Lap-Who???

Our Calvinist friends invest a lot of time, discussion, and effort into something called the Lapsarian debate. Ever heard of that Lutherans? I'm guessing some of you have, but many of you haven't. So in this blog I'm going to cover what the Lapsarian debate is, as well as the varying positions that are held. I'll wrap it up by how Lutheran theology views this in-house discussion amongst Calvinists.

The Lapsarian debate or discussion has to do with God's decrees in eternity past, before the foundation of the world. Traditionally, Calvinists take one of two stances in this discussion, but there are some nuanced versions of Lapsarianism as well. That being said, we'll leave the nuanced versions alone for our purposes here.

John Calvin

Reformed theology speaks of the logical order of God's decrees in eternity past. They're not so much speaking about the temporal order here. Keep in mind that all of these positions hold that all of these decrees occurred in eternity past, before the foundation of the world. In short, none of them have God decreeing something as a reaction to what man does in time.

The five topics that are ordered in this discussion are election, creation, sin, Christ's atonement, and regeneration. The four positions I will outline here all order the decrees differently. The two standard positions are called Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism. These are the two traditional Calvinist positions. There are two other decretal orders called Sublapsarianism and then of course, Arminianism. Traditional Calvinists reject Sublapsarianism as being something other than Calvinism (it's 4 point Calvinism) and of course reject Arminianism as heretical (see the Synod of Dordt, 1618-19).

 

SUPRALAPSARIANISM

Supralapsarianism logically orders God's decrees as follows.

1. Elect some and reprobate the rest.
2. Create the universe.
3. Decree the fall of man.
4. Send Christ to die for and save the elect.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.

You can pretty clearly see in Supralapsarianism, that election comes before everything. The other thing that is important to notice here is that election is logically decreed prior to the atonement. In other words, this order of God's decrees has a limited atonement for the elect alone.

Supralapsarianism is generally equated with a "high" Calvinism of sorts.

If you are interested in learning more about the Supralapsarian position, I would recommend my friend Andy Underhile's blog found here: Contra Mundum. Andy is a staunch Supralapsarian and presents the position well.

INFRALAPSARIANISM

Infralapsarianism logically orders God's decrees as follows.

1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Elect some sinful men and pass over the rest.
4. Provide Christ's atonement for the elect.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.

The main difference between Supra and Infra is that God is electing people in Infra *in view of their sin.* In other words, in Supra, God elects first, then creates the necessary conditions to bring about His election; including sin and the fall. The Supra argues that God is sovereign over everything, including sin. The Infra counters that this makes God the author of sin. And round and round the Calvinists go.

However, it still is important to point out that Infralapsarianism also places election prior to atonement and therefore has a classical Calvinist limited atonement.

SUBLAPSARIANISM

Sublapsarianism, also known as Amyraldism, is another hat in the ring of God's decrees.

Moise Amyraut - Four Points

1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Provide Christ's atonement for the whole fallen human race.
4. Elect some and reprobate the rest.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.


Here we have Christ's atonement preceding election. Therefore, the atonement in Sublapsarianism is universal and provisional. Then this theory proceeds to say that since man is dead in sin, none will freely choose Christ and therefore God must elect some to take hold of that universal atonement.

Traditional Calvinists reject this theory as illogical and inconsistent. Many even go as far as to say that it is warmed over Arminianism.

ARMINIANISM

Arminianism is the theology that came out of Calvinism in the late 16th century and into the early 17th century.

1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Provide the atonement for the whole human race.
4. Offer Christ indiscriminately to everyone.
5. Elect those who believe.

Obviously, in this theology, it's not Calvinistic at all. It has God, in essence, looking through time and electing those who He sees will believe in Christ. Election is something done in response to human freewill here and not something that is a cause of salvation.

LUTHERANISM AND LAPSARIANISM

So, how should we as Lutherans approach this discussion? In fact, I am guessing that some of you Lutherans who read this blog wonder why I even wrote it. And to be honest, that's completely fair. I wrote it for informational purposes alone. I am of the opinion that we ought to know about other theologies. And, as a former Calvinist, that is the other theology that I can expound upon.

So again, how should we as Lutherans approach this? Where do we fall in this debate?

This should not surprise you, but we don't fall anywhere here. In fact, we reject the whole Lapsarian debate outright. But why?

Simply put, these ordering of decrees is an attempt to peer into the hidden God. From our perspective, the whole discussion really is not worth having and worth taking a stance upon. To put it in Lutheran terms, it's a theology of glory and not a theology of the cross. Instead of being focused on Christ crucified for you, it's focused on decrees in eternity past. Instead of focusing on the revealed God given for you in Christ, it's focused on the hidden God, not revealed to us to much extent in Scripture. Yes, for sure the people in these different Lapsarian camps use Holy Scripture to defend their positions. But from my perspective, none of them are slam dunks anyways. It's speculation for the most part. And speculation can be a bad thing sometimes.

So, as Lutherans, we simply do not engage in these sorts of debates most of the time. We would rather stick to the revealed Christ given for us at Calvary and then received in Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.

We may get labeled as irrational or simplistic by some of those in Reformed Theology, but really, we shouldn't care. We're not irrational or simplistic, we just have no desire to go beyond the Word into hidden topics. Or in another way, we affirm ministerial usage of reason, but not magisterial. Not all Calvinists use magisterial reason over Scripture, but sadly many do.

Hopefully this article was helpful for Lutherans to understand some of the stances out there.

Looking under Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. ~Hebrews 12:2

+Grace and Peace+

What Does God Expect?

How good must one be to enter glory with Christ? It's a royally important question, and Christianity itself hinges on the answer to it. It hinges first on how we answer the initial question: Just how good do we have to be? What is the standard of righteousness that God requires? The second manner in which we must answer then is: How is this standard fulfilled?

From the outset, all Christians agree that there must be some standard for eternal life. Likewise, there also must be some manner in which that standard is met. Since no one believes that ultimately everyone is condemned (and we won't deal with universalism here), then the two preceding conditions must have answers to them that result in some people being saved.

1. Just how good do we have to be? What is the standard that God expects?

This one should be pretty easy for all Christians to answer. I say that with reservation though, since it's answered incorrectly by many people now days.

Christianity is not a religion of "just do your best." God doesn't accept that. Your best is never good enough, nor can it be.

We all agree that God is perfectly and infinitely Holy, Righteous, and Just. And if we don't, what we worship is less than God. Therefore, the answer should be obvious: God requires a standard that is completely in-line with His perfect holiness, righteousness, and justice.

He requires absolute perfection.

To relax that standard would be for God to relax His attributes and God does not do that. To relax them would be to not hold to them in a sense. In another sense, He cannot relax them because relaxing them would mean that those attributes are not perfect and infinite in the first place.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount gives us insight into this very truth. He states:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (St. Matthew 5:17-20)

And then Jesus gets even more blunt later in His sermon, stating:

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (St. Matthew 5:48)

To speak plainly, we must be perfect. We must keep God's Law to perfection. Top put it another way, God demands that we be sinless.

What is a good definition of what it is to be sinless? Well, we could go to the decalogue (10 commandments) and say; keep those perfectly. But I am going to go to Jesus' summation of the decalogue found later in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” ³⁷ And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ³⁸ This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹ And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ⁴⁰ On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (St. Matthew 22:36-40)

But wait a second. Aren't we all sinners? Yeah, we are. That is why the next question and answer is so vital to the Christian faith.

2. How is this standard of righteousness fulfilled?

Does God demand that we fulfill this standard? Yes, He does, we already addressed that in the last section. He demands that we be perfect and then tells us that we must love the Lord our God with our everything, all the time. And also love our neighbors as ourselves.

Have you done that today? Have you loved the Lord your God with your whole heart, mind, strength, soul, and everything of yourself for even one second? I would assert that if you say you have, you're breaking the 8th commandment regarding bearing false witness.

So, pretty clearly we as sinful humanity cannot meet this standard that God states and commands all in one fell swoop. Ironically, the theological camps that think they can meet these standards have quite a low view of sin, despite the fact that they talk all the time about not sinning!

Therefore, there must be another way, lest we all be universally condemned. Thanks be to God, the other way is the Gospel.

In other words, we have a substitute. We have an advocate. We have another who has fulfilled these demands on our behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, and He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (St. John 1:29).

You must be in Christ. If a person is in Christ, they are perfect on account of the work of Christ and His righteousness being imputed to them (Romans 4, 2 Corinthians 5:21). The only way that a person can be perfect is to be counted righteous on behalf of Christ. For you have died, and your life is hidden in Christ with God (Colossians 3:3). Not by works, lest anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:9).

Our works cannot ever save us. Our obedience can't either. Only the perfect Lamb of God can do that. Not because we are perfect obedient servants -repentant as we are, as Christians live a daily life of repentance- but that Christ is the perfect obedient Servant.

Such is the way of being simul iustus et peccator. Or in English: Simultaneously justified and sinful. Or, we are both sinner and saint.

Thanks be to God for His saving work in Christ!

Christ is Life. And Doctrine Reveals Christ

Downplaying doctrine in Christianity is just plain dumb. There, I said it. To relegate doctrine to a status that is unimportant is, to put it nicely, unchristian. To whine about people disliking bad theology isn't too bright either. That response is usually nothing more than pride.

Doctrine, you see, tells us about Christ. It's not enough to say we love Jesus and that's it. Who is Jesus? What did He do for us? How does He save us? As soon as you start answering those questions, you've entered the realm of doctrine.

Think about it for a minute. Who claims to love Jesus? Well, Jehovah's Witnesses do. So do the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Are those groups Christian? If loving Jesus is the standard and doctrine is unimportant, we would have to answer yes. What about Muslims? Jesus is a prophet in Islam, is He not? Do they love Jesus? They might. But what if all these groups get Jesus completely incorrect and therefore have a different Jesus? Then what?

The "just love Jesus" stance has a glaring problem: it's based on our feelings and works. It has nothing to do with who Jesus is and what He has done. In this paradigm, "love God and love your neighbor" is the Gospel. The problem is, Jesus tells us that is the law, not the Gospel.

So, if we can agree that doctrine is important, where is that line drawn? What is necessary? What is debatable? And where do we go to figure these things out? You might say Scripture alone. Well, I would agree to an extent. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is our only infallible source of doctrine. But if we say that we go to Scripture alone for doctrine and then we all end up with different interpretations of Scripture, then what?

Therefore, we are wise to listen to those who have gone before us. We are wise to study church history; to see what has been ruled heretical over and over again. And we are wise to see what the church catholic has always taught about certain topics. It's a good idea to look at the early church ecumenical councils. It's a good idea to look at theologians from all eras and see where they align and where they contradict each other. It's a smart thing to check out St. Athanasius, St. Irenaeus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, the Council of Trent, John Calvin, and Confessions of faith like the Book of Concord, the Westminster Confession, and the Catholic Catechism.

Check them out, it's a good idea. The church catholic has never been a bunch of theological liberals, as is so common today. Doctrine has always been supremely important in the life of the church. The ecumenical councils have always been about doctrine. Confessions of faith are always doctrinally driven. And the "no creed but Christ" crowd is a cop-out. They refuse to say who Jesus is or what He has done. Sorry, but that bird doesn't fly.

There are numerous very core doctrines that are part of the Christian faith and always have been for 2000 years. An excellent place to start are the three major ecumenical creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, Athanasian). I suspect that the majority of mainstream Christian churches now days cannot even affirm those three creeds. Move out from there to the early church ecumenical councils. Check out some Confessions. Read some church fathers. Immerse yourself in history. Read the Scriptures and also read how the more learned greats of the Christian faith interpreted the Scriptures. Look at how the different churches today compare to the Creeds, the councils, the fathers, and Holy Scripture.

I'll tell you what, you aren't left with many options. Most churches now days are completely innovative in their doctrines. And that, as they say, is not a good thing.

For my money, the place that contains the fulness of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints is Confessional Lutheranism. Look it up and compare it to all these things.

All of the history and none of the heresy.

Epiphany 3 Matthew 8:1-13

The text for today reveals to us the account of Jesus doing two healings. One is for a paralytic and the other for a man with leprosy. All of the miraculous healings throughout the Gospels serve to underline the purpose for which Christ came. They show that he has come to deliver us from the curse of sin, from frailty and from death. Christ cures blindness, deafness, lameness and, of course, paralysis and leprosy.

All of these show the reality of the curse of sin, but perhaps none so graphically as does leprosy. Common in the ancient world, and even remaining in some regions today, the word leprosy describes several terrible diseases of the skin. God’s original plan for mankind was for all his creation to live in perfect health and wholeness. It was our fall into sin that brought all measure of infirmity into the world. Since that time, all man has inherited the curse of sin from their parents. Along with this comes propensity to develop all sorts of diseases.

Isaiah, in the very opening of his great book of prophecy, uses leprosy to describe our human condition. We have rebelled against our master, he says. We have provoked the Holy One to anger and soour whole head is sick. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness. Our wounds have not been closed or bound up, or soothed by ointment. We are covered with wounds and bruises and putrefying sores. Yes, putrefying. In some cases of leprosy, parts of the body actually die off and begin to rot. They necrotize. It is sad but true.

Even if some of us can boast physical health at the moment, sin still lurks within us soon to thrash us to the grave. Only some develop leprosy of the skin, but all are infected with leprosy of the soul. Jesus condemns those who believe they have rights to the Kingdom based on their descendancy from Abraham. They look for salvation by the keeping of the law, as children of promise. But in truth they deny the faith of Abraham, and remain as bastards and rebels.

We too today can fall into this trap if we expect to woo and impress God by our moral qualities. If we think that it is because of our faithfulness and our Christian living that God has blessed us, we are like those cast into outer darkness. Jesus praises the great faith of the Centurion. But this is not because of some internal “faith-power” from within him, one that wells up in the heart. Similarly, when Jesus praised Peter for the great confession of faith, You are the Christ the Son of the Living God, our Lord makes it clear that this confession comes not from man, but was given from above.

Aside from what is given to us by grace, we are worthless. Apart from me, Jesus says, you are nothing. The centurion in our text was aware of his own sinfulness before a Holy God. He knew that God could not tolerate being in the presence of the damned. When he beheld the perfect righteousness of Jesus, he was shamed by his own internal filth and guilt. I am not worthy that you come under my roof, he says. That would be like a scrubbed down brain surgeon rolling around in a hog-barn before an operation. A bride on her way to the wedding should not stop to suck out a septic tank.

Nonetheless Jesus effectively says to the Centurion, as well as the leper, I am willing. I don’t mind infecting myself. I could, in perfect justice, remain on high in heaven while mankind melts away. But he chooses not to. He could easily bring each and every one of us to a swift death. Instead he chooses to come and bring us life. He is willing to take on human life, that the Son of Man may serve us and give his life as a ransom for many.

The Lord and giver of life first took on life himself. He began this as a baby in a feeding bin. It was necessary that he be like us in every way. His world, like ours, was one of stink and maggots, of flies and decay. All men live in bodies suffering under the leprosy of sin. But his love for man is so great that he took on the same corruptible flesh. He did in no way endeavor to distance himself from the repulsiveness of life in this dying world.

In order to be like us, it was fully necessary for him to take on our frail human nature. For only as a man could he suffer and die truly in our place. It was him instead of us. Though he himself had no sin, he was still exposed to the full curse of sin. He gladly undertook all the sickness and leprosy connected with fallen man.

Thus it is no surprise that Jesus ignores the ceremonial law and social taboos, which strictly forbid touching lepers. Lepers must legally be shunned. But all the same, Jesus gives a gesture of pure tender compassion, reaching out and laying his hand on the decomposing flesh of the poor leper. It was probably gangrenous and as foul smelling as a corpse, but this was a lamb for whom Christ would die. He would cradle him in his arms like a mother with a precious infant. Like a hen gathers her chicks, our Lord laments over Jerusalem, so have I longed to wrap my wings around you, but you were unwilling.

This he says to the same ones who would soon torture and crucify him. So let us take comfort that none of us can rebelled against our Lord more than his grace abounds. All filth and unholiness in man rises as vomitous stink before the throne of the most high. Still he chooses to lower himself into the sewer and take our nature into himself. Touching a leper should disgust a Holy God more than anybody, yet his love is too great.

In love he made himself unclean. He allowed the guilt of all the world’s sin to be gouged onto his forehead. He submitted himself to have his back torn to shreds by shrapnel laden leather cords. Why? So that by his stripes we are healed. He let all punishment be laid upon him that we may be at peace. He was smitten by the Father…saying My God My God, why have you forsaken me?…that he might carry away our sorrows. He took our iniquity onto himself, that his righteousness may be given to us in exchange

In the body of this man Christ Jesus is the hope of the world. His words of law convict fallen man that this world and its pleasures are passing away. All of creation groans in travail as it is being choked by the cancer of sin. Yet into this creation comes God from on high to make all things new. That is his great gospel message. His resurrection from the dead publicly proclaims him to be the first fruit of a new creation, a world where there is no more crying, pain, or death.

This same Jesus was there when time began. With a word, he called all the universe into existence.For he spake, says the psalmist, and it came to be. He commanded and it stood firm. Now the Son of God is back in the world, recreating his perfect realm and fashioning a new eternal Kingdom, one ransomed soul at a time. Let there be light, he said on the first day. Be cleansed, he says to the leper in our Gospel reading.

In both cases, the words spoken by the Lord of Life bear in themselves the power to perform what they say. If the Son of Man declares you to be clean, you are. If he sets you free, you are free indeed. Each miraculous healing in scripture is a testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ has power over the forces of nature and the hordes of the evil one.

By his perfect life, horrible death, and glorious resurrection, he proclaims victory over sin, death, and the devil. He gives this victory, this new immortal nature, to each of us. United with Christ, we no longer “stink” to God. We are holy children in his sight whose prayers, purified by the Holy Spirit, rise before him as sweet incense.

In the same way, Jesus cleanses the leper… with a word. “Thy strong word,” says a modern Lutheran hymnist, “bespeaks us righteous”. Remember the second person healed in our text today was the servant of the centurion. He was paralyzed and helpless. He wasn’t even there. He did nothing to merit Jesus’ healing. So likewise, recall how powerless and weak is a quivering infant held over the Baptismal font. Through the conduit of a Pastor’s vocal cords, Jesus speaks the words, which make us clean and righteous.

“You are washed,” he says, “covered by my blood.” This is now my child to live beside me forever. “Only speak the word,” cries the Centurion, “and my servant will be healed.” What amazing insight this man has been given! He obviously knew that same Jesus Christ in whose presence we are served today. Jesus is here speaking words of life and deliverance through the pages of Holy Scripture.

All you lepers are cleansed in Baptism. He has forgiven your sins and taken your cursed guilt away from you as far as East is from West. To God, you are innocent, absolved.

+ Amen +

Salvation for Non-Lutherans

"Does the Lutheran church believe that non-Lutherans will NOT be allowed into heaven - Say for example Methodists who are follows and believers in Jesus Christ?"


Carter,

No! Thankfully salvation does not rest upon a church membership, logo, or title, but upon Christ and Him crucified. Those who know and believe this good news about who Jesus is and what he has done are equally forgiven, declared righteous and covered by the blood of Jesus.

In fact, the Lutheran understanding of salvation makes this point abundantly clear. We understand faith and new life in Christ as a completely free gift miraculously worked by God himself, the Holy Spirit, through means. Simply put, "God does it all".

How does he give us this grace? Through the "means of grace", that is, the Word and Sacraments. The Gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" whether this gospel in poured into our ears, projected into our eyes, trickled over our head and so forth. Simply put, "God does it through his word."

Now human beings all have a sinful nature which constantly distorts the promises of God and seeks all sorts of lies and idolatry. Wherever sinners get together, whether they wear a Lutheran, Methodist, or any other hat, there will be errors, rivalries, and schism. That is why we can be thankful that "God does it all, through the word, in spite of us".

Though on earth there are many denominations, creeds and splinter groups, ultimately there is still "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". Church unity is not a goal to be pursued, but a mystery to be confessed. A person may be sitting in a church hearing all sorts of false teachings and errors, but as long as the word of God is heard, read, and so forth, the Holy Spirit will be there working faith, life, and salvation.

Think of it in terms of input and output. The input of salvation is the same everywhere. God puts the Gospel into the hearts of all Christians by his means of grace. Spiritually, in the new man, everybody knows and trusts this truth perfectly.

The output varies from person to person, church to church. As long as we are alive on this earth, our sinful flesh and mind, the old man, will not be able to understand and confess the mystery of faith perfectly. Some outward public confessions of faith are very in line with Scripture. Some are less so. It is certainly a noble goal to try to formally align oneself with the most outwardly faithful creed. It is also good to avoid false teaching. But salvation does not hinge upon this. Salvation is built of the rock of Christ. Nothing in this world, not even our own selves, can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.

Blessings in Christ,
Pastor Harris

We're All Sacramental. Kind Of. Unless We're Not.

Pretty much every Christian church has Sacraments. And if a church has no sacraments, it rejects means of grace. That usually leads to a false dichotomy between spiritual and physical (*cough* Gnosticism *cough*).

33 year LCMS veteran Pr. Peters wrote an excellent piece on made up sacraments, and I would like to piggyback his thoughts and hit it from a different angle a bit. The blog is found here:

Made Up Sacraments  <<< READ THIS!!!

sac-ra-ment (noun)

Ecclesiastical . a visible sign of an inward grace, especially one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.

 

That's the definition we get from dictionary.com. According to that site, a sacrament either symbolizes grace or is a means of grace (confers it). I would argue strongly for the latter; that a sacrament is a means of grace, and that is why mainline evangelicalism will not call baptism and the Lord's Supper sacraments. Rather, they are termed as ordinances. An ordinance carries the force of a ceremony or rite, in a purely symbolic sense. No grace is conferred.

 

However, even in these mainline churches, they still have sacraments. They're just not the ones that Christ gave to us. So if baptism and the Lord's Supper aren't sacraments, but rather ordinances...what are the sacraments? More specifically, what are the means of grace in mainstream churches? Well, here are a few.

 

1. Prayer

 

Prayer becomes a form of transaction with God rather than an act of worship and thanksgiving. Prayer is a vital part of Christian life, but it's not something we do to get God to do our will.

 

2. Altar Calls

 

How many times have you seen an evangelical altar call where people walk the aisle and make a decision for Christ? This heterodox practice traces it's roots back to the Second Great Awakening and Pelagian teachers such as Charles Grandison Finney.

 

One big altar call

 

The altar call, sometimes referred to as the invitation, has become a staple of American Evangelicalism, especially in Baptist and Methodist churches. Sadly, nothing even remotely close to this is ever found in Scripture.

 

Know what else came out of the Second Great Awakening? Seventh-Day Adventism, The Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

 

3. The Sinner's Prayer

 

How often have you heard a pastor or evangelist lead people in the sinner's prayer? As someone who was a baptist for years, I heard it a lot. It was almost a given. We took it for granted. That is how one gets saved. You admit that you're a sinner and that you need a Savior, then ask Jesus into your heart. Or, as I have heard stated repeatedly lately (I don't know why, but I have), you "pray" Jesus into your heart.

The Sinner's Prayer: An Example

This is the big one. The evangelical sacrament if there ever was one.

 

The problem is, this is unbiblical at best. Where did any of the Apostle's ever lead a congregation in an altar call or the sinner's prayer in Scripture? You'll search in vain for it, because none of that is in there.

 

Yeah. It's sort of like this in some circles.

 

 

 

I could go on and on and perhaps name some more. I won't. The point is this: None of these things (well, prayer is) are Christian practices. People don't "get saved" by walking an aisle, coming forward to the altar, or praying a prayer asking Jesus into their heart. Only God's creative Word gives us grace that creates faith. Not our choice and not a memorized sinner's prayer that puts Christ in our heart.

 

Here is where someone will interject and say that the methods can change. No, you don't use an argument from methodology to justify unbiblical practices and pragmatism.

 

God did however give us His Word and Sacraments. According to Scripture, they are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In these, the Word is given to us. In preaching, the Word is given to us. In public reading of Scripture (or private), the Word is given to us.

 

Why did early American Evangelicalism decide to introduce these new methods into their churches? We could probably write a book on that (Such as Michael Horton's Made in America) but we'll keep it simple: Early 19th century American ideals revolved around the sovereignty of the individual and the power of the will (like the self-made man). Those ideals got imported right into faith and practice in Baptist and Methodist churches, and voila.

What is even more appalling is that generally these folks tend to say they stick to Scripture alone, then turn around and reject the sacraments and insert their own.

Now it was not about God giving Himself to us as a gift in Word and Sacrament, it was all about us appropriating it by an act of our will.

 

And sadly, this stuff is still going strong.

+Pax+

Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 3

I continue my response to Pr. Jordan (J.D.) Hall today. I am replying to a blog post he wrote over at the Pulpit and Pen site that was very condemning of paedobaptism and baptismal regeneration. The blog was written in response to my friend Tamara Blickhan's article that was published at The Examiner.

The original article that began this discussion, written by Tamara Blickhan, can be found here:

Baptism for the Christian: Rebaptism is not biblical

And Pr. Jordan (J.D.) Hall's response can be viewed here:

It's not "Re-Baptism": It's Baptism



Pr. J.D. Hall. Sweet hat.

I got a sweet hat too, yo! Plus Aviators. I win.

I responded to Pr. Jordan Hall's blog post yesterday, which is found here:

Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 1

And I responded again in part 2 here:

Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 2

Let's get to it.

Tamara Blickhan stated: "There is no recorded instance in the Bible where someone was rebaptized in the Trinitarian formula: in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Baptist must form the conclusion that rebaptism is biblical from a source other than the Bible or from the misunderstanding that a person must be saved by Jesus Christ first and that if they realize later that they were not truly saved, they should be rebaptized to obey what they consider to be a work to be done after regeneration."

Pr. J.D. Hall responded: "This is a hilarious claim for the paedobaptist to make, considering there’s no recorded instance in the Bible of babies, dogs, or aliens being baptized (and baptism does all of the above three the same good). The idolatry of ritual, in the author’s view, is so pervasive that even if the ordinance is not conducted in the name of the Thrice-Holy God it still counts as legitimate. Here, they separate the ordinance from the ordinance-maker, giving baptism the status of idolatry."



Bearing False Witness is in there.

This accusation actually makes no sense at all and should be retracted. As someone who was a Baptist for many years, I can attest to the fact that Tamara is correct. I know numerous people who have had multiple believer's baptisms, because they weren't really saved the first couple times.

Regarding Pr. Hall's response, it's flat out untrue. It's bullcrap. More seriously, it's bearing false witness. The author, Tamara Blickhan, does not accept Baptisms that are made in another manner than in the Name of the Triune God. I have no idea what is prompting these statements. A non-Trinitarian Baptism is not legitimate. Period. Lutherans universally believe that.


The final statement here is not true either. I would hope that a pastor would know the stance of Lutheranism before going off on an online rant "refuting" it. I sort of see what he is trying to say here when he states "Here, they separate the ordinance from the ordinance-maker, giving baptism the status of idolatry." But in reality, the opposite is the truth. Baptism is only effacious precisely because it delivers the Word of God objectively to a person. This is why we are baptised in the Name of the Triune God. It's water that has power and it's not empty ritual. It's the Word of God being directly given by means of water. It's the Word that gives Baptism its power, not the water.

His non-Sacramental theology rears its ugly head throughout his blog post, but here it is paramount. As a friend of mine stated,

"It's amazing how people can reject the efficacy of the sacraments due to human involvement in administration. This thinking would reject the office of preaching and violate Romans 10. Jesus' baptism by John would be rejected and God sending the Holy Spirit would be a mistake on His part. The Crucifixion would be rejected because the Jews by "wicked hands" took and slew Him.

The aforementioned instances were Divine works in spite of human agency, and even the Crucifixion was done by man according to God's eternal foreknowledge and decree, and it is this very act which takes away the sin of the world. The anti-sacrament logic actually nullifies the Atonement." ~Steven E. Anderson

Pr. Hall continues, "Once again, the Baptist does not believe in rebaptism, because this water-pouring ritual perpetrated upon unwilling recipients isn’t baptism."

As I argued in Part 2, this is attacking a strawman. On what basis does he assert that infants are  unwilling? The only thing I can think of is that his theology, despite being Calvinistic, comes back around to positive choice for Christ as opposed to Christ giving Himself to us via objective means.

Pr. Hall continues, "To be clear, the Bible’s stance against so-called “infant baptism” has nothing to do with the age of the recipient. The prohibition against baptizing infants is because they happen to be in the same number as many of the lost, unconverted, unwilling heathen of the world that need to first hear, receive and embrace the Gospel before following Christ into discipleship and being called “Christian.”"

Which is why we baptise infants. He has pointed out the major crux of the issue within this statement. Infants are sinners that need to be saved as well. The problem is, he also argues that infants can't believe, repent, or have faith. Where does this leave Pr. Hall? I posit that it leaves him at one of two places.

A. Universal infant damnation, or

B. Pelagian doctrine of Age of Accountability that rejects Original Sin.

He correctly points out that infants are born sinners and are in the same state as the heathen. He has no solution beyond this. I am sure at this juncture he will fall back on the doctrine of election and God's infinite wisdom and assert that perhaps all infants who die in infancy are elect or that at least some of them are.

However, Scripture never tells us these things. In fact, the only way of salvation that Scripture gives us is by grace through faith. If another one is inserted, one is adding to the words of Holy Scripture. Once you deny that infants can have faith, you have shut the Kingdom of Heaven to them.

Praise be to God, He gives faith as a gift to whomever He will. Also, He does this objectively through specific means of grace. Baptism is clearly one of these means of grace, especially if St. Paul and St. Peter in the didactic epistles have their say. Baptism saves (1Pe 3:21), it buries us and unites us to Christ (Rom 6:3-4), it raises us in faith (Col 2:11-12). Only grace can do this. Baptism must be gracious. It's Gospel for you. Objectively.

It's really pretty simple. Why do we baptise infants? They need it. They're part of Adam's condemned race and are sinful and need to be saved.

He continues, "How terrible it is to tell so many lost people that they’ve been born again because water has touched the tip of their head!"

What's not terrible is telling people that God objectively claimed them via His Word of promise given specifically to them in their Baptism. They are, after all, baptised into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mat 28:18-20). It bears repeating: It's the Word of God that gives Baptism power.

And finally, "This is why, at my Baptist church, we rejoice when folks whose parents forced them against their unconverted will to take part in a water ritual, make the decision to, for the first time in their life, be baptized."

He wraps up the blog with the same old strawman. And then in doing so, violates clear Scripture. One baptism. To re-baptise a person is to question the promise of God given to that person in their first, and only legitimate, baptism. And that is not a place any Christian wants to be, for God's Word is light and truth.

There are a lot more comments to be responded to regarding things Pr. Hall has said in the comments section on his blog. I don't think I will be dealing with them. There are very able Lutheran participants in that discussion right now. Hence, I shall be finished.

+Pax+

Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 2

I continue my response to Pr. Jordan (J.D.) Hall today. I am replying to a blog post he wrote over at the Pulpit and Pen site that was very condemning of paedobaptism and baptismal regeneration. The blog was written in response to my friend Tamara Blickhan's article that was published at The Examiner.

The original article that began this discussion, written by Tamara Blickhan, can be found here:

Baptism for the Christian: Rebaptism is not biblical

And Pr. Jordan (J.D.) Hall's response can be viewed here:

It's not "Re-Baptism": It's Baptism

I responded to Pr. Jordan Hall's blog post yesterday, which is found here:

Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 1

I didn't get too far into Pr. J.D. Hall's post yesterday. So, here comes part 2!

Pr. J.D. Hall states: "There’s a reason that credobaptists believe that baptism is only applicable (IE should only be applied) to those who understand the Gospel. It is because only those who have heard, understood, and received (their is no receiving without understanding) the Gospel to the point of repentance should be baptized."

This is of course the standard Baptist position on baptism. The problem with this interpretation is that it runs headlong into the Didactic Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter. Pr. Hall and all other Baptist believers assert that baptism is a sign of something that already has occurred within a person. St. Paul gives us numerous Baptism passages in the New Testament. We can start with Romans 6:3-4 and then move on to passages such as Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:11-12. The problem that Baptists have here is that all of these passages say plainly that Baptism actually does something. In Romans 6, it buries us with Christ and unites us to Him. In Colossians 2:11-12, St. Paul repeats the same thing and then goes even further, claiming that Baptism raises us in faith.



My Daughter! Water and the Spirit!

Of course, then we go back to the whole bifurcation of Baptism that Baptist theology erects; creating two Baptisms instead of one, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 4:5. This might sound silly, but what is to stop a person from claiming two Lords and two faiths as well? The truth of the matter is, there is one Baptism and that one Baptism has both water and the Spirit. They're not two separate Baptisms.


We respond of course that Baptism actually gives what Scripture says it gives, and actually does what Scripture says it does. To say that it is just an outward act of worship or discipleship flies in the face of the Didactic epistles.

Pr. Hall continues: "It is for this reasons that paedobaptists must resort to hermeneutic absurdities to claim the command to coerce unwilling recipients to receive the ordinance by force (for that is precisely what infant baptism is) is biblical. As they turn to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), for example, to insist that our command to disciple and then baptize the nations is a command to baptize infants, they fall squarely away from reason. Unconverted heathen are in the nations. Are we to baptize them against their will and prior to their conversion? Muslims are in the nations. Are we to baptize them against their will and prior to their conversion? Or clearly, are we to preach the Gospel, disciple, and baptize those who have placed their trust in Christ?"

This is a very sloppy argument. In effect, Pr. Hall is attacking a strawman here to refute infant baptism. When he states that we logically should be baptising unconverted heathen against their will we respond that no, of course we should not be baptising unconverted heathen. But here is precisely where his argument breaks down. Are we actually baptising newborn infants against their will? No, we are not. We're baptising a sinner who needs grace. Infants are naturally more "givable to" than adults. This is another place where his thought falls apart. Pr. Hall infers that cognitive ability and the human will are actually helps to the person and not hinderances. This is a brutal mistake. The more developed the intellect gets, the more of an obstacle it is. Why? It's sinful, that's why.

To say that an infant is unwilling is a strawman at best. And once again we see here that in Baptist theology it's all about positive choice and proclamation and not about God giving through His means of grace. I can already hear the howls of protest, and indeed Pr. Hall himself takes umbrage with this train of thought, but how far off is it? I mean, am I missing something?

Tamara Blickhan writes: "The article from the Southern Baptist Convention website, How to Become a Christian, states: “As soon as you have decided to receive Christ into your life, you can and should be baptized.” This statement explains the position: you decide to become a Christian (not monergistic) and you then are allowed to be baptized."

Pastor J.D. Hall responds: "Here’s where I take real exception. The Baptist believes (at least, let me speak for my Reformed Baptist brethren who hold to our confessions) that when one “decides” to become a Christian (a terrible way to phrase it, granted) it has been a work done in them solely by the Holy Spirit. That is very, very Monergistic. We believe that God works in us both to will and to do (Philippians 2:13). Sadly, some in the SBC have become decisional-regenerationists, which is as much a damnable teaching as baptismal-regeneration."

Baptismal Regeneration? Say it aint so!

I am truly glad that Pr. Hall rejects the foolish doctrine of decisional regeneration. Here we run into differences in theology, plain and simple. The Baptist of the Calvinistic stripe ultimately rejects means of grace altogether and asserts that if God uses the natural world to save the natural world (baptism, preaching, etc.) then it's not monergism. That is to say, the Holy Spirit must operate apart from those means and not through those means.

I'm happy they want to uphold monergistic regeneration here, but really, this is a completely different form of monergism that Scripture teaches and actually trends towards Gnostic thought in the separation of the spiritual reality from the natural means. At the very least, it's heavily influenced by Platonism. The irony of the whole thing is, infant baptism is actually the quintessential example of monergism. The flesh hates infant baptism because it violates the infant's right to choose. It boggles my mind how any monergist would have a problem with baptismal regeneration.

Pastor Hall then says: "Let me throw this back at the paedobaptist author of the aforementioned paragraph…one who believes people are saved (to be technical, made regenerate) by pouring water on the head (which, of course, is so not baptism anyway) without their consent and at the hands of priest, pastor or parent has to suffer from cognitive dissonance to call that position “Monergistic.” While it is true that the child him or herself didn’t have anything to do with their own salvation (or to be technical, regeneration), certainly God had Synergistic partners in the whole endeavor, chiefly the hands that pour water upon the head of the unwilling participant. Of all things, that is not Monergistic."

No, Pr. Hall, you reject means of grace and the office of the ministry. That's what causes you to make these claims. The root issue that Pr. Hall has here is that to him, monergism means completely random regeneration via an effectual inward call apart from natural means through which God does this. Christ instituted an office of the ministry. It began with the Apostles and goes right on through the ages up to pastors today. They do Christ's work through means.

"The article then goes on to assert that even if one had water poured or sprinkled upon them (once again, that’s not baptism) in the pagan Roman Catholic church they need not be “baptized” again."

Well, no, they don't need to be baptised again. Think with me for a second here. Does the Roman Catholic Church affirm the Trinity and baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? The answer is clearly yes, they do.

Likewise, does a Baptism depend on the personal piety of the priest or pastor administering it? I really hope not. What if Pr. Hall is unregenerate? Wouldn't that mean that every person he has baptised were illegitimate baptisms based on Pr. Hall being a heathen?

Hence, baptism cannot possibly depend on personal piety. It depends solely on God's Word and promise. You know, like the Gospel does. It's GOD'S Word. It's GOD'S promise. The regenerate state of the person administering matters not.

And come to think of it, how many Baptist pastors can claim that they know with certainty that every person they have ever baptised is saved? I assert that none can. The pastor can hear an outward profession and make a judgment call, but he cannot say with certainty the person is saved, especially if everything depends on inward condition and not on Christ and His objective works given to us in time.

Pastor Hall then fires off a typical evangelical whopper. When in doubt, call them Catholics! "As I’ve said for some time, the move to confessional Lutheranism, for many, is just a rest stop on the way to Rome. How far Lutheranism has come, that some consider a rite administered in what they’ve confessed to be an unchristian church now accounts for Christian baptism. When Lutherans feels themselves closer with pagan Catholicism than evangelicalism, this unfortunate papal slide continues."

I mean, do I even need to answer this? And yeah, we are Catholic, just not Roman.

I guess I'm going to have to go three blogs deep on this one. Until then...

+Pax+

Baptism Wars! Response to Pr. J.D. Hall - Part 1

Recently there was a scathing response written to an article one of my friends wrote that I thought was sloppily done at best. Hopefully, I can show why some of the author's arguments and statements fall short of making any actual headway in this discussion.



Pr. Jonathan Fisk of Worldview Everlasting

The article that my good friend, Tamara Blickhan, wrote can be found over at the Examiner site. Here is the link:

Baptism for the Christian: Rebaptism is not biblical

The response, coming from Baptist pastor, Jordan Hall (from here on referred to as Pr. J.D. Hall – a contributing writer of Pulpit & Pen), can be found here:

It's Not “Rebaptism,”: it's Baptism

Let it be said from the outset that the differences between Lutherans and every stripe of Baptists are too great to put the two groups in communion together this side of heaven. Therefore, these discussions, debates, and disagreements will continue to carry on through the ages. But, they're important to have because baptism is quite a large topic in the Christian faith.


The other thing that can be said is that this topic is far more touchy and important for Lutherans than it is for Baptists. Please don't misunderstand me here. I am not saying that baptism is not important to Baptists. What I am saying is that in Lutheranism, Baptism actually accomplishes a salvific role, whereas in Baptist theology, it is a memorial of an already inward condition. So, this is not a case of me sticking my Lutheran “triumphal nose in the air” at all. It's an acknowledgement of what the theologies teach and to show how diametrically opposed they are to one another.

Lutherans have a "higher" view of baptism that Baptists, for lack of a better term. It's more important and does something for you in Lutheranism. The correlation here is simple: if a topic is higher up on the list, it's bound to be more important. We say (as does the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:21) that baptism saves. That's a huge deal. Baptists say it's an act of obedience or an act of worship done by the already regenerate believer. That's less of a big deal, therefore, a lower view of the doctrine.

So, the reader has to understand from the outset that we, as Lutherans, will go after the Baptist stance on baptism quite often. Why? Because we believe that Baptist parents are denying an objective means of grace to their children. In short, they refuse to administer the Word of God to the child via Baptism. This is denying the Gospel to their kids. That's a big deal. A massively huge deal.

Baptists are far less likely to go after the Lutheran stance on Baptism because, to them, everything revolves around a converted will which involves a certain cognitive ability. The Bible is clear that we don’t make a decision to be saved; it is all of grace. John 1 explains: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

So they scoff at us baptizing our infants, but in the end, it's really not a big deal since the child is either covered under grace due to the Baptist doctrine of the Age of Accountability (Pelagian doctrine) or the child simply needs to be brought to faith later in life by God's hidden monergistic grace alone (Reformed Baptist). In either case, everything in Baptist theology regarding Baptism revolves around an advanced cognitive ability which an infant does not have (or the mentally infirm for that matter) and a converted will.

I will follow the order of Pr. J.D. Hall's blog as I respond.

Pastor J.D. Hall (JDH) began his article responding to a comment on the article Tamara Blickhan (TB) wrote.

Tamara Blickhan says: "The controversy over whether a Christian should be rebaptized if the person has already been baptized in one church or another denomination is cleared up using Christian creeds and confessions that explain the Bible about this doctrine of Baptism." (TB)

Hall responds: "A broad generalization, indeed. First, the Christian creeds commonly used to define orthodoxy (the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed) are silent on the issue." (JDH)

OK, let's get started. If Pr. J.D. Hall wants to call the first statement a "broad generalization," fine. I can live with that. That being said, when Lutherans speak of the "Creeds," we are speaking specifically about the three major ecumenical creeds that Pr. J.D. Hall has rightly identified. However, what he says about them and baptism is unfortunately incorrect.

He may want to read the Nicene Creed again. Near the conclusion of it, the creed states: "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins." The wording of the Nicene Creed is quite clear. There is one baptism for the remission of sins.

Here is the Baptist's problem with that statement: first, they reject that baptism remits sin. Secondly, if baptism does remit sin and the Baptist definition of what baptism is errs, then the Baptist, against his will, actually teaches works righteousness. To be clear: If baptism is an act of the believer done as worship or obedience to God, and baptism actually remits (or forgives which is the same thing) sin, then the conclusion is inescapable. Sin is remitted by us doing something for God. That's quite a problem for the Baptist since they reject all forms of works-righteousness and rightly so.

Ah! But what about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? That's generally the Baptist response here. They simply (re) interpret the Nicene Creed to be talking about Spirit baptism. Well, that's not entirely incorrect, to be honest, since it is only the Spirit of God who regenerates.

So, their problem lies not in claiming Spirit baptism, but in separating Spirit and water into two baptisms. Scripture is replete with references to water and the Holy Spirit being together in one baptism.

First, can we all at least acknowledge that there is one baptism? St. Paul says there is in Ephesians 4:5, which reads: "one Lord, one faith, one Baptism." There are not two baptisms any more than there are two Lords or two faiths. And per the Nicene Creed, it is this one Baptism that remits sins. It's fallacious to separate into multiple baptisms. Scripture never does. A Baptism is a washing with water that contains water and the Spirit. Without water and the Spirit together, it is not a baptism at all.

I'm not going to put all the Scriptures word-for-word on here, but I will give references where water and Spirit are linked, and inextricably so. John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Matthew 3:13-17 (Mark 1:10), Titus 3:5, 1John 5:6-8. That's a short list, not exhaustive.

Tamara Blickhan continues: "The question only comes to us from Baptists because of their belief about what baptism is. The Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other paedobaptist Christian bodies believe that baptism is the work of God and should only be done once in a lifetime." (TB)

To which Pr. J.D. Hall responds: "One must wonder why this ‘work of God’ has to be done by the hands of men upon unwilling and unregenerate recipients, which is what every infant who receives this libation ritual is." (JBH)

Pr. Hall has really dug himself deep here. I see two major theological problems with his statement.

First, I have to wonder if Pr. J.D. Hall is a Gnostic. I am sure he denies such a thing, but hear me out on this. The beginning of his statement is an outright denial of any means of grace whatsoever. This is to say, in essence, the pastor is rejecting that God uses the natural world to save the natural world. I mean, he would turn right around and say that God uses Gospel preaching as a vehicle to save the unregenerate right? I think he probably would. Or else, if he is a Hyper Calvinist, perhaps he would argue that the Spirit works completely apart from means and regenerates people sovereignly and independently with no means whatsoever.

If the first case is true, then he affirms natural means of grace and his argument is specifically with baptism and he worded his argument very poorly. Baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is no more a work done by the hands of men than preaching the Gospel is. Now I might be stupid, but I know a little bit about Physics (I have a B.A. in Physics).

When the preacher preaches, what we are hearing audibly is sound waves. That's natural. So, if God can give us sound waves to save the natural world, why can't He use water as well? How about bread and wine? If he rejects natural means altogether, he’s got a bigger problem: namely, Jesus. Jesus is a man, right? He was crucified in the flesh, right? I know with certainty that the pastor would not reject the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ. That belief would be utterly Gnostic and far outside of the Christian faith.

Second, Pr. J.D. Hall just condemned every infant to hell. I don't think anybody believes that. He plainly states that every infant who receives this "libation ritual" (baptism) is unwilling and unregenerate.

Well, let's be clear: unregenerate people are not saved people. Grace saves us and grace regenerates us. I hope the man would at least agree on that. He plainly states that infants are unwilling and unregenerate. I assume that due to his Baptist theology, this is precisely because they are incapable of such.

The standard Baptist doctrine here to get around this is called the Age of Accountability, which ultimately denies Original Sin. Pr. J.D. Hall is not Pelagian, so it's completely inconsistent and silly to embrace the unbiblical dogma of the Age of Accountability. I won't say much more about that, because once upon a time, I said a lot about it. The blog can be found here:

Age of Accountability

As much as the pastor wants to label himself a Reformed Baptist, he's actually defaulting to conversion of the will here (which is against Scripture – see the first chapter of the book of John) and spoken profession, which can only be made by those who have developed their cognitive ability to a certain point. He robs from Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.

As a Reformed Baptist, Pr. J.D. Hall is a Calvinistic man. He would affirm, with the Lutherans, that it is the Spirit who regenerates and that faith itself is God's gift, and no matter how much cognitive ability a person has, nobody is capable of faith in Christ barring a regeneration wrought by God alone.

Do pray tell, why are infants excluded from this? The only answer is that they cannot understand it. They cannot use their brains like this pastor has in order to respond to the gospel, yet faith doesn’t equate perfectly to understanding, but rather to trust in Christ. And that is given by God. Thus, in his theology, he has actually inserted a salvation by knowledge scheme to an extent where God only gives faith to those who have the necessary cognitive ability to receive the gift. In other words, there has to be a clear decision made by the person, or at the very least, a clear ability to understand before God gives His gift. This is synergistic. We'll call it a happy inconsistency.

Look for part 2, I'll have it up soon!

+Pax+

Christians are Hypocrites

Darn right we are. We're no better than anyone else.

Wait a second. What did that just say? OK, allow me to spell it out for you. Christians are hypocrites. Yes, yes, yes we are. One of the most common accusations thrown at Christians is that we are hypocrites. And it's true. We are.



You Church People...

The problems are many in this discussion, but I suppose, since I decided to write a blog on it, I'll give some reasoning.


Yeah, like...everyone there.


First, Christianity is not a self-help program. Jesus is not something we add on to our life to improve ourselves. Much less, He is not an addition so that we can stand in the judgment seat and let everyone know how much better we are than them.

Second, Christianity is not moralism. This one is closely correlated to the previous one, but it needs to be said. Christianity is not about us being morally better. Does this mean that we do not desire to please God? Well, no. Does this mean that we accept sin as acceptable behavior? Well, no again. But then,we're every bit as sinful as anyone and everyone else.

Yep, all the time.

Thirdly, those outside the church see right through us. They should though, right? I mean, it's not like non-Christians are stupid. Lots of brilliant people in history have been non-Christians. So, being a Christian or not has nothing to do with intelligence. The problem here is that the world, just like many within the church, think church is about being better and improving yourself. So then when we aren't better, we get labeled as hypocrites, and the non-church people, who are just as sinful, get labeled as being more open, honest, and real. Sometimes it's because they reject that their sin is actually sin. That is most common. Other times it's simply because they're not "religious."

So then, what is the problem? Well, people have a completely incorrect view of what church is. Church people aren't better. And if they claim to be, they too have missed the point. We need the church precisely because we are not better and God judges by a perfect standard. More precisely, we need Jesus Christ. Not just church people, but everyone. He is also love and would have all people to be saved (1Tim 2:1-7).

Church is not a place to go to make yourself better. It's actually quite the opposite. It's a place to go to receive forgiveness of sins because you are not better and you know it. Because you ARE a hypocrite, you need to be forgiven. What we need is the Gospel! Self-improvement is not the good news if the standard is perfection and we cannot ever live up to that.

The world has missed the point too, or else they would be there as well. Many people within the church, as well as our culture at-large, don't know what the church is for.

It's not a self-help institution. It's not a place to get morally better.

It's a hospital for you, precisely because you're not morally perfect and never can be. We need grace and so does everyone else in this world.

+ Soli Deo Gloria +