“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that forgiveness of sins is contingent upon repentance and/or baptism. Obviously, this is Pelagian and/or Catholic.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that forgiveness of sins is granted in justification, which is received by faith alone. Thus, forgiveness comes through faith alone. Neither baptism nor repentance has anything to do with forgiveness. In no way are they connected to forgiveness.
Repentance is highly recommended but also highly optional. Remember that repentance is a work. Hence, those who say that repentance is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that you must do a work in order to merit forgiveness. Obviously, this is the essence of Pelagianism.
Baptism is a beautiful picture of the forgiveness of sins and a wonderful experience. However, in order for salvation to be absolutely free, baptism must be absolutely optional. In no way is forgiveness of sins dependent on baptism. Those who say that baptism is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that baptism triggers forgiveness. This inevitably leads to the old heresy of baptismal regeneration, which is the calling card of Roman Catholicism.
Federal Visionists make the elementary mistake of forgetting that John the Baptist was an Old Covenant prophet. As the Old Covenant was simply a re-publication of the Covenant of Works, the Baptist’s message was blatantly Pelagian and proto-Tridentine. That’s what the Covenant of Works was!
Thus, John could make outlandish Pelagian statements because he was in a different dispensation. Thankfully, Jesus ushered in an entirely different dispensation, with an entirely different covenant (NC/CoG), and an entirely different message (JBFA). Praise God for discontinuity!
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Friday, April 4, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Ephesians 4:4-5
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4-5).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is saying that there is only one baptism, that is, that water baptism and spirit baptism are identical. Or, as one Light-hearted Federal Visionist often says, “baptism is baptism.” Obviously, this is a regurgitation of the Roman Catholic heresy of baptismal regeneration.
The Reformed faith has always held that there are two baptisms: water baptism and Spirit baptism. Spirit baptism is where the action is: regeneration, union with Christ, Covenant of Grace Membership, Invisible Church Membership, etc. Water baptism is where you get wet in front of the church.
Anyone should be able to see the clear difference between these two kinds of baptism. The failure to distinguish water baptism from spirit baptism means that you have exited the Reformed freeway and are now on the Roman road, ecclesially speaking.
One of the great things about the current Anti-Federal Visionist reign of terror is that it unites all Christians under the label “Reformed,” including Baptists (as long as you are willing to be called a “Reformed Baptist”). This is because baptism has nothing to do with being Reformed. Thus, a Reformed Baptist is just as Reformed as a Presbyterian. There’s no difference!
Sure, there are superficial differences in their practice of baptism: Reformed Baptists use a lot of water whereas Presbyterians only use a little. Presbyterians baptize babies whereas Reformed Baptists only baptize the elect.
While their practices differ, their doctrines of baptism are virtually identical, separated mostly by semantics. Presbyterians sometimes talk about baptism as a “means of grace,” but after thoroughly qualifying this, they are on the same ground as Reformed Baptists.
Thus, the key to being Reformed is whether you are a Tulipist or not. (Side note: we hesitate to say Calvinist because Calvin’s view of baptism may have been proto-FV. We’re not sure because we don’t bother reading primary sources anymore. Better to site Reformed scholars like Kuyper and Ryrie).
In summary, to be Reformed, you only have to believe in TULIP. That’s it! Everyone who is Tulipistic is Reformed. Here’s an easy tautology to remember this:
Reformed = TULIP
Getting back to the task at hand, what Paul means by “one baptism” is that there is one real baptism or one genuine baptism, which is, of course, Spirit baptism. While water baptism is probably important for some reason, Spirit baptism is the only one that really counts.
(See here for how to circumvent the obviously-Tridentine language of the Nicene Creed.)
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is saying that there is only one baptism, that is, that water baptism and spirit baptism are identical. Or, as one Light-hearted Federal Visionist often says, “baptism is baptism.” Obviously, this is a regurgitation of the Roman Catholic heresy of baptismal regeneration.
The Reformed faith has always held that there are two baptisms: water baptism and Spirit baptism. Spirit baptism is where the action is: regeneration, union with Christ, Covenant of Grace Membership, Invisible Church Membership, etc. Water baptism is where you get wet in front of the church.
Anyone should be able to see the clear difference between these two kinds of baptism. The failure to distinguish water baptism from spirit baptism means that you have exited the Reformed freeway and are now on the Roman road, ecclesially speaking.
One of the great things about the current Anti-Federal Visionist reign of terror is that it unites all Christians under the label “Reformed,” including Baptists (as long as you are willing to be called a “Reformed Baptist”). This is because baptism has nothing to do with being Reformed. Thus, a Reformed Baptist is just as Reformed as a Presbyterian. There’s no difference!
Sure, there are superficial differences in their practice of baptism: Reformed Baptists use a lot of water whereas Presbyterians only use a little. Presbyterians baptize babies whereas Reformed Baptists only baptize the elect.
While their practices differ, their doctrines of baptism are virtually identical, separated mostly by semantics. Presbyterians sometimes talk about baptism as a “means of grace,” but after thoroughly qualifying this, they are on the same ground as Reformed Baptists.
Thus, the key to being Reformed is whether you are a Tulipist or not. (Side note: we hesitate to say Calvinist because Calvin’s view of baptism may have been proto-FV. We’re not sure because we don’t bother reading primary sources anymore. Better to site Reformed scholars like Kuyper and Ryrie).
In summary, to be Reformed, you only have to believe in TULIP. That’s it! Everyone who is Tulipistic is Reformed. Here’s an easy tautology to remember this:
Reformed = TULIP
Getting back to the task at hand, what Paul means by “one baptism” is that there is one real baptism or one genuine baptism, which is, of course, Spirit baptism. While water baptism is probably important for some reason, Spirit baptism is the only one that really counts.
(See here for how to circumvent the obviously-Tridentine language of the Nicene Creed.)
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Acts 2:38
“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:38).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance and/or baptism is somehow linked with the forgiveness of sins. However, there is no reason to take this verse with such wooden literalism.
As we have described earlier, the Reformed faith has always insisted that, in justification, we receive the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s passive obedience, and we receive the righteousness of Christ through Christ’s active obedience. This justification is received by faith alone.
Thus, neither repentance nor baptism have anything to do with justification or the forgiveness of sins. In no way is Peter establishing a cause and effect between repentance and forgiveness of sins (which is legalism) or between baptism and forgiveness of sins (which is baptismal regeneration).
Unfortunately, this verse has made its way into the Nicene Creed in the line, “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” This poses a problem because no who is truly Reformed can confess this as it stands. Several options have been suggested:
1) Some churches do not use the Nicene Creed at all. This is certainly a viable option. After all, the Nicene Creed lacks any mention of justification by faith alone, which is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Thus, the Nicene Creed is rather unimportant historically.
2) Other churches drop this line, which is another option. Certainly, no non-Reformed Confession is inerrant.
3) Many churches insert an asterisk (*) with a disclaimer saying, “we don’t really believe this.”
4) One new trend is to slightly alter the wording to make the creed orthodox. Here are some examples:
· “We don’t acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
· “We acknowledge one baptism, but for the remission of sins, faith alone is required.”
· “Heretics acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance and/or baptism is somehow linked with the forgiveness of sins. However, there is no reason to take this verse with such wooden literalism.
As we have described earlier, the Reformed faith has always insisted that, in justification, we receive the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s passive obedience, and we receive the righteousness of Christ through Christ’s active obedience. This justification is received by faith alone.
Thus, neither repentance nor baptism have anything to do with justification or the forgiveness of sins. In no way is Peter establishing a cause and effect between repentance and forgiveness of sins (which is legalism) or between baptism and forgiveness of sins (which is baptismal regeneration).
Unfortunately, this verse has made its way into the Nicene Creed in the line, “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” This poses a problem because no who is truly Reformed can confess this as it stands. Several options have been suggested:
1) Some churches do not use the Nicene Creed at all. This is certainly a viable option. After all, the Nicene Creed lacks any mention of justification by faith alone, which is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Thus, the Nicene Creed is rather unimportant historically.
2) Other churches drop this line, which is another option. Certainly, no non-Reformed Confession is inerrant.
3) Many churches insert an asterisk (*) with a disclaimer saying, “we don’t really believe this.”
4) One new trend is to slightly alter the wording to make the creed orthodox. Here are some examples:
· “We don’t acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
· “We acknowledge one baptism, but for the remission of sins, faith alone is required.”
· “Heretics acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Friday, January 4, 2008
1 Peter 3:21
"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21).
Federal Visionists love this verse because Peter says, “baptism now saves you.” By wrenching such statements out of context, this brings them into union with Rome regarding baptismal regeneration.
The Reformed faith has always taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). Baptism is no way saves us. Had Peter known how the Federal Visionists would pervert his statement, he surely would have phrased this differently.
If Peter really meant to say that baptism now saves us, what he meant was that Spirit baptism now saves. When an elect person is regenerated, he is also baptized in the Spirit. This kind of baptism saves us.
While this should be abundantly clear, it is best to far away from any language that sounds remotely Roman, such as "baptism now saves you." It is better to stick with the time-honored solas.
Federal Visionists love this verse because Peter says, “baptism now saves you.” By wrenching such statements out of context, this brings them into union with Rome regarding baptismal regeneration.
The Reformed faith has always taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). Baptism is no way saves us. Had Peter known how the Federal Visionists would pervert his statement, he surely would have phrased this differently.
If Peter really meant to say that baptism now saves us, what he meant was that Spirit baptism now saves. When an elect person is regenerated, he is also baptized in the Spirit. This kind of baptism saves us.
While this should be abundantly clear, it is best to far away from any language that sounds remotely Roman, such as "baptism now saves you." It is better to stick with the time-honored solas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)