I recently listened to lecture on the duty of unity in the church. It was by Doug Wilson and some of you may have listened to it as well at some point. He makes the comment that denominations are nothing more than sin institutionalized. Christ calls us to be like minded...we create edifices to our disobedience via the denominational system. His argument is that it is our duty to collectively confess this sin as a church and seek a real and visible (i.e. organizational unity) unity in addition to the spiritual unity that everyone already claims. This unity must allow for doctrinal disagreement at some level but only in terms of working towards likeness of mind. Now for the question...Wilson goes on to state that we do not have a responsibility to seek such union with Catholics as they have summarily denied the gospel many times, most notably at the council of trent. Based on my understanding of Catholic Theology I resoundingly disagree. I believe that Catholics believe in the triune God, hold Christ as their savior, and believe in justification by faith alone (although there are interesting distinctions here). They do believe that we are saved by works but also ardently affirm that those good works are wholly due to the grace of God. Take for instance this statement from the council of Trent: Canon I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teachig of human nature, or that of the law without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
So are Catholics to be sought out as part of this new unity or not? Are they apostate or not? Is organizational unity among protestants necessary or is spiritual unity sufficient?
45 comments:
Great question! It is related, in essence somewhat, to my own. I have very strong feelings myself here because almost all of my medical school friends attend East Cooper Baptist. I would not be able to attend this Church because I desire to have my children baptized. I really want to be in unity with these Christian brothers and sisters, but this is one area where I cannot compromise.
More to come.....
I have to disagree on just about all accounts. First of all, regardless of what the Trent whatever says, the Catholic Church is not a Bible believing church. They stripped out some of the commandments, they've added to the Bible to bolster their claims, they don't believe in Jesus being our High Priest, they believe in works based salvation (I dont care what Trent says, their actions speak much louder), etc. I could find much more on this but I dont have time to do the research right now.
Secondly, while non-denominational churches exist and some are great churches, I do not believe you can label denominational churches as being institutionalized sinners. You just can't make that case biblically...at all.
For the sake of unity on this board, I won't say what I think about Doug Wilson, just make sure you search in the Bible for anything he says.
I think there is a good point here. We are all reading the same perfect word of God, so why are there so many different interpretations about what it has to say? I don't think that the countless denominations present in todays world are a product of God's approval in multiple denominations as much as they are a reflection of our human nature. No one (not even anyone on this blog) can claim to know exactly what everything in the Bible means. For a case in point see the post below referring to Genesis 1 and 2. One thing that cant be denied is that God is this the one true God and he sent His Son to die on the cross to save us. That and only that is what gets us into heaven and there is no room for debate in this area. However, based on the fact that none of us are intellectual equals with the One who wrote the book, none of us will every be able to claim to know exactly what it means. A natural result of this is denominations. They are nothing new and I cannot imagine them going away any time soon.
John, does anything prevent you from having your children baptized somewhere like your home church? Don't get me wrong, it is important to join a church but you are not going to agree with everything at any church. If you feel like ECB is a place where your family can grow in Christ than maybe that is the place you should be. Who knows, maybe you will come to accept our beliefs about believers baptism. It is a truly special thing to see a young person at church stand up in front of everyone and say "I am a believer" and see them baptized out of a choice they have made to follow Jesus.
The Catholic Church is not a Bible Believing Church...
Not true. We disagree on the Canon of Scripture. This is a very different disagreement than one with say the mormons because they consider their book of mormon as having more authority than scripture.
As to your specific list of wrongs I would be interested to look further into these via specific examples. Let me give a list that Catholics might throw at us: They have truncated the canon of scripture, regard Church history and tradition as worthless (while ignorantly affirming a canon of scripture that was given to them after all via tradition and councils), and have no thought for the unity of the bride of Christ.
I don't care what Trent says, their actions speak much louder...
I think this is a key element in this whole thing. We cannot base our disagreements on the workings out of specific policies but on the policies themselves. The doctrine of predestination can cause presumption, laziness, and arrogance if improperly applied. That does not mean it is incorrect only misapplied. It is precisely the doctrine and policies of a church that matter not how laxly they are applied.
Denomiations/non-denominations: It is a point of fact that there is no such thing as non-denominational church. They may be a very small denomination (made up of only themselves) or they may be part of a larger group of non-denominational churches but they are by definition named/denominated and therefore qualify as a denomination. Secondly, I would challenge you to read Phil 2:2, John 17:23, Rom 15:5, Eph 4:3, Col. 3:14 etc. All of these urge unity within the body of christ. Interpreted in the light of Phil 2:2 I don't think it is a stretch to say that Christians should think and agree on issues to a far larger extent than we do. No stretch of anyone's imagination could possibly construe unity from the picture of evangelical Christianity today. So if we are not following the word of God is that not a sin?
Doug Wilson: I appreciate your warnings but would humbly point out that they apply to everyone we read and listen to not just Doug Wilson.
I think John's (Heene's) point is a good one. Infant baptism should not, in my opinion, be a divisive issue. There are good Bible believing folk on both sides of it that believe what they believe with good reason and in conscience. We should constantly work towards understanding the issue better and not settle for disagreement.
Now by joining and submitting yourself to their authority you make a statement about believing as they do, which you don't. This is a problem. So the question remains, how can we structure church government in a visible way so that both bodily and spiritual unity is possible.
Lets table the discussion on Catholicims for a different post. I'd love to have a discussion on it, but I dont want to hijack this unity discussion.
Good call
Will someone make a new blog heading for the Catholicism side of this debate. The computers at school won't let me for some reason
I agree with points made by Moron aka Large Irishman aka Sam aka donkeybuttbreath.
Me too!.....donkeybuttbreath boy...I completely agree with you on all acounts
Blake,
In response to your first post, I would urge you to support your claims with more backbone. I am not disagreeing or defending a policy, but your claims are not supported or claimed in dogmatic fashion (and what I mean by dogma is unproved form).
All that to say, I only encourage you to take the "time to do the research" then make your assertions for the public.
I'm working on it. Keep your pants on.
I think Sam's breath smells good...
I guess really in order to have a discussion on this, I'd say you need to define unity for us, Sam.
I can find a lot of definitions to write about, however I need to know what definition you are using.
I think we are unified with all who are baptized under the triune God and who believe that Christ is our only means of salvation.
My question is, are we being obedient in seperating ourselves into different denominations. The whole notion of denominations rose out of the reformation. Even though I love a lot of what came out of the reformation, I hate that we compromised our unity. I think this is the most disasterous thing that could have happened to the church. I almost wish at times the reformation hadn't happened the way it did, but God has a reason I guess.
John...I've got nothing.
Unity to me means likemindedness and agreement in doctrine as well as unity under a common governmental structure. This is obviously an end goal. We have to start by not being content with fragmentation and agreeing to work towards likemindedness.
Here's my quick thoughts on this subject.
I believe we can be unified on a lot of things, but if someone believes in something that I think goes directly against Scripture then I can't be unified with them. That is subscribed in several places in the N.T.
What is a denomination? It’s merely a collection of groups of people with the same core set of beliefs. Non-denominational churches just means they don't have a group of churches that they are technically associated with, usually bc they don't want to be grouped in and identified only by a piece of their beliefs, such as baptism. So most develop a basic doctrinal statement that all the members agree with that outline the core doctrinal principles. Outside of those core beliefs (such as justification, sanctification, Jesus’ divinity, etc) there are differences on other beliefs, even amongst the leadership. I have no problem with this.
I believe in the normative principle of worship while my church believes in the regulative principle. That doesn't mean we aren't unified. This just means that we don’t have the exact same beliefs, not that we aren’t unified.
Having said that I can't go worship at a Greek Orthodox church bc I believe that baptismal regeneration is heresy and I believe that the idea that church fathers are the final authority including over Scripture is also heresy. I can’t be unified with them. And Scripture tells me not to be unified with them. We can only experience biblical unity in so much that we as a group attest to what is true about God.
I could be unified with a brother who believed in infant baptism even though I disagree with that position. I could even worship with them. But there is nothing sinful about denominations in and of themselves. It’s like pizza. Nothing wrong with pizza, unless you gorge yourself on it and engage in a sinful act of gluttony.
As to those passages you mention Irishman, we’d have to go through them one at a time. Phil 2.2 reference is speaking to a church under persecution and Paul is urging them to be unified with Christ and in what Christ said He was and what He came to do. The text following describes Christ’s humility and his sacrifice in the face of fierce persecution and he is exhorting this church to do the same as they face persecution. He is telling them to be unified in Jesus, having the same mind, the same body, and the same humility as Jesus did. I don’t think you can extrapolate this verse to mean that denominations represent sin bc they divide the Church.
As far as the origins of denomination, they arose in the New Testament times. "One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ.'" Denominations exist because of differing doctrine, and individuals wanting to be their own authority (independent churches). Also, the Orthodox Christian Church existed before Catholicism.
The unity that the catholic church provided was imposed. That is not the idea of unity that Christ desires. Unity, meaning one mindedness, is what I think was the intent of 1 Cor 1:10-13.
We also must remember that our salvation is one of completely personal origin and application. Meaning, there are true Christians within the catholic church (at least that's what I believe). As a system of beliefs, the catholic doctrine is not Christian. I don't know everything about catholic doctrine, but I do know if they believed the truth it would be evident. Orthodoxy leads to orthopraxis. Translated that is "right doctrine leads to right practice or living."
Heene and Sam: What most people (myself included until recently) don't realize is that many baptist churches will not grant membership to those who baptize their children. They certainly will not accept the sufficiency of infant baptism and will thus re-baptize when a public profession of faith is made. What's the issue here? The Presbyterians are not being exclusive. It is the baptists that are excluding those who differ in doctrine with their own. I have a wonderful couple that goes to my church who are baptists. The didn't have any of their 4 children baptized. Their youngest child is now in college and they have attended this church for the last 30 years. And we haven't thrown them out!
Got to go. More to come.
Blake: To summarize your argument: There are salvific issues and non-salvific issues. We can agree to disagree on the non-salvific issues but not on the salvific ones. Disagreeing on non-salvific/non-essential doctrines is not sin and is allowable. Disagreement on salvific issues warrants breaking fellowship.
First question: What makes an issue either salvific/essential or non-salvific/non-essential?
Second Question: How do you define heresy?
Here's my take: Issues which define the boundaries of fellowship(Salvific/essential issues) should center around the historic creeds professed by the church down through the centuries. I think that it is erroneus to claim that we protestants are the standard for correctness in Biblical interpretation. So if a Greek orthodox/Catholic person believes of conscience and through their study of scripture in the authority of church tradition and the saving waters of Baptism I will disagree with them...but I will gladly go to church with them and fellowship with them because we worship the same God, we believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ, and we agree on the things that Christians have always agreed upon as laid out in creeds such as Phil 2 and 1 Cor. 15 (also the apostles creed).
Phil 2 and other assorted passages on unity: Just because Paul's letters were written in a specific historical moment to a specific church does not mean that they cannot be applied broadly. They must be. In the first part of Phil. 2, Paul is clearly instructing believers on how to treat EACH OTHER. He instructs them not to be selfish or conceited but to look after each other's interests. His exhortation to be like-minded is part of this. 1 Cor. 10-13 is another great example of this. No factions are not new but neither should our response to them change. Paul clearly calls Corinthians to STOP being factious. "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." Again, written to a specific group of people but applying broadly to a contemporary church that is struggling with the same sin. So if Christ is calling us to unity I assert that, as we are not in fact gnostics, it must be a physical and a spiritual unity.
John:
I didn't know that about Baptist churches either. Interesting.
Catholics: I sense that this is going to be carried on on this board. Thats ok though because I think it connected.
I think that the "orthodoxy leads to orthopraxis" quote will get you into trouble. Presbyterianism as a system resulted in the PC USA ordaining homosexuals, and Christianity as a belief has killed lots of innocent people...it isn't because the doctrines are incorrect, it's because people stop following them. There are going to be perversions of every system. There are going to be liberal and conservative branches of every system. They do not condemn the system. And lets not forget that the Catholic church is the single most charitable institution in the world...I think Christ had some pretty strong words to say to those that do and do not minister to the least of these. And don't say that its just because they're trying to work their way to heaven, that's just not the case.
Also, let me add that I am not getting ready to get rosary beads and start attending mass. I don't think that Catholicism is the answer. I don't think the PCA is the answer either. I do think that a lot of discussion and unification needs to happen.
I would also like to challenge everybody not to make blanket statements about other branches of Christendom (note my inclusion (-:) which you have not read about with an open mind from the perspective of that branch. I'm very prone to this myself and have to fight it but these are good Christian people, in most cases, who are looking for answers and seeking Christ just like us. We should not be so quick to write them off...stepping down off my soap box.
Briefly:
"Prebyterianism lead to..." I would have to disagree. These modern liberal "Christians" abandoned the creeds and doctrines of the old Scottish presbyterians because of their lack of belief in their validity. The PC USA still uses the Nicene Creed and Westminster Confession as their standard of doctrine, but they have amended these statements heavily. You can read some of their general assembly records and just watch the slide downward.
Belief systems and orthpraxis
The orthodoxy and orthopraxis statement is obviously too broad to encompass an explanation of pastors who have affairs, etc. However, for the day to day Christian, I believe it is generally true.
People can use any "system" of belief as a platform for almost anything, but true belief is action guiding. People are driven by their beliefs, right or wrong, to do remarkably extreme things. Belief leads to action, that much is sure. Belief systems do not necessarily imply true belief in every area. However, true orthodoxy (right biblical doctrine) that is Spirit applied (only way to really believe anything true) will lead you and me to live right lives.
Predestination is not a right doctrine. It is a biblical doctrine, but the right belief (orthodoxy) about that doctrine is required for an individual to respond correctly. It's like doctrine the perseverance of the Saints, if you truly believe, you believe! Whereas, if you say you believe, but depart from that belief, it would be said you never really believed.
Here's an honest question... Is belief a required prerequisite to action?
This just popped into my head, so I'll have to think about it.
If you believe that God created man in His own image, then it is of no surprise that abortion is an issue to you. If you believe that adultery is a sin, then your desire to remain faithful to your spouse is expected.
Paul is writing to individual churches when he is appealing to unity. You can't extrapolate that to mean that he is speaking to all churches everywhere. In heaven we'll all be united, but until the Greek Orthodox church stops teaching doctrine that is in direct violation of Scripture, then I can't be united to them.
Heresy is anything that is taught that is in direct violation of the Bible or denying the core beliefs of Christianity. Claiming Jesus was't God but just a prophet is heresy. Baptismal regeneration, praying to anyone other than the Triune God, etc. is heresy.
Scripture specifically warns what can happen if you let heresy be taught in the church, and commands false teachers to be put out. This doesn't mean that you can't be unified, as unity can only occur within the bounds of Biblical truth.
And Paul is speaking to one church that had division being caused from within. I absolutely believe that there should be unity within a church. But Paul does not teach that you should be unified to someone who teaches what is not Biblical.
Here's a better definition of heresy. Strike my meager attempt above and use this one instead.
"Heresy is an erroneous or false opinion, repugnant unto and subverting the doctrine of faith revealed in the Word as necessary unto salvation; and obstinately maintained and perniciously adhered unto by a professed Christian."
First, the argument that Biblical exhortations were made to specific groups and therefore do not apply outside that context has been used to justify everything from female pastors to homosexual marriage. If we are to use scripture as a standard for faith and practice it must be more broadly applied than its original audience. Otherwise, why stop there. Why not continue and say well that was written specifically to the Philipians and its impossible to extrapolate it to modern churches.
Second, as you read through Paul's letters to the churches you see that he calls for unity, likemindedness, and or agreement among them in almost every one (see my references for specific examples). So I don't think its a stretch to say that Paul call's Christians to be unified. Now, lets say for the sake of argument that he is just calling people in individual churches to be unified. What would they be unifying under? The teachings of the apostles, right? So every individual church is then being called to unity under a set of instructions and doctrine that are the same from church to church. Right? The apostles didn't go around teaching different things to different groups. I seriously doubt that Paul went from one place to another saying, "be unified...but just among yourselves...don't worry about the church of Christ universal." Church history supports this point. The early church was arranged around five centers which had regular councils to combat heresy and maintain orthodoxy. Denominations, as we know them, were unheard of until 1054 AD when the East and West split in the Great Schism.
Heresy: I like that second definition. So, Heresy is something that subverts the doctrine of faith that is necessary unto salvation. Now, in my mind this doctrine of faith that is necessary unto salvation is that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. It's not our understanding of this faith. It's not our ability to articulate the order saludis. It's not that we accept seven sacrements or just two. It is, very simply put, saying," I am a sinner and I need Jesus to be saved because he is who he says he is and he can do what he says he can do." Now lots and lots and lots of things flow out of this in terms of obedience to Christ but thats the basic doctrine of faith. I challenge anyone to show (with specific examples) where either Greek orthodox or Catholic believers deny this basic truth. I contend that they do not. We disagree on lots and lots of externals but we agree on the things that matter most.
In response to John:
If you would. Respond to the following scenerios in terms of why unorthodoxy has produced orthopraxis:
A mormon who is loving, caring, and obeys the law of God:
Sam, I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't be unified, or that Paul's letters are only descriptive and not subscriptive.
But the logical extension of Paul's letter to the Phillipians (which is what I'm referring to specifically) is that a church should be unified in love and humility and should be of the mind of Jesus Christ. That's the context and the driving force behind the letter to the Phillipians. Now obviously there's a lot of applications to this letter, however I do not believe one of those applications is that all churches everywhere should be united as one. You can't make that leap hermeneutically or exegetically without some serious error in interpretation.
The specific example we are talking about is when one church views another church's doctrine as being herectical. I'd say that when you begin to change the biblical idea of justification by pulling in baptismal regeneration, and when you allow tradition to trump Scripture and place the final authority in the hands of men (aka church fathers) and not in the hands of the Word then you are calling into question and underming Scripture, heretofore the esence of the gospel and Jesus Christ himself as he is the Word (see the gospel of John).
I think the fundamental error in this whole unity debate is that you are taking open hand issues and trying to force them into the closed hand. You may not see the value of denominations, however the burden of proof is on you to find in Scripture where denominations are inherrently sinful. I don't think you can do that, and Paul's letter to the Phillipians isn't going to do that for you.
Phil. 2: Ok, so how do you explain the structure of the early church in terms of its homogenous doctrine and universal united church government. It seems to me that that structure is an outworking of the early church's understanding of Paul's letters (e.g. Phil. 2) indicating unity under an organizational framework. Thus my extrapolation.
Heresy:
Your argument here is basically this (if I understand it correctly): Catholics distort scripture with their doctrines and therefore distort Christ who is The Word. Ok, but what you're basically saying is,"I disagree with their interpretation of scripture and I think that the way I've been taught is more correct ("the biblical view" as you put it). Catholics affirm Justication by faith (the dynamics are different than in protestantism but they affirm salvation by faith in Christ and they affirm that Christ is the same person as we do). Tradition (defined as the direct oral instructions of Christ and the Apostles NOT the Church Fathers) does not trump scripture in their view but stands alongside it in helping us understand what God desires of us, and incidently they believe in this because of passages like 2 Thess 2:15. Protestants use the same logic when it comes to the Canon of Scripture we just don't talk about it. Church Tradition has given us the Bible as we know it. How can you turn around and say, "well but you can't use church tradition as an authoritative source."
My point is basically this: The only way you get to pull out the H-word(in my humble opinion) is if someone professes an opinion that subverts the doctrine of faith as revealed in scripture as necessary to salvation (and I might add does so perniciously). Opinions which do this have been meticulously defined throughout the centuries in the creeds which are affirmed accross denominational lines which deal with who Christ is and what we must do to be saved. Anything falling outside these is heresy. We modern Christians (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) have changed this though. Now, we insist that everyone who doesn't read scripture the way I do is a heretic and belongs in a different denomination if not a different religion altogether.
Lastly (many are probably saying "finally"), can I point you to a verse that says ,"thou shalt not have denominations." NO. Can I reason though that The New Testament calls believers to be unified organizationally and doctrinally (see my 5:14 PM 5/1/08 post)? I think so. Can I further reason that denominations (Catholic and Greek orthodox included) represent disunity? I think so. Based on that, I would say that the burden of proof lies on you to explain why all the passages I listed, in addition to the historical structure of the early church, don't necessitate church unity in the ways I have described.
By the way, great discussion on this. My gerbils are running at full speed to keep up.
"I would also like to challenge everybody not to make blanket statements about other branches of Christendom (note my inclusion (-:) which you have not read about with an open mind from the perspective of that branch. I'm very prone to this myself and have to fight it but these are good Christian people, in most cases, who are looking for answers and seeking Christ just like us. We should not be so quick to write them off...stepping down off my soap box."
I thank you for this statement Irishpoophead. This is also a great struggle for me. I just finished some overview studying on the Eastern Orthodox Church (good detail John, OrtoChurch was first...they just celebrated Easter. My Greek Ortho neighbor said to me, "how do you guys celebrate Easter BEFORE passover?"). I was all around and generally surprised at the number doctrinal SIMILARITIES between ortho doctrine and the WCF. Point is, let's do our reading before we do our pronouncing.
FIRST CHALLENGE: Go read Benedict's book Introduction to Christianity.
And I leave you with this scripture reference...
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph. 4:4-6, KJV)
I wish I could pontificate in more detail and with greater attention, but my job does not allow it. God bless ye great men.
I dont think it is wrong to say that Paul was saying that we need to have unity among churches, not just that one church. However, I don't think the definition of "church" in this case is the worldly definition of church. The Church is the body of Christ who we should have unity with. That body is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ as their savior. I don't see how there can be any argument against the unity of the church in this case. How can a body function if the feet don't listen to the brain or if the mouth wants food but the hands won't lift it. Unity among the Church is a necessity that is clearly lacking. All one has to do is look around at society today. I am not saying we would have a utopia or anything, but perhaps the label of Christian would carry a little more weight than it does today. Clearly things on earth are not going to get better, that is why the earth is going to be destroyed. A place that has sin in it will never be completely accepting of God, but that does not mean we should let our own divisiveness diminish the impact that we could be having on this world.
As to the comment about the Baptist Church requiring baptism for membership. This is why we have not joined a church since we have been married. Don't get me wrong, as soon as I find a church that is the best place for my family to grow, I will joint, but until then, I have not problem simply attending (I know some may have issues with this). I have been baptized because I believe in believers baptism. However, my wife, who was raised as a presbyterian, has not been baptized. Thus, we have not joined a baptist church. I actually spoke to a paster at First Baptist in Columbia about this situation, not in much detail, but he just said it was something we can talk about.
The Rub. I do not mind them promoting believers baptism, nor do I have a final opinion on their requirement of baptism for membership. What I do have a problem with is asking Maria to get baptized so we can join a church. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see her get baptized, but it should be because she feels that God is calling her to follow in believers baptism, not because some board of Elders or Deacons is saying she has to to join a church. I can see why the church has orientations for new members and all that other stuff to ensure that the members will share the same beliefs as the "church", but to what end. Is it appropriate to allow someone to be baptized because they have to be? Should they be endorsing such a sacred act when the reason behind it is simply membership in a church? I may even send this little issue on to the current staff at the church I attend to see what there formal stance is. I will let you know.
Here's a good site for Catholic doctrine FYI: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
This debate has been really refreshing for me in terms of valuing our protestant heritage. The reformation needed to happen. Christ's body needs the balance that the reformers brought. Catholicism can quickly degrade into legalism and protestants can quickly become antinomians. Both camps tend towards their respective extremes when things become too cerebral I think and when everyone starts trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of pin kind of thing.
I'm guessing 24 angels. Considering all things of course.
"Clearly things on earth are not going to get better, that is why the earth is going to be destroyed."
This is another topic of debate Heene. Is this really that "clear?" I'm wondering, who are we to say that the world isn't getting any better? Can the Lord lay waste His enemy and restore Good, on earth as it is in heaven?
Ah yeah! a little premil/Postmil debate! I likey!
Heene, read the book "Postmillenialism - an eschotology of hope." I think you will understand where Joey is coming from. I would agree with Him, that the world is actually getting better since the death of Christ. Premil was considered a heresy until a 150 years ago when it raised its nasty head out of the Darwinism debate. It was just a reaction to Darwinism and has no real Biblical backing.
Hey, get your own post. (-: Seriously though, it is a good and essential debate. I'm reading the NT Wright book "surprised by hope" on it right now. Good stuff
I'll have to check that book out. I love His book "Simply Christian." I just finished reading it a few months ago.
who the heck is this Sam person?
its still me its just my screen name switches between Large irishman and Sam depending on which computer I'm using
So I spoke to the pastor at my church today. He had some interesting things to say but I did not agree with some of it. He said that they will not allow you to join unless you are or have been baptized as this is one of their two doctrinal beliefs, the other being that Jesus is savior. He stated that if you are saved, but have not been baptized on the "right side" of the cross then you are not being obedient to Jesus. If you are not being obedient to Jesus then you can not be a member of that local church. He did say that clearly there will be people who go through the motions, but that they can not control what people feel in their heart. My problem with this statement is that people who have been baptized as infants do not think they are not obeying Jesus, after all, they have been baptized. He went on to say something about keeping the integrity of the churches beliefs in tact. Clearly it is one thing for someone to say, I believe that Christ calls for baptism after salvation, but I dont want to do that and another thing for a person to say I have been baptized and dont believe I need to be baptized again to be an obedient follower. Does anyone have a good summary of why Presbyterians believe in infant baptism? He said it is rooted in predestination and the elect. A more in depth explanation would be appreciated.
John, you might just want to do some reading on it yourself. I can recommend some baptist books on the subject, which I'll email you, and I'll let the Presbos recommend some of their written works.
But I will warn you, its a complicated issue to study and seems to get more complicated by the year. Its also an issue thats best discussed in person due to its depth. I don't think you'll be able to get a real clear view from a blog post or comments section.
I first have to say that infant baptism is not a presbyterian invention. The early church practiced infant baptism, and the majority of evangelical Christians today (the Anglican, Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc.) as well as catholics, baptize children.
The most basic argument for infant baptism is based on the idea that God always deals with His people in covenants; he makes promises to them. We see a connection between circumcision and baptism, and the Passover and the Lord's Supper. We see promises signified in each of these sacred "rituals." We believe that these two "ceremonies" are analogous in the Old Covenant (Circumcission/Passover) and the New Covenant (Lord's Supper/Baptism-that is Christ's covenant to be the savior of His people and their children). Peter says in Acts 2:38-39, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
All this to say that, evangelical Christians believe that baptism was given as a sign of inclusion in the covenant family of God. We view children as more than a sinner in the sight of God (as all people are), but as a privileged (though not yet saved) individual because they are born into a family of believer(s). The baptist view of baptism makes no distinction between my son and someone born into a hindu family. Joel's baptism was Loren and my saying, "we commit this child to God and claim His covenant promises that Christ really did come for 'you and your children'".
As Blake said, this is a very complicated and can lead to MANY, MANY deep theological discussions. I would encourage you to search in iTunes for R.C. Sproul's podcasts (Renewing Your Mind) and listen to his recent talks on baptism (The Baptism of John, Significance of Baptism, Case Against Infant Baptism, Case for Infant Baptism Parts 1 and 2). He argues first from the traditional baptist viewpoint, and then from the presbyterian viewpoint. We heard about this from the baptist couple that attends our church. They were not swayed by Sproul's arguments, but they recommended we listen to it.
The line of logic leads to infant Baptism in scripture. Once you follow it out it is very clear. The baptist side has WAY too many holes in it. I think the best book out there for the infant Baptism side, is Robert Booth's Children of the promise. Booth was a pastor of a baptist church and became so convicted of infant baptism that he repented for his disobedience and tried to change his church's denomination. He is now in the PCA. Another good one is Doug Wilson. He too was baptist for most of his life and was even a baptist pastor. Be willing to open your mind up to His word. And learn to take context into major consideration in everything you read in it.
Post a Comment