is only after a man is raised from his sleep, regenerated, and filled with the Holy Spirit that he is “able to receive renewal and restoration.” If “renewal” here refers to baptism, Methodius has it coming after regeneration by the preached Word.
Called to Communion continues:
Called to Communion: In the eighth Discourse of the Ten Virgins, he writes:
Now the statement … denotes the faith of those who are cleansed from corruption in the laver of regeneration, …. Whence it is necessary that she [i.e. the Church] should stand upon the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it. And in this way the power which she has in connection with the laver is called the moon, because the regenerate shine being renewed with a new ray, that is, a new light. (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8)
White Horse Blog: Here in Discourse 8, Methodius is reading Revelation 12:1, in which “a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet” appears in the heavens (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8, Chapter 4). Our contextual cue from Methodius on the identification of “the laver of regeneration” is in his description of the Woman’s clothing. It is the eternal light of the Word of God:
“The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun,… It is the Church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters. She rejoices receiving the light which never goes down, and clothed with the brightness of the Word as with a robe.” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8, Chapter 5)
The Woman’s “robe” is clearly the preaching ministry of the Church, for in the next chapter, Methodius explains that the moon denotes the faith of those who come to the Word, for the moon merely reflects the light of the Woman’s robe, and the “laver” of the moon is merely a signification of the “spiritual full moon” of the laver of Christ’s Passion at which laver the Church is cleansed:
“Now the statement that she stands upon the moon, as I consider, denotes the faith of those who are cleansed from corruption in the laver of regeneration… Whence it is necessary that she should stand upon the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it. And in this way the power which she has in connection with the laver is called the moon, because the regenerate shine being renewed with a new ray, that is, a new light. Whence, also, they are by a descriptive term called newly-enlightened; the moon ever showing forth anew to them the spiritual full moon, namely, the period and the memorial of the passion, until the glory and the perfect light of the great day arise.” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8, Chapter 6)
The Church “brings forth” those who are washed in the laver of Christ’s Passion, not in the laver of the baptismal font. We invite our readers’ attention to the fact that the regenerate shine and are renewed, being newly enlightened and reflecting the light of the Word just as the moon reflects the light of the sun. This is because the “moon” is the “laver” upon which the Woman stands, and is merely a reflection of “the spiritual full moon” of Christ’s Passion illuminated by the light of “the sun.,” the Word of God. This is a description of regeneration by the preached Word, not by the water of baptism.
Lest Called to Communion be tempted to see in this the Church giving birth to new children by the baptismal font, Methodius makes it quite clear that he has the preaching ministry of the Church in mind. He says, “the Church conceive[s] those who flee to the Word,” not to the font:
“The Church, then, stands upon our faith and adoption, under the figure of the moon, until the fullness of the nations come in, labouring and bringing forth natural men as spiritual men; for which reason too she is a mother. For just as a woman receiving the unformed seed of a man, within a certain time brings forth a perfect man, in the same way, one should say, does the Church conceive those who flee to the Word, and, forming them according to the likeness and form of Christ, after a certain time produce them as citizens of that blessed state.” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8, Chapter 6)
As Methodius continues his exposition of Revelation 12, he shows that the son delivered by the Woman is not Christ, but men in whose hearts Christ is born by the preaching ministry of the Church:
“For I think that the Church is here said to give birth to a male; since the enlightened receive the features, and the image, and the manliness of Christ, the likeness of the form of the Word being stamped upon them, and begotten in them by a true knowledge and faith, so that in each one Christ is spiritually born. And, therefore, the Church swells and travails in birth until Christ is formed in us, [Galatians 4:19] so that each of the saints, by partaking of Christ, has been born a Christ. … the Church contributing here their clearness and transformation into the image of the Word.” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8, Chapter 8)
“Now she who brings forth, and has brought forth, the masculine Word in the hearts of the faithful … is, as we have explained, our mother the Church” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8, Chapter 11).
That Methodius, again, has the preaching ministry of the Church in mind as the instrument of regeneration—rather than the Roman baptismal font—is evidenced by his own acknowledgement that Paul was born again and “suckled” by the preaching ministry of Ananias, before he was “renewed” in baptism:
“Now we should consider the case of the renowned Paul, that when he was not yet perfect in Christ, he was first born and suckled, Ananias preaching to him, and renewing him in baptism, as the history in the Acts relates.” (Methodious, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3, Chapter 9)
Whatever our Roman Catholic acquaintances might infer from Methodius having Paul “renewed” in baptism, it cannot overcome the fact that he first had Paul born by the preaching of Ananias. Recall that Ananias laid hands on Paul “that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 9:17). In Methodius, it is by the preaching ministry of Ananias, however brief, that Paul is born again—not by his subsequent baptism. We see this same pattern in Methodius as he continues explaining that just as Paul was reborn by the preaching ministry of the Church in the person of Ananias, the apostle then “becomes a church and a mother” through a preaching ministry of his own:
“But when he was grown to a man, and was built up, then being moulded to spiritual perfection, he was made the help-meet and bride of the Word; and receiving and conceiving the seeds of life, he who was before a child, becomes a church and a mother, himself labouring in birth of those who, through him, believed in the Lord, until Christ was formed and born in them also. For he says, ‘My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you’ [Galatians 4:19] and again, ‘
In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.’[1 Corinthians 4:15]” (Methodious, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3, Chapter 9)
So that the point is not lost on our Roman Catholic readers, we note that Methodius here cites the same book in which Paul rejoices that “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17). Methodius’ words are the words of a man who held to regeneration by faith in the preached Word of God, not regeneration by the water of baptism, by the laver of regeneration of Christ’s Passion on the Cross, not the Roman Baptismal font.
Before we conclude the series, we wish to go back to one of the first statements made by Called to Communion in their appeal to the Early Church Fathers:
“When the Fathers speak of the ‘laver’ or the ‘laver of repentance’ or the ‘laver of regeneration,’ they are speaking of baptism.”
That statement is easily falsifiable, and yet it is the foundation of Called to Communion‘s appeal to the early fathers. As we have demonstrated in this series,
…when Justin Martyr refers to “…this laver of repentance and knowledge of God” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 14), he had just referred to Christ Passion as depicted in Isaiah 52-54, for “that very baptism which he [Isaiah] announced” was Christ’s death on the cross.
…when Theophilus of Alexandria refers to people coming “through the water and laver of regeneration,” he specifies that the laver of regeneration is “coming to the truth,” for “as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God” are regenerated. Many others came through the water, but “received no very distinguishing property” (To Autolycus, Book II.16), for “God, heals and makes alive through His word ….” (To Autolycus, Book I.7), not by water.
…when Irenæus refers to the “laver of regeneration,” it is that “living water … springing up to eternal life” from within that he has in mind (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 17.2). “For those who were before exceeding wicked, … learning of Christ and believing on Him, have at once believed and been changed, … so great is the transformation which faith in Christ the Son of God effects for those who believe on Him.” (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 61).
…when Clement of Alexandria refers to “the laver,” it is to the Word of God that he refers, not to the water of baptism: “[become] lovers of the Word. … You that thirst, come to the water; … He invites to the laver, …Receive, then, the water of the word; wash, you polluted ones; purify yourselves from custom, by sprinkling yourselves with the drops of truth.” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 10)
…Tertullian has us “drinking, by the faith which is on Him,
the baptismal water of the tree
of the passion of Christ, have revived—a faith from which Israel has fallen away, ….” (Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 13), for it is “by the faith of repentance [that] … in heart we have been bathed already.” (Tertullian, On Repentance, Chapter 6)
…Hippolytus, has “the laver” referring to Christ’s Passion, for “What fit time but that of the Passover, at which the laver is prepared … and [the Church] washes herself, and is presented as a pure bride to God?” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On Susannah, 15). He also has the “laver of regeneration” symbolized by “the net” of the ship of the Church, which is clearly a reference to her teaching ministry rather than the baptismal font (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 59)
…Origen separated the “laver of regeneration” from water baptism, making it refer instead to the indwelling of the Spirit by the laying on of hands after baptism, for “what is called the laver of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit; …and does not come to all after the water.” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, chapter 17)
…Even Cyprian of Carthage, with all of his equivocation, acknowledged that “in the sacrament of salvation the contagion of sins is not in such wise washed away … as that there should be need of … a bath and a basin,” for “[o]therwise is the breast of the believer washed; otherwise is the mind of man purified by the merit of faith.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 75, chapter 12)
…Methodius of Olympus clearly has “the laver” referring to Christ’s Passion, for He “willingly suffered death for her, … having cleansed her by the laver” (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3, Chapter 8).
This concludes our series on baptismal regeneration in the Early Church Fathers. We maintain, as indicated in the caption at the head of every entry in this series, that “The Early Church did not teach Baptismal Regeneration.” Rome’s apologists maintain that the Early Church consistently taught baptismal regeneration, but have not sufficiently demonstrated it. In fact, what her apologists have done is merely to assume what it was their duty to prove—as evidenced by their claim that “laver” in the Early Church Fathers always refers to water baptism.
We hope this series has been an encouragement to Christians who have been pressured by Rome to adopt a Roman view of the Early Church as a condition of discussing it. We also hope that this series has been at least an intellectual challenge to our Roman Catholic readers, providing perhaps some food for thought.
Tim wrote:
“Waltz wrote here last week that Ferguson “is one of the (if not THE) foremost authorities on the NT and early [Church Fathers] teachings concerning baptism,” and thought that “perhaps [we] would not so easily dismiss” him.”
I think we all tend to see in those we consider to be foremost authorities because they say what we believe.
A big change in my life took place when I learned what epistemology and epistemological self-conscientiousness was one day. I read the definition, and thought…wow, I don’t know what I know. It floored me. I had read certain authors, listened to certain authorities and believed certain things because that was what I was taught growing up as a Catholic.
My presupposition was firmly established in the RCC basics as a youth, and every book I read thereafter was totally biased to my presupposition. Epistemology freed me of this error, and soon I started to look past my presupposition to listen to every argument on every doctrine I could find. I was retraining my epistemology (e.g., how I know what I know and why) with a whole new presupposition to every book read.
Then what was most critical were the footnotes in the books, as that gave me the epistemology of the author himself. I could read the author, follow his footnote, read that book, and soon I could see where he himself confirmed his epistemology.
The hardest was figuring out the epistemology and presupposition of reading God in the Scriptures. I was always told to take this “literal meaning” or this “figurative meaning” of the text. This could include using historical references outside Scripture, or church teachings that did interpret what meaning was correct. However, it really confused me because there was such a major difference between so called Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox views…not to mention Jewish views on certain texts and certain books.
Then I learned the best way to interpret Scripture is to take the “literal sense” or “intended meaning” of the passage. Wow, now that made total logical sense to me using my reason. The only way to understand an author is to take the authors writings to interpret the author’s intended meaning. In the case of Scripture, you use the Scripture itself. Taking Scripture to interpret Scripture will give you the intended meaning or the literal sense of what the Triune God is teaching.
I notice nicely that Tim is doing this again today. He is taking the author and using the author’s writings to interpret the author’s meaning. He is not looking to Ferguson to interpret the author, but rather comparing Ferguson interpretation with the author’s own intended meaning.
Hopefully people will learn to look past their own epistemology to the writings of anyone or Scripture itself, and begin to train themselves to take the authors intended meaning or literal sense of what they say to mean what they say.
My prayer is that one day Tim will trace where the Scriptures went in history from the hands of the early church. This root would give those of us what God intended in history outside the closing of the canon…following where His Truth went and became the source of the great reformation which was a very tiny picture of the coming non-bodily “1,000 year” millennial reign of Christ.
Tim, stellar presentation. Thanks for all the time you put in on this series.
Walt, this really is Tim’s gift, to go to the history and interpret it in its proper context and bring the word of God to bear on it. This brings unfortunate ramifications for the made up doctrines of Rome. They are magnified for what they are, antitruth. We can only pray that the Catholics here will read the articles with open hearts.
Tim, I never realized until this series how overwhelming the evidence is inthe ECF’s and the complete harmony with scripture that the laver of washing was the Word in the work of the Spirit, baptism being the sign and seal and confirmation of this grace. Should we not be suspect ofcRoman conclusions on justification and the denial of penal substitution, and other doctrines in the early Fathers based on the complete contary misread on the laver os washing?
Tim.
Thank you so much! Before your “expose”, I had not even seen the stuff on C2C on the fathers and Baptism. I clicked on the article and love what I am reading. When I used to dispute with Wm. Webster on the early Church, I was confined to my 3 volume set of Jurgens. C2C really nails it.
By the way, months ago I told you I missed not having a copy of Livius over here. I seem to remember reading the quotes you mention on Mary as Ark there.
You probably think I am kidding. I am not. Your blog keeps me Catholic.
Jim, I notice you never engage Tim’s arguements. You know why? You got nothin.” CtC really nailed it” wow thats some research and exegesis there! You said your blog keeps me Catholic”. You being Catholic isnt because of Tim’s blog, but because you wont stop worshiping a the death wafer and the queen of heaven. Offering up the cakes to the guy with horns.
Kevin,
I do little more than scan Tim’s articles. I don’t read them with a fine tooth comb. I just want to see what he is up to.
Why don’t I take Tim seriously? Because of you sir.
You lied the other day when you asserted I said sexual pleasure was sinful with marriage. Have you retracted your assertion yet? How many times have you misrepresented the Catholic faith and I have asked former Catholic Tim to set the record straight? Has he ever done so?
You slur and rage and erect and attack nonsensical straw men and Tim lets you do it with abandon.
No blog owner who permits the use of such sleaze as “death wafer” is a serious scholar. He has an agenda and it isn’t from God.
You and Tim have proven that you will do whatever it takes to insult and undermine Catholicism. I don’t trust you or Tim. David Waltz has an interest in engaging Tim. I will let him do any research necessary as I personally see nothing to be gained by spending hours googling around to refute Tim as Tim will just dredge up another false claim from history. Like I mentioned before, I used to jump every time Tim’s role model, Wm. Webster would throw out a bone from the fathers. I learned from experience that even if I came back with a rejoinder, he would just move on to another spurious “fact”.
The straw that broke this camel’s back was when I corrected him ( from my Jurgens ) on Baruch being considered canonical by Clement of Alexandria. He didn’t want to accept although it is a fact. Shortly thereafter I saw it had zero effect on him. He is probably still repeating his error 25 years after being corrected.
Lying, slurring, whatever is acceptable if it is used against the catholic Church, right Kevin? How committed are you to the truth? Do you deny you put out nonsense just for a reaction?
No, I think I will just stick with C2C if you don’t mind Kevin.
Jim, when you ask me how committed I am to the truth I immediately get a picture of you in my mind submitting to a church that canonized the assumption of Maru in 1950, then I dismiss you assertion. Because I look to scripture for the truth, not the physical Roman catholic church. Read the sign over the Basilica Jim, your church is built on a man. My church is built on the chief cornerstone, and He won’t ever let me down. He is the rewarder of those who believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him. I seek Christ, not Rome. Rome isn’t the physical body of Christ. My savior’s physical body is in heaven. And He says if I have faith in that risen savior I am justified. The greatest error of all in Rome is to think they are the extension of the incarnation, that they could substitute themselves for Christ. They take form Him what is exclusively His. And that is man worship, will worship, and church worship. christ will judge Rome the Roman church someday as the apostasy. For those who believe the lie that the Roman Catholic church is Jesus Christ in His kingdom already being realized in the flesh, they will get the just recompense for their being justified by their deeds. For no man will be justified by observing the law. Without faith Jim it is impossible to please Him. And Rome and its need for the physical is no faith at all. You can’t be saved by a savior who has never gotten of the cross or the altar. Romans 4:25 says He was already raised for my justification and Im steed in heaven with Him with an inheritance that will never pass away. John 5:24 says we have passed out of judgment and darkness into life. We don’t have one foot in and one foot out. Jim, “come out from her” before its to late. Tim has in an embarrassing way shown why philosophy and human reason can never attain the gospel. CtC and their so called titled intellects were dead wrong on Catholic baptism. And how did they react. They didn’t even show up to argue, and they kicked tim off their site, and he has never posted their. I believe Catholics are being brought here and they will be saved. I’m praying for that. Jim don’t dismiss Tim’s work. Read it and consider it.
Kevin,
You really should refer to Tim as Mr. Kauffman like you referred to Ian Paisley as Mr. Paisley.
Or maybe, you should address Tim as Lord.
Jim,
I was a bit surprised to see how filled with joy you were in reading CtC on the series, however, I was not totally shocked.
Tim tries to address this problem with those who seek to learn the church fathers by using Catholics to interpret the text rather than let the church fathers writings themselves interpret their intended meaning. Tim wrote:
“We agree that Origen vacillated prodigiously. We disagree that Crouzel and Daniélou can help us decide which way to tip the scales in our analysis of him. Henri Crouzel and Jean Daniélou were both French Jesuits, and we are, shall we say … disinclined … to let Jesuits be the final arbiters in a debate over whether the Early Church Fathers taught Roman Catholic doctrine. Better, we think, is to let the Fathers speak on their own, rather than through men whose very name has come to be synonymous with prevarication, subtlety and equivocation. We trust that readers of both stripes—Catholic or Christian—will forgive us for refusing to bend the knee to the disciples of Ignatius of Loyola as a condition of discussing the Church Fathers.”
Anyhow, I can see how if you just started reading CtC and see many of their interpretations as matching yours, I guess it is any wonder that you were jumping for joy.
You may want to, at some point in the future, think for yourself and not let others think for you. Just a suggestion. Your eternal salvation depends on it.
You should address me as Lord.
Tim,
I have been lurking in the wings for a little bit now, but I just wanted to pipe up and say “thanks” for the work that you have put into these articles. I wish I had known/been studied on these things in some of my past conversations with RC friends. Like many Protestants, I have in the past more or less ceded the early fathers to the Catholics because of my own ignorance. This will be most helpful going forward and I look forward to reading whatever you take up next.
Dan,
I’m glad this has been helpful to you. Thanks for dropping in. I, like you, had long ago “ceded the early fathers to the Catholics,” and then was struck by some of the additional data that typically doesn’t get discussed in modern apologetic and academic works.
Warm regards,
Tim
Dan,
Have you read C2C yet? How about David Waltz’s blog? Those are more trustworthy sources of information.
Hello Walt,
Yesterday, you wrote:
>>You may want to, at some point in the future, think for yourself and not let others think for you. Just a suggestion. Your eternal salvation depends on it.>>
When I read the above, ‘red-flags’ immediately went up. It seems to me that if one consistently employs your suggestion, that pretty much every Christian philosopher, theologian, apologist, et al. (including John Calvin) needs to be jettisoned. And further, for those who do not read Greek and Latin, whose translation/s are they to trust ?
IMO, the following thoughts from the pen a respected Evangelical scholar need to be deeply pondered:
>>The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics?b> and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine.)>>
Grace and peace,
David
David, and what was the alternative, Scapulars, assumption of Mary, Salvation based on one’s works, Queen of heaven, a ecclesiastical system that the Reformers dismantled that was mostly human in content and origin, a understanding of substance and accidents that even Aristotle didn’t subscribe. Hair splitting doctrines of grace and merit foreign to scripture. Relics, a sacrifice at the communion table, an extension of the incarnation and atonement. Many mediators. Is this the perspicuity that the Reformers left. 1 John 2:27 tells us what we need to know about perspicuity. K
Oooops…made a mistake with the bold feature (did not close it properly). Wish the combox allowed corrections…
David, Schwenckenfeld forgot the most important one, the Christian’s damn the Papist.
Tim, Luther once said there would be allot less baptized people if instead of being brought to baptism, one had to come to baptism.
Jim, I saw this quote from Toplady and thought you would like it. ” A man’s free will cannot cure him of a tooth ache, or a sore finger, and yet he madly thinks it is in his power to cure his soul.” You like that?
Jim, one more for you today, I’m feeling generous. Its from your hero the great preacher Charles Spurgeon who said ” After all, there is a Protestantism still worth contending for, a Calvinism still worth proclaiming, and a gospel worth dying for. ” Amen
Now that this series has been finished and all these words have been spoken about the regenerational qualities of the sacrament of baptism as a whole, I personally do not see a condemning difference between the “Roman Font” and the Westminister definition. Remember, that’s taking the sacrament as a whole and not nit-picking about the separate parts. The washing of the Word is included as a necessity with Reformed as well as Rome. The water itself has no power over the soul. The Holy Spirit part is a no-brainer.
Does the Reformed Church believe that regeneration is done by the Holy Spirit without water being involved? YES.
Does the Catholic Church believe that regeneration is done by the Holy Spirit without water being involved? YES.
Do the writings of the Early Church Fathers reflect the same?
YES.
So the argument now comes down to the use of water. What is so special about the use of water in the sacrament of baptism? John the Baptist said the he baptizes with water, but Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Jesus said that unless you are born again of WATER and the Spirit, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. What’s the big deal about the water? Does Jesus know something about the water that we don’t?
Does the Reformed Church believe that the sacrament of baptism needs water to be performed correctly? Yes.
Does the Catholic Church believe that the sacrament of baptism needs water to be performed correctly? Yes.
Do the writings of the Early Church Fathers concur?
YES.
Tim, Walt, David, Jim, or anyone else–
Can you tell me why the Reformed and Catholics are in disagreement on this? Because for the life of me I cannot see the difference.
Thanks, Bob. I have to disagree with one comment you made: “The water itself has no power over the soul.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent was quite clear on this: “to water was then imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life.” Thus, according to Rome, God granted to the water the power to regenerate. If the water “itself” does not have the power to regenerate, as you say, then Trent’s claim that God “imparted the power to the water” is meaningless.
That is the crux of the issue. The Westminster Confession disagrees with Rome, as do (in my opinion) the early church fathers, and more importantly, the Scriptures.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
The Reformed are manichean. They don’t realize that Jesus saved us as man. They hate the flesh, forgetting the grace of God flows through the heart of Christ. The human heart of Christ, Bob.
If Adam had not sinned, grace would have been transmitted “between the sheets” as I have heard it colorfully put. That is why the strange rite of circumcision was established to remind us this.
Grace is transmitted to us via stuff, Bob. God created matter, not just spirit.
Jim, We don’t hate the flesh. Christ came to incorporate us into His body by the Spirit. NOT the flesh. He communicates all his blessings thru the Spirit, even his humanity. Blessed are those who don’t see yet believe.
Jim, the grace of God flows thru the Spirit. A friend of mine is right when he says Rome has a warped view of the TRINITY.
Bob, actually thats the right question when you said ” Can you tell me why the Reformed and Catholics are in disagreement over this?” This is a huge issue. Its Rome’s hook into the Reformed. If you read David’s posts you will see the huge effort to diminish the lines of this argument between Reformed and RC’s. And many Reformed are acquiescing. It is the difference between God being sovereign over salvation, or the church. All sacraments ex opere operato is the control of grace in the hands of the church, the Priest, a secondary cause. Roman baptism is the start of a synergistic system of earning one’s continuance in grace. But baptism as being the sign and seal of regeneration, faith, repentance, and all God’s graces is the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit to blow where HE wills to deliver salvation. The church can lead one to faith, but it is the Holy Spirit who delivers all of Christ’s victory spoils to a man. Only the Spirit can bring fiducia to the heart, not the church or a Priest waving his magical wand. The church is the recipient of God’s grace and not the provider. Not true in Rome, the church substitutes itself for Christ by collapsing the head into the body and the Spirit is delving out salvation thru a sacramental system of cooperation for more grace. So the Roman church becomes the extension of his incarnation and atonement, finishing them in their acts of obedience. It is finished! He obtained eternal salvation and sat down at the right hand of God. He incorporates us into his body thru the Spirit, not the flesh. And now Paul says ” the righteous shall live by faith” We are no more righteous when we die than we were when we first believed in the eyes of God. Thats why Paul can say the RIGHTEOUS shall live by faith. I hope Tim can expound more on the importance of the different view’s of baptism. I lean more toward believers baptism. Luther said there would be allot less baptized people if instead of being brought to baptism. one had to come.
Bob,
Our hands are Christ’s hands. Our tongue is Christ’s. The Church is Christ on earth. ( “Saul, why do you person me”, not “why do you persecute my Church?” )
Jim, you and Debbie and Wosbald are Pantheist
TIM–
I think maybe you are reading to much into Trent. The water has no power in itself. Water is just H2O. If water has any power, it was imparted to it by the Spirit. That’s like saying man can do no good unless powered by the Spirit. The important part is the Spirit, not the water.
I think what Jim said makes sense–the water is the chosen conduit of the Spirit just as the laying on of hands is a conduit of the Spirit . Just as the hearing of the Word imparts regeneration through sound waves to the ears. The Spirit uses matter to transmit. Did the Spirit not use the form of a dove at Jesus’ baptism? Did Jesus not use his breath to impart the Spirit to the apostles in the upper room? Did the Spirit not take the form of tongues of fire in Acts? Does the Word of God not take form in the written words on the pages of Scripture? (Well, that last part may be a stretch, but you get my drift, right?)
Tim, are you saying that the Spirit does not use matter to impart His Power?
Bob,
Thanks for your note. I think I understand what you are saying. What I find to be typical in conversations like these (and I am guilty of this) is that one person denies the particular, and the other responds as if he had denied the general. I denied that the Spirit imparts power to the water, and you responded as if I had said that the Spirit does not use matter at all.
For the record, I agree that the Spirit came upon Saul and caused him to prophesy (1 Sam 10:6), and that Saul is (was) matter. The Spirit used Saul to speak. But just because the Spirit uses matter, does not mean that He must, or that He uses matter all the time. I simply deny that He uses water to impart life.
I should also clarify a few things regarding your questions, which were intended to be rhetorical, but are nonetheless pertinent to our discussion:
I deny that. I do not believe that the Word of God imparts regeneration through sound waves, any more than He regenerates with photons as they are alternately absorbed by ink and reflected from a page. If that were true, the deaf and blind could never be regenerated. When Paul says “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), he is speaking of a man’s ability to understand logical propositions, and only a regenerated heart can receive and understand the logical propositions of the Gospel.
Well, yes, in the same sense that He used Saul to prophesy, and He preserves His Word in written form. This does not mean that that He imparts life through water or through the papyrus. Remember—I am not denying the general. I am denying the particular. Just because I deny, for example, that we must confess our sins to a priest, does not mean that I deny that we should confess our sins to one another. It’s the particular I deny, not the general.
I agree. I also agree that the knife that is used to circumcise the genetic offspring of Abraham has no power to circumcise the heart. It is just Fe, or FeO after a few circumcisions, and signifies externally what we believe the Spirit can and may do, or may have already done, to the heart. Or not.
I am saying that the Spirit does not use water to impart life.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, no he is saying that t perogative and powere to save is in the word by the worki b g of the Spirit and not in the power in the the Priestcraft in the magic water. Sure the Holy spirit uses physical things, but He isnt contained in those things. Jesus is clear in John 3, He blows where and how He wills. Sacraments dont work ex opere operato like a soda fountain distributing a physical product in response to act. They are God’s confirmation of grace we receive by faith alone. If Godcgavecgrace as a response to an action or ability, it wouldnt be a gift but a reward. And salvation is a freegift without anything we do to earn it. Catholics are dependent on the church and its sacramental system to be saved. Scripture says faith alone in Christ alone saves. The church can only be a witness, not the distributor of grace ex opere operato thru Priestcraft.
Bob, Im just curious, do you see the the absolute violation of the gospel that sacraments ex opere operato is? Iow God gives grace by performing the sacrament. By the working of the works. Titus 3:5 says ” He saved us, not on the basis of righteouss deeds, but according to His mercy.” Do you see the antithesis there? That its not in the performance of magical rights but simple life of faith?
TIM–
You said:
“I am saying that the Spirit does not use water to impart life.”
Then what does the Spirit use the water for? It’s pretty obvious that the sacrament of baptism is for the remission of sin. The wage of sin is death. No sin = no death. No death = life. Jesus had John baptize Him to fulfill all righteousness. If the water is nothing but symbolism, why did Jesus require it for entrance to the Kingdom? Why have water baptism at all?
Tim, I don’t know what church you attend. Does your church require water baptism?
Bob,
I attend a PCA church. When baptism is administered, water is used. You asked,
Do you believe in circumcisional regeneration? Or would you say that circumcision is an outward sign of an inward change of heart that is either (in the case of adults) already presumed to have taken place or (in the case of infants) anticipated with hope? If circumcision is nothing but outward symbolism, why did God require it for entrance into His people? My point is that, by your reasoning, you are making a case for circumcisional regeneration—Jesus was circumcised to full all righteousness, too. Did circumcision regenerate? If not, why not? Was it just an empty symbol without any meaning at all? And if so, why have circumcision at all, and why did Zipporah circumcise her son when God would have killed Moses? And why did God let Moses go after Zipporah circumcised her son? Does this prove that God imparted to the stone of circumcision the power to impart life? Or does it mean that God’s commands ought to be obeyed?
My point is that just because I do not believe that God granted to the water of baptism the power to impart life, does not mean that I believe baptism is an empty, meaningless ritual that serves no purpose at all. God commanded that the Jews circumcise. Jesus commanded that Christians baptize. He is a God whose commands are not to be taken lightly.
Thanks,
Tim
KEVIN–
So what do you say the purpose of water baptism is? Is it a true sacrament?
sac·ra·ment \ˈsa-krə-mənt\
noun : an important Christian ceremony
1a : a Christian rite that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
If, as you say, the church can only be a witness, what are they witnessing?
Tim, That is a really good point, that the Spirit regenerates a heart to enable a person to understand and accept the Gospel, Repent. Would youvagreecstrictly speaking that since God regenerates tgrough His Spirit bringing the Word, fiducia and all of God’s graces that we cannot accept any secondary cause as the water, the church, the Priest as a substiture? Also Horton puts effectual call together with regeneration. Are you ok with that? Thks K
Bob, the church brings the gospel in word and sacrament. The church can lead us to faith but it cannot usurp the place of the Spirit to deliver fiducia to the heart. Rome substitutes itself for Christ and the Spirit so that instead of the church being the recepient of grace, Rome makes itself the provider of God’s grace. God has controll over the soul and mind of men, not the church. Rome collapses the head into the body and usurps the soverienty of God. A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace. The trees in the garden were sacraments. The rainbow in the Noaic covenant. Circumcision. The Lord’s supper. But Rome errored when it made the sign the thing signified. Also sacraments are confirmation of God’s free grace that we receive by faith. Rome made them into a work, that by the very act of doing them God gave grace. The Reformers were adamantly against this. In Rome sacramental efficacy replaced the atonement and faith. False gospel. Thanks
Bob, I thought you might find this interesting. Peter Vermigli the great Italian Reformer ” The proper nature of sacraments does not require that that they have the things signified in themselves. Was the divine covenant included in circumcision? In truth it was past, having been made with the Fathers, before circumcision was commanded on Abraham. Whatever of the covenant remained was kept completely in the mind of God and the souls of the faithful., but it itself did not appear in the flesh. , rather its sign commanded by God. Again, the paschal lamb did not really include in itself the Lord’s passover. And who in his right mind would say that the flesh and blood of the Lord were contained either in the water of the desert or the manna, or that the Spirit and grace are are invisibly hidden in the water of Baptism? But if other sacraments through there proper nature do not allow that they have reality present either joined to them or included within them, we should not decide otherwise about the Eucharist, if its nature or property should seem to us one with other sacraments; especially since the Word of God has given us nothing at all on the present subject.” The Peter Martyr Reader. Great book Bob, and brilliant theologian. K
Kevin,
So, the Holy Spirit goes whimsically fluttering about like a dove and settles on this branch or that telephone wire where his will.
Like wind blowing in one direction and the next when the temperature changes.
We have nothing to do if that bird settles on us or stays and makes his home. Can we shoo that bird away before his makes his nest?
You say Sacraments have nothing to do with any of this but your preaching your guts out on this blog does? Do you honestly think the Holy Ghost would work through your hate filled diatribes?
“He who began a good work in you WILL perfect it until the day of Christ.” No shooing that bird away. But in Rome it happens because they never hadcthecbird land on thm in tbe first place.
Jim, God used Ballam’s ass didnt he? I didntvsays sacraments werent important, I said sacraments cant be mamgled and perverted. God does not give grace as a result of performingva sacrifice ” by the working of the work”.
who says? You?
Jim, no, God does Romans 6:23 ” fot the wages of sin is death, but the FREE gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. In light of that verse Jim how could you ever trust a system whose doctrine says ” by the working of the works” it doesnt take a philosophy degree to understand that Jim, but it does take the choosing of God.
Jim, when i see the people who leave Protestantism for the formula of God dispensing grace thru the sacraments ” by the working of the works, I say to myself could these people ever have known the true savior. Could they ever have understood who Christ is and what he did for them. Could they ever understood the grace of God. Could they ever have understood faith. And the answer is no they couldn’t of. I think the most amazing thing my ex friend Debbie ever said to me is ” yes grace is free but you have to really, really work hard for it. I was astounded how I would quote here doctrines form Trent and the merit and erring one’s increase, and they never bothered her. I thought where is the outrage at selling Christ’s merits and making grace a reward instead of a gift. Thats when I realized she doesn’t know Christ and “the free gift of righteousness” and the “free gift of eternal life” Jim, Christ came to pour out His life a ransom for many and simply give us the gift of eternal life thru faith alone in Him. And your church makes it the rabbit chasing the carrot.
Kevin–
Y’know, I ask you simple questions, (“So what do you say the purpose of water baptism is? Is it a true sacrament? If, as you say, the church can only be a witness, what are they witnessing?”)
and you don’t answer them. Instead you start bashing Rome. I’M NOT INTERESTED IN ROME! I have nothing to do with Rome.
Can’t you explain to me what YOU(Kevin Failoni) believe, instead of what you think everyone else believes?
Bob,
You hit the nail on the head when you say Kevin has an “automatic response button”.
Whatever the issue is, Kevin launches into his, ” Let Jesus of the cross…plastic rosaries…bread…worship…smuggle…pedophilia…merit by the Sacraments…ex opere operato…Tim is a god…blah blah blah.”
Whatever you do, don’t correct him on anything. Don’t say, “excuse me Kevin, but the rosary was wooden or Catholics don’t merit by the Sacraments”. If you do, he will repeat the error all the more just because he sees he can get a response out of you. Kevin is what bloggers term a “troll” and Tim’s blog is the bridge he lurks under waiting to strike from.
I haven’t read what Kevin wrote to you but he probably accused you of being as low as a Catholic ( but he loves you to pieces ).
You know, I was checking out various blogs last night and see he is now banned from Nick’s. Kevin is running out of places to rant.
Recently I have even tried to lure Kevin over onto some anti-Catholic sites. I want to argue with him on those sites so he will get himself thrown off for his over the top hate speech. Normal Protestants, even if they dislike Catholicism, find Kevin’s delivery grotesque.
The befuddling question is, why does Tim keep him around? As one raised Catholic, Tim must know that Kevin misrepresents/misunderstands Catholicism on every point. Yet he never corrects Kevin although I have asked him to more than once. Why?
Because this blog is not dedicated to the truth. This blog is solely interested in bashing Catholics and Catholicism, That is why I don’t bother to read with any close interest anything Tim writes. I figure he might be lying or purposefully misquoting the Bible or the Fathers. His motives are bad. Kevin’s too.
This blog is a fun food fight. But if you actually want serious discussion on Catholic/Protestant issues, go elsewhere.
Jim wrote to Bob:
But if you actually want serious discussion on Catholic/Protestant issues, go elsewhere.
Yeah, no one wants to listen to Protestants denounce the mixture of truth and superstition, or how Rome needs to keep its jealous-temporal-power paws off the innocent. We certainly can’t rebuke the theological-dialogue-police-unit (TDPU, soon to be released in a mini-series) Jim, who sat next to the Jews observing the Passion of the Christ, will be on the rating board for Anti-Christ content.
Now, where are you coming from today Eric? Are you wearing your oneness pentecostal baptized in Jesus name only hat, your sedevacantist hat or your Calvinist hat?
I need to know what nut fringe group you are endorsing now.
Jim, you asked:
Now, where are you coming from today Eric?
The police unit is collecting data to schematize. Just staying true to our lack of “serious discussion”
Eric W , TDPU, the best! K
Bob, I belive a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace. A sign of the thing signified. I believe in what Tim has shown in his piece here that the washing, the laver of regeneration is the Word, Christ , and the efficacy is not in lthe water itself. Yes baptism is a true sacrament if it means what I just described scripture teaches. In answering your other question, I believe the church witnesses the gospel thru preaching the word and rightly administering the sacraments.
Bob,
“Arise and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord.” Does that read, “because your sins have already been washed away”?
Jim,
You wrote,
No, it does not. But the narrative does not lend itself to the Roman rite, either. The Roman Catholic Catechism says that “Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ … Baptism incorporates us into the Church” (1267), and yet Ananias calls Saul his “brother” at the laying on of hands before baptism is administered. The Catechism says “Holy Baptism is … the gateway to life in the Spirit” (1213), and yet Saul receives the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands prior to baptism.
Thanks as always for writing,
Tim
C’mon Tim, my brother! Paul was as good as his brother as he knew Paul was not going to balk and refuse the Sacrament.
Besides, the laying on of hands was probably to cure Paul’s eye problem. It could not have been Confirmation or Ordination as he had not yet been Baptized.
Besides, I have told you before that we don’t know who is already in a state of grace before getting wet. They still must be Baptized in order to receive Communion and the other Sacraments.
The laying on of hands needs to be accompanied by words explaining the purpose. Have you ever read why Anglican Orders are invalid? The giving of the Holy Spirit can be for various reasons. Hands can be laid on for more than one reason.
The Bible is not meant to contain every detail. Think about this; could the O.T. temple ceremonies have been conducted using only what we find written down in the Bible? of course not. The Jews had detailed commentaries on how to perform the rites.
The Bible was written by Catholics for Catholics. While it may be materially sufficient, it needs Catholic Tradition to explain what it all means.
Jim, that verse isnt about physical baptism. Can I suggest a debate between to dear friends on baptism. MacArthur and Sproul. Its informative no matter what your position.
Kevin, Who hasn’t seen that silly debate where those two old popes shmooz and preen each other?
Bob, you said to Tim ” If the water is nothing but symbolism then why is it necessary for entrance in to heaven.” Who said it is necessary to enter heaven? We have a plethora of people in NT not baptized. The Apostles weren’t baptized. When Paul was asked by the Philippians jailer how to be saved, Paul told him believe on the Lord and you will be saved. Cant you understand the importance of this distinction of the water being efficacious or the Word being efficacious. It determines the prerogative and sovereignty in salvation. It gives entrance to salvation either to the church or the Lord. Baptism is so important that when Peter gave his discourse in Acts on salvation he doesn’t mention it. Paul specifically said He wasn’t sent to baptize but preach the gospel. Bob. you would think if it were necessary to enter heaven thats a wrong attitude. It is important to God because it is a mark a sign and an seal of the inward re wording we get when the Spirit regenerates us. It is commanded by God. And in that sense Christ obeyed fully. It is closely associated but not the laver. I agree with Tim the Spirit does not use water to impart life. And He doesn’t use the bread to impart an increase of grace by the working of the works. It is a means of grace thru faith, the Spirit and the word. Don’t cost nothing!
“Who said it is necessary to enter heaven?”
PSSSST! Kevin,
Ever read Mark 16:16? Believe AND is Baptized…
What does “AND” mean to you?
Jim, read thecsecond half of the verse. You always have forget to quote it.
Why would someone who does not believe be baptized Kevin?
Bob!
What is your problem, dude? Kevin said to you,
” The Apostles weren’t baptized.”
( How does Kevin know? )
He then told you dogmatically,
“When Paul was asked by the Philippians jailer how to be saved, Paul told him believe on the Lord and you will be saved. ”
( Then they Baptized him and his household ).
Kevin doesn’t understand why you are so dumb, he says,
“Cant you understand the importance of this …?”
Kevin has been trying to get you saved and you are resisting the Holy Spirit that speaks through him.
Jim, in the spirit of Romanism being the greatest enemy on thd long war on the truth we see again the attempt by Catholics to silence dissenting voice, namely Tim getting kicked off CtC having never posted there, and all the posts that get nixed on Catholic sites. Jim, please answer me how you sleep at night supporting a church that sell Christ’s merits?
I sleep like a baby. Thanks for asking.
I don’t know why Tim was booted. He probably hasn’t been as he is soooooooooooo polite. He should try posting again.
You are the one who is persona non gratis. Maybe you got Tim booted.
You know, I heard Tim Staples talking yesterday about how NOT to talk to a “gay” person. He said you shouldn’t call him an abomination even if it is a biblical term as it isn’t prudent. Not if you want to make a convert out of the guy.
You Kevin, have zero people skills. You are like the weird minister who went the the funerals of veterans and heckled the families.
Eventually Tim is going to have to boot you. Where will you go then?
Jim, you have to read Tim’s new piece on the bowl judgments. Do you have a stigmata from worshiping the crust of bread? Have you ever had the Roman stigmata? Tim warns all of you to repent from the idol worship of the Roman bread God that you might not receieve the judgment of the stigmata. Before you go to bed and sleep like a baby tonight Jim, check your hands and feet.
TIM–
You said: “My point is that just because I do not believe that God granted to the water of baptism the power to impart life, does not mean that I believe baptism is an empty, meaningless ritual that serves no purpose at all. God commanded that the Jews circumcise. Jesus commanded that Christians baptize. He is a God whose commands are not to be taken lightly.”
So, then tell me who is taking God’s commandment more lightly, those who believe that the Sacrament of baptism is a conduit of grace by the Holy Spirit, or those who believe the sacrament of baptism is just a sign and seal of an inner grace?
I understand the water being an outward sign, but how is it a seal? Water makes you wet, but you don’t stay wet when you dry off. How is that a seal if the Holy Spirit is not involved?
Kevin says how can I not see this? Well, I just simply don’t, I guess. Maybe I’m just ignorant. That’s why I need answers to these questions so that I can become less ignorant.
Bob, did you even read the Vermigli quote I put up. You favotite thing to say to me is ” dont tell me what otherpeople say, tell me what you think” you always tell me your not interested in Rome. I give you a book to read and your attitude is oh Ill put that on my list. You just like to argue and have others confirm your view, I remember our discussion on justification, you’re stubborn. Batism is a seal in that it is a visible testimony to a circumcised heart. It is not the cause but the result of the Word washing Nd the Spirit regenerating. Not the conduit thecspirit uses to save. I have known so many people in my life who were baptised as an infant and had no faith. God does not save thru baptism but thru thecwashing and regeneration of the word by thr Spirit. Rome confirming that thru thewater of baptism, people are regenerated, profess faith, are justified, and have original sin washed away to a state of neutrality is a lie. And it undermines the preaching of the gospel and its power to save.
Bob and Tim ( and Kevin too I guess ),
Unless Baptism accomplishes something, why did the Ethiopian eunuch want to be Baptized along the side of the road?
Why was the Jailer baptized in the middle of the night rather than wait until all of his friends could be present to witness his profession of having been saved?
Why wasn’t Paul baptized in front of the community to show he had come to Faith? Why just Ananias present?
I’ve read that Calvin forbade secret Baptisms, even in the case of imminent death. Catholics say if the danger of death is near, Baptize immediately.
The Bible gives the impression that Baptism should be done even along the side of the road providing enough water is at hand ( water Kevin, H2O ).
Baptism isn’t just a show of what has happened. It does something. Ex opere operato.
Baptism is just a sign of the washing of the Spirit by the preaching of the word, Kevin?
Who did Ananias preach to?
Peter told the crowd they should repent and be Baptized IN ORDER TO receive the Holy Ghost, not because they had received Him by his ) Peter’s ) preaching.
Did Jesus tell Nicodemus that regeneration came by preaching?
Is the laver spoken of in Titus 3:5 the pulpit or the font?
David Waltz wrote:
“When I read the above, ‘red-flags’ immediately went up. It seems to me that if one consistently employs your suggestion, that pretty much every Christian philosopher, theologian, apologist, et al. (including John Calvin) needs to be jettisoned. And further, for those who do not read Greek and Latin, whose translation/s are they to trust ?”
Actually, I would never suggest that people ignore secondary standards produced faithfully by church courts, and councils. I just would not hold those secondary standards as being equal to the primary standards. Scripture itself is the primary standard.
I hold to the secondary standard as written by the Westminster Confession of Faith which says:
“Of Synods and Councils
I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.[1]
II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;[2] so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.[3]
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4]
IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]
V. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.[6]”
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, did you even read the Vermigli quote I put up. ”
Yes. I guess you got more out of that quote than I did. Sorry.
You also said: “You favotite thing to say to me is ” dont tell me what otherpeople say, tell me what you think” you always tell me your not interested in Rome. I give you a book to read and your attitude is oh Ill put that on my list. ”
It’s not my favotite thing to say to you. My favotite thing to say to you is “don’t give me your automated electronic response”.
And I don’t always tell you that I’m not interested in Rome. I only said that once. It hardly qualifies as always. I have a long list of books to read, why should yours be butted in front of them, huh? You think yours is more important than others?
You also said: “You just like to argue and have others confirm your view, I remember our discussion on justification, you’re stubborn. ”
Yeah, you should know. I’ll bet you’re a Democrat. I listen to Rush Limbaugh.
You also said: “Batism is a seal in that it is a visible testimony to a circumcised heart. It is not the cause but the result of the Word washing Nd the Spirit regenerating. ”
Batism? The followers of the Dark Knight…? Really, Kevin, you should proofread your stuff before sending it.
At least circumcision leaves a permanent fleshly reminder and is visible the rest of your whole life. The fleshly reminders of baptism only last a few minutes at most. If you were to meet someone on the street, could you tell if they had been baptized or not? Would you be able to tell if someone were the elect or not? Could you tell if you met a circumcised person in the showers of the gym if they were actually Jewish? Can you tell by looking at them if they are saved or condemned to hell?
Of course not! That’s because you, Kevin, cannot search the heart.
You also said: “I have known so many people in my life who were baptised as an infant and had no faith. God does not save thru baptism but thru thecwashing and regeneration of the word by thr Spirit. Rome confirming that thru thewater of baptism, people are regenerated, profess faith, are justified, and have original sin washed away to a state of neutrality is a lie. And it undermines the preaching of the gospel and its power to save.”
Yeah, and I have known people who have had the gospel preached to them and it had no power over them whatsoever.
Ever read Jesus’ parable of the sewing of the seeds? Rocky ground, weedy ground, birds scooping up the seeds? The Word of God is a two-edged sword, ain’t it?
Nobody is claiming that the water itself has any power of its own. I don’t know of any Christian who believes that. All Christians believe that the power of the Holy Spirit is the important part of the sacrament. Catholics believe the sacrament, through the Holy Spirit, actually does what it symbolizes. Reformed believe it is the outward sign of inner grace through the Holy Spirit. Either way, the result is the same–regeneration.
Can you tell me how I am wrong?
Bob, ya Ill tell you how your wrong. The Spirit does not use the sacrament to save. He regenerates independent of the sacrament. He regenerates thru the washing of the Word where and how He wills. You think its like stamping a pakage, that the Spirit uses the stamper to save. And im telling you He saves independent of the stamper. We were elected long before anyone decided to baptize us. The Reformed believe babies are baptized into the covenat family, but that does not guarantee faith. The only thing that guarantees faith is the election of the Father, the washing of the Word thru the work of the Spirit. If Paul makes a distinction between those who are circumcised inside being true belivers and not those circumcised outside, then you can know the sacrament is not the the means of regeneration.
Bob, you are hilarious. You think someone who believes in jbfa is a democrat, and somebody like you who belives in justification by faith plus works is a card carrying Limbaugh Republican. Im a Republican, not a big Limbaugh fan but my wife has his autograph and we met him at the Masters.. She loves the guy. For me anybody who constantly criticises without solutions is to me iffy. Bu allot of the people we know worship at Libaugh Baptist. Im conservative Bob.
KEVIN–
You said: “You think someone who believes in jbfa is a democrat, and somebody like you who belives in justification by faith plus works is a card carrying Limbaugh Republican. ”
Hmmmm…I thought we were talking about the sacrament of baptism. BUT, since you brought up the subject of JBFA, what is your feeling on this statement:
“Justification is by Faith Alone, but it NEVER comes alone.
From the first moment that grace was preached there was someone protesting that such grace would lead to ‘license.’ The accusation that freedom from ‘works’ as a means of salvation would lead to a life absent of merciful acts to the poor, love for our neighbors and service in the kingdom has been leveled from the time of Scripture forward. We believe that faith alone saves, but that faith never comes alone! True saving faith ALWAYS ‘looks like’ love for neighbor, service to the needy and caring for the poor. It ALWAYS does, or it is not true faith!”
Is this what you, Kevin Failoni, believe? Yes or No?
Bob,
To be fair, you should know that I left Southwood over the Grace Movement controversy in which sanctification was so eclipsed by justification as to be obscured entirely—to the point that sanctification was said to occur by justification. I highlighted some of my objections to the new teaching in Sanctification Half Full, and Getting Sanctification Done, both of which are available online at the links provided, if you’d like to read them.
It is my position that regeneration yields faith, and also yields obedience, but neither faith nor obedience serve as the ground of our justification. Christ’s righteousness alone is the ground, the righteousness God contemplates in His verdict of justification, and His righteousness is imputed by faith, and not by works.
That said, the statement you provided from the Southwood web page is true—at least the part that says “Justification is by Faith Alone, but it (faith) NEVER comes alone.” However, I would rather the page had said, “True saving faith ALWAYS ‘looks like’ what it is—belief. It is one of the fruits of regeneration, another of which is love for neighbor, service to the needy and caring for the poor, or in short, obedience to the law. But faith is not obedience to the law, and obedience to the law is not faith. They are different things, always found together in the people of God, but the one is not the other.”
The way the page is currently written, it sounds like it is saying that “faith” looks like “obedience to the law,” which I do not believe is true. I believe some care is in order, lest someone conclude that because “faith looks like obedience,” faith therefore is obedience. But they never asked my opinion in the first place.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, when I read Vermigli’s chapter on justification, it really cemented some things for me. He said that reason faith alone justifies is because it alone can receive Christ and His perfect righteouness and bring it to the heart. Where love stretches out to neighbor and is always second in natural order. Vermigli defines faith as the constant and firm assent to thd Word of God. Faith receives, love gives. We cant rob from faith and give to love what God intended for faith. It is interesting to me that when Paul was accused of antinomianism, he never answers with law but more gospel. I say believe gospel, obey law. Would you agree with that?
That should read thecfirm and constant assent of the soul to the word of God.
Tim, what did you mean but they never ask my opinion in the first place? K
Kevin, you asked, “Tim, what did you mean but they never ask my opinion in the first place?”
Bob quoted the “what we believe” section of a Church where I used to attend. What I meant by “they never asked my opinion” was that I was never an officer or on staff at Southwood Presbyterian Church, and certainly wasn’t involved in crafting their statement of faith. I don’t know who wrote the Statement of Faith on their web page, and they never asked for my input or opinion when they wrote it.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, I will never respond to a quote of whom you arent honest enough to provide the author. Let me put it to you this way, my status before God has nothing to do with my merit or works Rom. 4:5 or anything coming from myself, not now, not ever. My status before God is based sloely on the righteouness that comes from God by faith alone, the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to me freely by His grace, Rom.5:12 thru 19, 6:23, 10:9,10. Saving faith will always produce good works. But those works are never the condition of my justification, only the result of my faith. Ephesians 2:10 says I have been saved UNTO good works. 2:8 eliminates salvation coming from ANYTHING of ourselves or our works. Rome is constrained in there doctrine of faith as it is activated by love, being, doing. It is a death sentence to Romes synergistic salvation. And many other verses confirms this.
TIM–
You said: “To be fair, you should know that I left Southwood over the Grace Movement controversy ”
So I take it from your response that you are not a “New Calvinist” and that the Grace Movement has taken over Southwood Presbyterian. So do you agree with the doctrinal decrees of your current church?
You also said: “It is my position that regeneration yields faith, and also yields obedience, but neither faith nor obedience serve as the ground of our justification. Christ’s righteousness alone is the ground, the righteousness God contemplates in His verdict of justification, and His righteousness is imputed by faith, and not by works.”
But you still agree “Justification is by Faith Alone, but it (faith) NEVER comes alone” is a true statement. You realize that statement is an oxymoron in application, right? Faith Alone is NEVER alone? You are really splitting hairs. Methinks ye might be a rigorist to some degree.
Bob, you wrote,
For the statement to be oxymoronic, it would have to be logically contradictory or “paradoxical”. If I had said “Justification is by faith alone, but justification includes works in the faith that is the “alone” instrument of justification,” you might have a point. Faith is the alone instrument of justification, and it is by faith that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. The believer is fashioned for good works which also spring from a regenerated heart, but those works are not the righteousness that is imputed, and the works are not the instrument of justification.
James was so concerned about good works flowing from a new heart that if there were none, he questioned the faith (James 2). Paul was so concerned about faith flowing from a new heart that if there was none, he questioned the works (Galatians 3). But that did not keep Paul from saying a man is justified by faith apart from works.
Bob, a bishop is to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), but only the husband may be the bishop (1 Timothy 2:12). Therefore, only the husband alone can be the bishop, but the husband is never alone. Do you think that is a logical contradiction? Or does that mean that the wife, too, is the bishop with the husband? There is no logical contradiction when you recognize that the husband can be alone in one sense, but not alone in another. The same is true of faith and works.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
James didn’t say works accompany faith. He said works “complete” faith.
How does Faith save? You break faith down to Notitia, Assensus and Fiducia right? Which one saves? Fiducia or trust? No way! The demons have fiducia and tremble. They have total confidence what God will do.
You can trust someone you hate. The Islamic terrorists trust American system to be liberal. They know they can rely on that and have vowed to use our system to destroy us.
Love saves us. Not Faith Alone as Luther meant the phrase.
Charity justifies. Without Charity and its good works, faith is dead, worthless.
By the way, this doesn’t mean a bishop must have a wife. It means he can have been married but once. If his first wife died and he re-married, he can’t be a bishop. This rule still holds in the Orthodox Church.
Faith, for adults, must precede regeneration, Tim. Jesus commanded us to believe. Can He command unregenerate people to be regenerated ( if regeneration is, as Kevin says, the Holy Spirits monergistic choice ? )
KEVIN–
You said:
“Bob, I will never respond to a quote of whom you arent honest enough to provide the author. ”
Oh come now, you do all the time. And you ask others to do the same for you. I have been reading your responses for some time now. I was born at night, but not last night. And besides, you responded to it anyway.
You were probably thinking that Ol’ Bob was out to trick you with a quote from a Catholic, didn’t ya. But Tim stepped in first and recognized it as a “non-negotiable statement of theology” from Southwood Presbytarian Church in Huntsville, Alabama–a church that Tim was in communion with recently–a church that claims to hold to the Westminister Confession.
That was not that hard of a question to answer yes or no. Do you concur with it or not?
Bob, im not going to defend Tim’s clumsy statement, but dude in your mind you cannot make the distinction between justification and sanctification. Faith in scripture is trust. And only faith can reach out and receive our righteousness, namely Christ, apart from works. ” I have been crucified with Christ, I no longer live, Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by FAITH in the son of God.” Faith always results in works, but those works arent the ground of our acceptance before God. Iow the righteouness I receive by faith alone is the same righteouness I stand before God in, His perfect righteouness. Yes that righteouness is imparted to us for godly living, but is restricted in some sense, as the Spirit works sanctification into us. But our status isnt based on our works or anything coming from ourselves. I mean dont you get that. Ephesians 2:8 and Titus 3:5 aint ambiguous.
Kevin, Faith doesn’t reach out. Charity/love reaches out to possess the beloved.
Huh?
Grace is imparted Kevin? That is what Catholics say. Don’t you mean imputed?
“ghteouness is imparted to us for godly living, but is restricted in some sense, as the Spirit works sanctification into us. But our status isnt based on our works or anything coming from ourselves.’
Which is it? Does our righteousness/sanctification come from the Spirit or ourselves?
Jim, Catholics cant get thisvthrough their head. When we are bought into union with Christ, we receive His perfect righteouness from outside of us. We are brought into union with a person, not a derivative of that person, but the person of Christ dwells in our hearts thru the Spirit. We are said to be “in Christ” and Christ in us. Our righteouness isnt derived from His, it is His righteouness. He is in us and we are in Christ. We are fitted for righteouss living as the Spirit who brought us justification (Christ) from outside us thr faith alone locates us from the court room to the living room as God works in us our sanctification thru the Spirit. His righteouness is imparted to us not in a perfect sense, we still posses the flesh. You can understand this reality by reading Romans 7. But be sure to read 7:6, and 8:1 which you synergists fail to see. But our justification does not rely on our inhernt condition, but on the imputed righteouness of Christ. As we grow in holiness our practice aims to match our position, although in this life we will always fall short. And if you think about it if our justification was based on our imperfect inherent position then Paul could not declare us justified past tense with peace. Rom. 5:1.
Bob, said ” I was born at night, but not last night. Trust me you were born lsst night lol. Ya man Thats exactly what I thought since you are a Catholic in a Methodist body. Do you want me to get the RCIA phone number for you. You can be justified in one year and 27 works in actual grace. Let me know uncle Bob?
Tim, I take Horton’s position that justification undergirds the rest of salvation, including sanctification. Iow salvation is all fornsic for Paul. He calls the rag tag Corinthians sanctified past tense, and Hebrews 10:10 says we have been sanctified. 1 corinthians 1:30 says He became to us santification. Iow from the legal standpoint all of salvation is guaranteed by our justification. Of course from a practical sense repentance and pursuit of holiness is our commandment. But we are guaranteed that He will perfect us until the day of Christ. Am I right be saying the grace movement wanted to relieve the responsibility in sanctification by saying justification is sanctification. K
TIM–
You said: “Bob, a bishop is to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), but only the husband may be the bishop (1 Timothy 2:12). Therefore, only the husband alone can be the bishop, but the husband is never alone. Do you think that is a logical contradiction? Or does that mean that the wife, too, is the bishop with the husband? There is no logical contradiction when you recognize that the husband can be alone in one sense, but not alone in another. The same is true of faith and works.”
That’s a good analogy. I like analogies because they explain things better. Which helps me explain my side of the issue.
Can a bishop still be a bishop without a wife? Will the Church let a bishop still function as a bishop if he divorces his first wife and marries another?
Can faith still justify without works? James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, says it can’t.
Thanks, Bob,
My point in the analogy was to show that the bishop can be “alone” in one sense, and not “alone” in another—without being oxymoronic or paradoxical. You wrote,
Assume for a moment that the bishop must be married. Does that make the wife the bishop? Or does it make the wife the instrument of ordination? Of course not.
Paul, the Apostle to the gentiles, insists that it must (Romans 3:28). Thus, in order to avoid any oxymoronic tension between Paul and James, it does take some thoughtful analysis.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, said ” Can a Bishop be a bishop without a wife. Ya, all the one’s in the Catholic church don’t have a wife. So you might say in your sense they aren’t justified!
Bob, A living faith produces love, but the believer isn’t justified by love in any sense. The scripture never says we are justified by love, ever. In fact the scripture is clear, perspicuous, listen very closely, faith and works are OPPOSED in justification. So although the bishop has a wife, he aintt justified by his wife, just Bishop alone. If you don’t make this distinction in your mind then you’ll be trusting your wife in some sense for your salvation, when God says you are saved by Bishop alone. Bishop slaw ays leads to wife, but wife has nothing to do with justification.
kevin
September 28, 2014 at 11:50 pm
KEVIN–
You said: ” Thats exactly what I thought since you are a Catholic in a Methodist body. Do you want me to get the RCIA phone number for you. You can be justified in one year and 27 works in actual grace. Let me know uncle Bob?”
Nephew Kevin? Oh really? You must be the long lost son of my wife’s sister’s first husband– Kevin Schostakovich. When did you become Italian? I thought you were Jewish. My sister-in-law would sure like to get in contact with you. You say your in Arizona?
Bob, wife’s sisters first husband. You better be a good boy. It could happen to you.
KEVIN–
You are FUNNY!
You said: “In fact the scripture is clear, perspicuous, listen very closely, faith and works are OPPOSED in justification.”
No, the fact is scripture is clear, perspicuous, listen very closely, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” That is verbatim from James 2:24. If you don’t make this distinction in your mind then you’ll be trusting…you.
You also said: “Bishop slaw ays leads to wife, but wife has nothing to do with justification.”
Bishop slaw? That’s a Cajun dish isn’t it? Aye, that leads to wife if she’s a good cook. And that will justify her being a good wife in my book.
Bob, if your sisterinlaw hit the street, be careful, that stuff runs in families lol. Romans 11:6″ if by grace it is no loger by works, but if by works it is no longer by faith.” Bob, seriously if you dont understand James 2 correctly it will be fatal. Tim explains it well in his article on it. Galatians 3:12 ” but the law is not faith” Read the book of galatians Bob, faith and works are opposed in justification. Read 2 Timothy 1:9. Romans 9:32 -10:4 says those who are pursuing it by works in any way wont get there. In 10:1 Paul prays for your salvation. 10:4 is the stuff.
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, seriously if you dont understand James 2 correctly it will be fatal.”
Kevin, seriously, if you don’t quit trying to make Scripture say what it really doesn’t say, you’re thinking you’re saved by dead faith. That’s fatal. Y’know, Kevin, I know the difference between works of the law and works of mercy. Why you don’t is your fault. I know you have been told, but you ignore it.
Bob, said “I know thecdifference between works of law and works of mercy” what you refuse to realize is both of them are excluded from justification. Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 3:5 ” He saved us not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteouness, but according to his mercy.” Not even righteous deeds bro, open your eyes.
Hi Bob, you wrote to Kevin:
Kevin, seriously, if you don’t quit trying to make Scripture say what it really doesn’t say, you’re thinking you’re saved by dead faith.
Do you think Abram’s faith was incomplete in the Gen.15 justification ? James said works complete faith. (James 2:22)
Which work did he do in Gen. 15 to make his faith living ?
Thanks
Eric W–
You said: “Do you think Abram’s faith was incomplete in the Gen.15 justification ? James said works complete faith. (James 2:22) Which work did he do in Gen. 15 to make his faith living ?”
Abram believed God that his heirs would be from his own loins and decided not to make Eliezer of Damascus his heir. And then procreation commenced. Now that’s living faith, don’t ya think?
Bob, you asked:
And then procreation commenced. Now that’s living faith, don’t ya think?
Ok, did his decision and procreating amount to being justified by works ( meaning offered by James) ? The example you provide is not easily distinguished from his decision to heed Sarah’s word to procreate with Hagar. We have the same man with living or dead faith making decisions and procreating at different times.
If your example fails to show a justifying work in Gen.15, then we have no reason to think faith was complete in Gen.15. Bias tells us that Abraham never had dead faith.
Lets see what Galatians 3:6 says ” Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteouness” Abbraham simply believed the promise and he was righteous.
Eric W–
You said: “If your example fails to show a justifying work in Gen.15, then we have no reason to think faith was complete in Gen.15. Bias tells us that Abraham never had dead faith.”
But are you willing to recognize, Eric W, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture in Genesis chapter 15 was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Abram was going to make Eliezer of Damascus his only heir. In other words, Abrams bloodline was going to stop with his death. God said to him, No! do not give up. You will have descendants from your bloodline and they will be as numerous as the stars in the night sky. Abram believed God and he acted in faith. He decided to disinherit Eliezer and persevere with God’s plan. He begat Ishmael and Isaac. God tested Abraham again when he told Abraham to offer Isaac upon the altar. Abraham acted in faith that God would provide a perfect sacrifice. And through the linage of Isaac came the Chosen People of God. And out of the Chosen People of God came the Messiah that would redeem the world.
Because of Abraham’s works of faith, instead of dying an obscure death not leaving even his name to Eliezer; Abraham, through his blood descendants all the way to Mary, begat the perfect sacrifice– the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Bias or not, Eric W, starting in Gen.15, Abraham’s faith through his works justified him and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Don’t you agree?
Bob,
“AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” (Rom.4:3; Gen.15:6;James 2:23)
You asked:
Bias or not, Eric W, starting in Gen.15, Abraham’s faith through his works justified him and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Don’t you agree?
I agree if “faith through his works justified him” is ruled and measured by James 2:21 & 24. Faith without works is dead.
Abraham was showing his faith by his works (James 2:18); therefore, he was “justified by works.”
But the phrase “it was reckoned to him as righteousness” is ruled and measured by “Abraham believed God.” My reason for this is in the contrasting light of Paul’s words:
But to him NOT working….(Rom.4:5)
——————
Compare :
(a) Abraham believed God. (James 2:23)
(b) You believe that there is one God (James 2:19)
Each one cannot show faith to the man who says, “You have faith, and I have works” (James 2:17). Works manifest both of these in the eyes of men and God. However, belief in (a) is taught as “evidence of things unseen.” (Heb.11:1) God alone sees and witnesses to us by it.
If James can use justified by works without prejudice to Paul (Rom.4:2), then I can use faith alone without prejudice to James. This is our freedom in language. Abraham, by faith alone in God alone, was reckoned as righteous.
ERICK W.–
You said:
“If James can use justified by works without prejudice to Paul (Rom.4:2), then I can use faith alone without prejudice to James. This is our freedom in language. Abraham, by faith alone in God alone, was reckoned as righteous.”
If you acknowledge that it is your use of freedom of language, then I got no problem with it. It is America, after all. I consider true living faith as an action and not just a bump on a log. But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
WHO WANTS PIE?
Actually Bob, Abraham’s Faith was active in works starting in Gen 12 ( see Hebrews 11 ) when he obeyed God and set out on his journey.
KEVIN–
You said: “Lets see what Galatians 3:6 says ” Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteouness” Abbraham simply believed the promise and he was righteous.”
Hey man, I am so proud of you! You didn’t say the word “alone” in that response. And only two misspellings. Nice going, Dude.
Bob said ” abraham belived God and he acted in faith” No sir ” Abraham believed Go and it was RECKONED to him as righteouness. James is using it in a different way. He is talking about how faith is justified. In both examples he uses it is ho a they DEMONSTRATED their faith. Paul is clear, God justifies the WICKED thru faith, apart from all works, by crediting his faith as righteouness. Its something external like the wage that is given his due. He does not say now to the one who works, his work is credited what is due, he says his wage. In the same way righteouness is credited to Abraham, something external. Verse 2 ” For if Abraham was justified by works he has something to boast about, but not before God. But to the one who does not work. You want to work Bob, go collect your wage. Just remember if you going to misunderstand James and rely on works to enter, you have to obey the law perfectly.
Mr. Falloni, sir,
May I ask you a question. I hope you don’t mind. I know you are a busy man. But I have one little question. You said,
“James is using it in a different way. He is talking about how faith is justified. ”
In my Bible it says Abraham the man was justified, I don’t see where it says his faith was justified. Could you show me where you are reading that?
Simple man that I am, I see verse 22 says that Faith was completed by works. But I don’t see faith was justified ( or vindicated? ) by works.
Besides, James isn’t talking about justification/vindication before men Mr. Falloni . In verse 14 James says, “Can Faith SAVE him?” This all about salvation, getting to heaven. Not showing off before men.
And of course, you are so right to say this doesn’t contradict Paul. Just look at Romans 2:5-10 which says if one persists in doing righteous deeds God will, on Judgement Day, reward him with eternal life. You are always so right, Mr. Falloni.
Thank you and have a good day sir.
Bob, what does this say to you ” but to the one who does not work but believes” ? Thx ya good day at the typewriter. Im a jazz musician, so im always improvising.
KEVIN–
Just remember this: “WCKD is good” –The Maze Runner
On the contrary, Kevin, what does this say to you “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” Are you doing God’s will, Kevin, or are you just sitting there in your belief? If you don’t DO God’s will you can’t even enter the kingdom.
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and ACTS on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
“And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
“Everyone who hears these words of Mine and DOES NOT ACT on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
“The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
You can have your faith without works, Kevin. Just keep on misreading Paul. But Jesus says put His words to ACTION. Put Jesus’ words to WORK, Kevin. ACT and you will stand. DO NOT ACT and you will fall.
Sweet dreams, Dude.
Bob, yes Im doing God’s will. Romans 11:6 ” but if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace isnt longer grace.” You got your cover your a-s Roman glasses on Bob. So you think you got to work for justification and believe the bread is Christ. Because you think that will get you in. Your the rich young ruler Bob. But Jesus wouldnt let him in. Why? He said this to his Apostles, ” with man it is IMPOSSIBLE, but with God all things are possible. You and the rich young ruler trying to smuggle your character into God’s grace. The Jews tryed that in Romans 9:32 -10:4 and Paul said they didnt attain it. You misunderstand Paul, Bob, and for you grace is no longer grace. Sweet dreams Dittohead!
Jim, yes I can show you. The 2 examples James uses that says true faith produces good works are Abraham with Issac and Rahab when she received the messengers. Both were examples, not of how to be justified before God, but how saving faith was demonstrated by their works. But then James quotes 15:3 ” Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. The scripture was fulfilled. From the standpoint that faith is justified by its works as Wisdom is justified by her children, demonstrates that Abraham’s faith resulted in good works. It has to mean this Jim or else he would be contradicting Paul who said that god justifies the ” one who does not work”, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly. If God justifies an ungodly man who does not work, it has to be the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is credited like the wage something external. Paul does not say to the one who works, his work is credited what is due, but to the one who works, his wage! In the same way God credits righteousness, something external, to the ungodly man who simply believes the promise. But if he tries to be justified by works in any way , pay him his wage.
Jim, lets let the great Augustine speak ” How was Abraham justified. What does the Apostle say? Abraham was justified by faith. Paul and James don’t contradict each other, good works follow justification.” Seems like Augustine got it right. Everybody kisses Aquinas butt. But what did he give you, and idol and a semi pelagian gospel. You should have followed Augustine, but you didn’t, and you mangled the sacraments and the gospel so bad that the Pope and his religion is sending men to hell. Repent while there is time Jim. For the day draws near, and salvation is nearer than you think. K
Kevin,
Augustine preached Faith alone justifies? ( Not Faith formed by Charity? )
Tim! Kevin is going to put his foot in his mouth.
Kevin,
“Everybody kisses Aquinas butt.”
Not Tim. He doesn’t even give Aquinas credit for the hymn we sing whenever we expose the Blessed Sacrament he slurs. He says St. Francis wrote it.
Ha! St. Francis is the saint that stands in bird baths in old ladies’ gardens next to their bird feeders.
Here’s one for you and Tim.
Ever guzzle Frangelico liquor Kevin? Although Frangelico the artist was a Dominican like Aquinas, the bottle is shaped like a Franciscan. Evan has a little cord around the waist. Of course, Tim, with his vast knowledge of the Faith he jettisoned, would know this bit of cocktail party trivia.
Where’s Walt? Does he know what goes in a rusty nail? Scotch and Drambuii!
Jim said” Tim and the vast knowledge of the faith he jettisoned.” Ji, lets get serious for a second, Tim dint abandon faith, Tim abandonded idolatry and hell. He left a dead human institution that excells at Priestcraft and magic. Hocus Pocus. And God had mercy on him, removed the blinders from his eyes and saved his soul from a false religion. It took me a year of explaining the gospel to my ex Catholic friend in every way possible and sadly she never understood the gospel. She said a month ago on Jason’s site ” im not there yet, my family isnt there, we have to get there. Im being more justified everyday. I have to get there. ” Sad Jim, a zeal for God, yet not accordance with knowledge. Not knowing about the righteousness of God and seeking to establish her own.” Tim said it, apart from regeneration one can never see the lie that Romanism is.
On a related point to so-called “baptismal regeneration” (br), I’m a member of an LCMS congregation and am having a conversation with our vicar (a sem student nearly done with his seminary work doing a year’s “internship” in our local congregation before his final year at seminary before ordination) on “baptism” and “baptismal regeneration” & I’m trying to hammer home my Biblical objections to it (i.e. br) on the basis of how all true children of God, pre- or post- Incarnation, are children of Abraham as justified by grace through faith in Christ alone (Him, not water, being the ONE mediator between God & man, Gal 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5 (I wish people realized how simple Gal 3:20 is to understand when put in context with 1 Timothy 2:5)).
For lack of a better term I joke about being a “Reformed ‘lutheran'” and continually surprise fellow members in telling them about how most “lutherans” today really rather have unwittingly followed Melanchthon (i.e. in his abandoning Luther’s bold foreordination stance since
1. he mistakenly saw this as making God the author of sin, and 2. he also had the unimaginable pressure of being Luther’s successor, he seems to have deemed it necessary to compromise with Rome rather than being guilty of being scismatic (and there were certainly innumerable other nightmares he & they had to face that later casual, worthless “monday morning quarterbacks” vainly trying to judge them can never fathom. My increased understanding of Luther himself and things “lutheran” (the latter too often contradicting the former, e.g. Melanchthon & co!) have shown me how little of the “reformed” vs “lutheran” division is legitimate (though there’s some) vs how MUCH of it’s merely carnal turf warfare vainly pretending to be godly & Biblical).
I’ve sometimes questioned my integrity in my Christian confession by remaining an LCMS member, but in view of my membership in several different denominations, and being relatively informed, especially Biblically, on theology and ecclesiology, I’ve come to see it’d be quite impossible to go anywhere else with any more integrity in view of how many “Is & Ts” are “crossed and dotted” in the wrong places contrary to God’s Word!
As a former proud Wesleyan-Arminian holiness devotee of gullible, impressionable college age (these ~35 years of ages ago!), I painfully remember how good we were at the same canard I’m hearing now from my LCMS vicar, that it was those bad “calvinists” that imposed their philosophy on the Bible vs how “we” believed what SCRIPTURE taught, rightly interpreted (2 Timothy 2:15, orthotomounta PAP-ASM>orthotomeO).
Regrettably I grew up and in the kindness & mercy of God learned more so as to come to see how the shoe was on the other foot and that bald assertions of Biblical fidelity does not make it so (though then the issue in conflict was rather foreordination (aka predestination) and election), to the point where I was no longer able to use “wesleyan” or “arminian” and “Biblical scholarship” in the same sentence without groaning in pain at the gross eisegesis on seemingly every side (my reformed “cage stage”), though I know there are a few of them miraculously rigorously careful to hew close to the text and stiff-arm eisegesis, proving God faithful and true to His Luke 17:10 unprofitable servants, easily able to make them stand (Romans 14:4), including the many papists who don’t realize they are really saints to God now by grace through faith in Christ alone, and thus officially unwittingly heretics in their own communion!
I’m hoping in surfing the web to find someone else’s musings on the centrality of being a son of Abraham that might help byh bringing another perspective to the whole “baptismal regeneration” controversy by emphasizing Abraham’s example/model as decisive, as Jesus & Paul observed.
Luke 19:9; Galatians 3:7; Romans 4:8-25. Soli Deo gloria!