Infant Death and Sickness-Prime Motivator for Infant Baptism

Coming from the Reformed background- I know the concerns of Christian and non-Christian parents regarding their children. My four children were all infant baptized.

It is fear that sometimes motivates us -especially when our children are still young and sort of weak-we want thenm protected from sickness and death. More so from the power of the devil. This must be addresed by the beliver’s baptism group such as I am now.

One must not take refuge in supposed innocence or spritual purity of infants. The doctrine of original sin demolished such arguements. We cannot also take refuge in a Universalistic views of salvation -for this will minimize the uniqueness of salvation in Jesus. Though we might have to ascertain if original sin means also transmission of Adam’s guilt. We must analyze the verses at Psalms and as well as other didactic protion of the Scripture if this is so.

I am more incline to find comfort in the doctrine of Election and Definite Substitutionary Atonement as seen from the New Covenant perspective-since it is leaning more in the finished works of Christ and his forerknowledge. Meaning, Jesus knows those who will die in infance and thus made provision for them-whether children of believers and unbelievers.

Thus one need not accept covenant theology and infant baptism just to be sure about their children’s salvation when they die during infancy.

I have qualms about infant baptism used in this way-it seems to degenrate to ritualism, superstition and seems a little “faith plus works” salvation. And it tends to minimize the importance God’s ordinance of baptism instead of magnifying it. But more on this later.

My Retraction: A 15 Year Baptist Turns Paedo-Baptist and Becomes Reformed

I like this article because it is the complete opposite of my experience. And at the middle is his insight into why baptist are wrong. And to me -with my new covenant theology background would see why Covenant Theologians are wrong.

I would just like to mention one historical revisionism mentioned in his article. Believer’s baptism was the historical position of the early church. The first mentioned baptism outside of the New Testament (Didache) is believer’s (adult) baptism. When persecution was rampant-adult/believer’s baptism is the norm.

But, under Constantine‘s lenient policy towards the church and and Augustine’s doctrine of original sin-infant baptism became the norm in the 3rd-4th Century. But infant baptism then was married to baptismal regeneration and justification. It is only with Zwingli with his controversy with the Anabaptist that the “covenantal basis for infant baptism” that arrived on the historical scene. So? we are both new-children of the Reformation.

 

My  Retraction: A 15 Year Baptist
Turns Paedo-Baptist and Becomes Reformed
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
(September, 2002, and updated December 2006)

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm

             In the latter years of Augustine’s life, after sifting through his literary works as a whole, in book 2 of his Anti-Pelagian Works, we find him writing down a number of “retractions.”  What are retractions?  Augustine revisited certain topics on which he had previously written, and much to his dismay, there was much that he knew he had written in error.  In desiring to be as biblical as he could, he mentioned the errors in a “retraction” of their validity and then explained what his position had become.  He recanted of what he had written, and then revisited the topic under a more thoroughly biblical view.  For instance, he withdrew his ideas concerning the Platonic view of the pre-existence of the soul to accept a biblical view.  This was quite honorable for Augustine to do so in keeping with being a faithful steward of God’s Word.  Yet, at the same time, Christians can relate to Augustine’s retractions as a whole.  In other words, as Christian’s grow in grace, they are weaned away from poor theology and receive that which the Spirit of God lavishes upon them during their faithful study. 

            

            I have read much of Augustine.  I was moved by his retractions because in his day and age it was hard to make statements as one in the lime-light, and then retract.  It is amazing how we, now, can read his works and see his humility in his move from error to the truth.  Retractions are difficult.  I can personally relate on how it is very difficult to make a retraction.   How would you feel if after fifteen years of believing something, and contending for something, (something you thought was the absolute truth) that you found it was biblically inconsistent?  What if you had taught “wrong doctrine” for fifteen years and causes other to believe it, and then found you were wrong?

 

            Retractions are not easy to deal with.  Even the great Martin Luther stuttered a moment when the King demanded he retract his writings and recant at the Diet of Worms in 1521.  Contrary to popular belief, Luther did not shake his fist in the wind and stand his ground – rather, he asked for more time to think about it.  In the end he made the right choice, but it certainly was not without difficulty and sacrifice.  Retractions are difficult.

I have a retraction of my own to declare.  This retraction is a very difficult retraction to make since it affects my entire theological outlook concerning covenant theology, the bible and covenant signs.  It is also a very complicated one to make in light of all the positive email response I have had to “God’s glory” in dealing with this issue faithfully from the Dispensational and Baptistic point of view.  For those who have agreed with me on this issue in the past, you will need to be patient with me, because you are going to violently disagree with me.  You will shake your head, maybe even your fist, or even maybe weep.  I have moved, in aligning my thoughts with the faithful of the historical church, to what I believe is a more consistently biblically view of the bible as a whole.  This retraction will be difficult for “faithful friends” to believe.  I have vehemently debated many Presbyterian and Reformed brethren on the issue of Paedobaptism, or Infant Baptism, and how I thought I was being covenantally faithful.  I have written against them on countless occasions in hundreds of emails, and have published 14 articles on the web demonstrating the “utter folly” of that “pernicious error of Paedobaptism;” or as the Baptist RBC Howell states, the “evils” of that error.  Even at that point, I was not through, for I had another 8 articles to publish on the subject.  I also had in mind to systematically destroy Turretin’s “illogical arguments” in his third volume of Elenctic Theology, as well as silencing Calvin’s barking in his Institutes on the subject, book 4, chapter 16.  I had read all the major works written by faithful Baptist ministers and I knew my position well.  As it stands right now, I may honestly say that I know the Baptist arguments inside out and backwards as I have understood them for 15 years.  I know the exegetical ideologies.  I know the hermeneutic behind the debates.  And not only this, but in my desire to be firmly acquainted with the “deviant view,” I had faithfully read and reread the best divines of the past who held to Infant Baptism: Turretin, Ames, Dabney, Hodge, Calvin, Berkhof, Edwards, Owen, Perkins, Love, and the like.  I had attended a Presbyterian Seminary and knew all of the arguments from a contemporary view.  I listened attentively to such teachers as Sinclair Ferguson, RC Sproul, John Gerstner, J.I. Packer, Reggie Kidd, and Richard Pratt on this subject in their own classrooms during my seminary years.  I was as sure as the day was long that I was biblically sound and exegetically solid in my defense of credo-baptism, or believer’s baptism, alone.  I attempted to be as biblically careful as I could, since, I could not allow myself to be wrong on such a vital issue where so many great preachers and teachers in the history of the church believed such a doctrine.  In other words, I knew church history.  I knew that as an honest Baptist, I had to admit that for over 1600 years, since Christ, the church had theology wrong.  Their ecclesiology and redemptive theology was simply mistaken, and on key point, the Baptists finally got it right.  Yes, not until 1689 (the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith) the Baptists set the record straight though all of the predecessors had their ideas about entrance into the church, and the manner of God in dealing with covenant families was just plain wrong.  No one had it right until “we Baptists” came to town.  Was that arrogant of me?  Yes.  And Historically impossible to prove, but it was the logical outcome of my adherence to “credo-baptism”.  Though the greatest minds through the history of Christendom differed with me, I had to stand on the bible.  I could not allow my desire to be aligned with great men be a temptation to me (who would not want to be associated with them?).  I had to be sure I was right, and I honestly thought I was.  I truly believed that Covenant Theology and that wicked practice of infant baptism was a great evil, and I said so with a brutal confidence.

     But in all this, I was in error. 

            I have retracted and recanted the “Baptist” position against Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism.  There are good and valid reasons why this is so.  It is not that I went looking to change my entire theological outlook on this issue from a newly renovated covenantal perspective.  It was not that I was reading Owen or Edwards on the subject once again, and that sparked my thoughts.  In all honesty, and with a sincere heart, I must admit that it was the Bible, and the Bible alone that changed my outlook on this.  I know the next couple of paragraphs are going to be very difficult for my Baptist brethren to hear, but I must say, I have really, honesty and truly changed my position as a result of exegetical study and reflection.

            I thought being “Reformed” was believing in predestination, or TULIP.  Well, that was a huge mistake.  I wanted to be “Reformed” and so I changed the definition of “Reformed” to suit my taste.  I wanted to be counted in the theological outlook of Westminster, with just a few tweaks here or there, so I fell into the same trap that “Reformed Baptists” fall into today – they claim the title and are not honest to admit that they cannot possibly be Reformed with holding to Reformed Theology.  So instead, I redefined “Reformed” to simply mean – I believe in TULIP.  Historically, this is a misnomer.  It simply is historically impossible to demonstrate.  Ask any Baptist where “Reformed” came from, and he’ll point you to the Synod of Dorst.  Little does he know it is a direct reference, written by a Lutheran, to explain the ecclesiology of Calvin’s Institutes.  In other words, being Reformed meant 1) Covenant Theology, 2) Paedobaptist, 3) following Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper, and 4) the ecclesiology of the Institutes.  In other words, Baptists simply cannot be Reformed in any sense of the word.

            In attempting to be as sensitive as I can to those who “followed my thoughts” on the Baptist position and thanked me for such articles, I must first tell you where this change took place.  Have you ever stood “outside” yourself while you were talking and thought to yourself, “Self, why are you saying that?  That does not make any sense at all?” – but then you keep right on talking?  Hopefully you can identify with that.  Oftentimes it is a result of a “slip of the tongue” and we say to ourselves, “OUCH! I should never have said that!”   But sometimes we stand outside of ourselves and think about what we are saying while we say it.  We listen to ourselves and hear the arguments afresh.  It is almost as if we are arguing with ourselves to come to a specific conclusion about something.  Well, in my case, this happened during a study at my home.  I was teaching on the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.  A question arose on the warning passages of the New Testament, and there I was suddenly, listening to myself answer this question which was put to me, but I knew I was not correct in my answer, though it was my standard baptistic answer.  This seemingly innocent question tumbled me into an immense theological debate with myself later that night.  I reread the Old Testament and New Testament passages on covenant, baptism and circumcision.  I reread all the major writers again on the subject of the covenants and the covenant signs of infant baptism and baptism.  Then it dawned on me, and it became clear: it was a question of my hermeneutic.

            Some of you long standing Congregationalists or Presbyterians reading this may be saying, “Well of course your hermeneutic is the answer!”  That is all well and good to say, but to communicate it in a way in which you HELP the Baptist understand why you think he is interpreting the Bible with incorrect presuppositions is the key.  Leading neophytes step by step, clearly and succinctly is how they learn.  Not just blathering a host of theological ideas that fly over their head.  This neophyte would have loved some step by step instructions in those days.  But oftentimes, the arguments surround “Baptism” and not what they should – 1) hermeneutics, and 2) Covenant Theology.  Forget baptism for a moment.  Forget circumcision for a moment.  Forget the last 5 minutes of the conversation.  Its the preceding 5 HOURS of the Covenant Theology that needs to be straight before we ever get to the application of Covenant Theology in the covenant sign. 

Many times the great reformers and puritans simply “barked.”  Calvin is among the best.  When he is on your side you cheer him on.  When he is against you, then you scowl.  Well, I scowled at Calvin many times on this issue.  He said “…in this age, certain frenzied spirits have raised, and even now continue to raise, great disturbance in the Church on account of Paedobaptism, I cannot avoid here, by way of appendix, adding something to restrain their fury.”  (Institutes, 4:19.1)  You see, for someone trying to learn or understand the Scriptures, it is not always helpful to mimic Calvin here.  It would be more constructive to deal with core issues rather than ad hominem arguments.  On the other hand, many puritan divines will argue upon secondary issues which are not the heart of the matter.  When this happened, I was always confused as to why Calvin, Owen, Reynolds, Love, Van Mastricht, Ames, Turretin, Edwards, etc., would be “so off course.”  I neglected to ascertain their complete mind on the ideas behind the covenant of redemption and of grace, and was arguing against infant baptism without a proper view of those foundational ideas.  Not only was I putting the cart before the horse, I was putting the stall before the horse before the cart, before the….well you get my meaning.

Arguing secondary issues is not restricted to ancient writers.  RC Sproul debated Alister Begg at great lengths on secondary issues at a Ligonier conference some years ago that I attended.  RC never addressed why he thought Alister was wrong at the heart of his hermeneutic.  He just argued with Alister about the issues surrounding the subject – baptism.  He argued for familial solidarity when he should have been dealing with hermeneutics and the foundations of the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace.

Why was there confusion for me as a Baptist?  Why did I think that Infant Baptist was not dealing with “texts” which “proved” their case?  Why did I think this way in particular?  I was simply dumbfounded at the Presbyterian’s lack of exegetical prowess when it came to Infant Baptism.  Why?  It was the answer to this question that helped me understand why I was wrong on this issue for so long.  I thought I was “Reformed” but in reality, I could not escape a form of Dispensationalism, which I now believe, is inherent in the Baptistic position, and inescapable.  I abrogated certain aspects of the Old Testament’s form and substance.  (It is the “and substance” which makes the difference.)  The Puritans divines I love so much simply confounded the issue all the more because they continually dealt with the secondary issues of arguing specific texts, without ever taking to task my faulty hermeneutic in the first place.  Now that is not to say they did not do an exemplary job at the text and its exegesis.  But they never dealt with the heart of the matter at the time they were arguing their case.  They should have told me to go back to understanding the Old Covenant before I tackled the New Covenant, and they should have opened my eyes to certain non-negotiable (eternal) traits of the Covenant of Grace which run historically through the entire Bible –  those I thought I knew all about, but really swept under the rug.

            What I have to say next is critical to understand.  I see four main reasons why I was a Baptist: 1) I was dispensational to  in my thinking because of an abrogation of the Old Testament covenant in an extreme manner, 2) I studied the doctrine of the “covenant” from the New Testament backwards to the Old Testament (in other words, I did theology backwards), 3) I defined the “sign” of Baptism strictly as, “the outward sign of the inward work of regeneration,” and 4) I thought that the terms “salvation” and “new covenant” were coextensively the same thing.

 

            In point “1”, there is much to explain and most “Baptists” will vehemently deny this as I did (I can already hear them mumbling to themselves in consternation!).  Suffice it to say that I will be addressing this in future articles (such as these: Turretin’s Views of Covenant, John Owen’s Views of Covenant, Children in the Covenant Of Grace, The Internalization of the Law Not “New”, Covenant – God, to you and your children).  My “Baptistic” theology, from a covenantal perspective, was dispensational – I could not escape this to some extent even though I did not see how this could possibly be.

 

            Point “2” is more prevalent.  If you attempt to understand the Bible beginning from the New Testament and work backwards into the Old Testament you will almost always end up Baptistic.  If you argue from the New Testament backwards then you have begun with a wrong hermeneutic.  This idea is very important.  I had, in reality, neglected it.

 

            Point “3” is also very important.  The very ideas associated with the ordinance of baptism in the new covenant for me as a Baptist were different than one who believes in Covenantal Theology.  This is a result of the manner in which I understood what “covenant” theology is all about.  I was in error about my understanding of covenant theology.  This again will be addressed in future articles.

 

            Point 4 is critical.  If you think the New Covenant is coextensive with salvation, you will always wind up Baptistic.  This is probably the most serious error in trying to understand the arguments here.  Every covenant in the Bible, from Adam forward, included unbelievers.  The New Covenant, in this respect, is no different.  That is why Christ can promise salvation and damnation in the same breath to those in the New Covenant. (1 Cor. 11, Heb. 6 and 10).  Until the Baptist comes to grips with this, there is no way for him to understand Covenant Theology because he radically transforms the nature of God’s covenant when he deals with the New Testament. The substance of the Covenant of Grace changes, which makes the Baptist, inescapably, Dispensational.

In my “switch” I realized that as a Baptist I continually and forever argued against secondary notions and not by the basic and key ideas which are foundational for the rest of biblical interpretation.  I was arguing about the color of the horse when all along I should have been arguing about the structure of the cart he was pulling.

It may be that you as a Baptist, reading this very brief (but important) retraction, cannot believe your eyes or ears (you are shaking your head right in front of your monitor as you read!).  You may be even praying for me right now – that I would come to my senses!  Maybe you are saying, “Oh what a wretched mistake he is making!  What a horrible hermeneutic he has embraced!”  Please, do not ever stop praying for me.  I always need your prayers.  However, certain pieces of the puzzle that always seemed to “puzzle me” have fallen rapidly into a grid locked picture of the grace of covenant theology.  I believe they should have been there all along.

But at least take this to heart, if you are a Baptist – in your position, you must, if you are at least humble and honest, agree with me that your position is relatively new.  It sprung up int he 17th century.  It was not held until the heretical Anabaptists appeared on the scene.  That means that the church has been wrong about her theology for 1700 years until you, my friend, and your partners in this new fangled theology, got it right.  It means that God, in all His great wisdom and providence, waited 1700 years before He “enlightened” His ambassadors to the truth of how He wanted His church run.  It even, on a base level, questions the very providence of God in the way He deals with His church.  It calls into question Jude’s admonition, that the faith HAS been once delivered to the saints.  But you, friend, are saying that we have all had it wrong, and that we are just getting it right.  You, friend, are saying that the historical position of the church’s ecclesiology, by the greatest minds the church has known, were, for all intents and purposes, completely wrong about how the church should be run, and what God desired for His church.  Not only did we not know the truth, but God allowed His church to purposefully languished for one thousand seven hundred years until the Baptists came along.  They all had it wrong.  And you, and a few others, have it right. (On that note alone, ponder promptly and heavily.)

            As a result of all of this, I have reposted my position in many articles.  There are many texts to reconsider and fit into their proper places.  There are a host of concepts to deal with.  I will deal with all the texts that I as a Baptist used to argue over as time goes on.  Many are already published, and many of them have been consolidated into a concise book called, “A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology“. (This book is available through Puritan Publications.)  I also have much to say in a compendium of articles on covenant theology and the issues surrounding the biblical ideas contained therein, in the Covenant Theology section of this site.

            For those who had been following my articles on Believer’s baptism as I have posted them pertaining to adults, please understand that the Paedo-Baptist does not discount that adults should be baptized.  I still believe that men should repent and be baptized.  However, I will now covenantally insist that the seed of the believer should be baptized as well, lest God count them as unclean.  There are theological and biblical reasons for this, both exegetically and creedal.

            I covet your prayers, and deeply regret that I have lead many of you down a long path that excluded some of the most glorious truths of the bible.  I publicly ask your forgiveness for my own personal irresponsible exegesis, subtle dispensational thinking and my backwards hermeneutic.

I welcome all emails as I always have.

 

Your Humble Servant,
            Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, Sept. 2002
            Updated December 2006

 

Christian Reconstruction-Assessment from Ligon Duncan

I was a Reconstrucrionist until I became a new covenant evangelical baptist last July 2008. I though share some of the concerns of CR-and it is enumerated in an article found in : http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/ligonreconstruction.htm

I will interact with it later. But others who criticize them without offering any alternatives-is not helping the cause of truth and christian church. But i would take issue with CR and Reformed understanding of the Dispensational aversion with the Mosaic Code. Not being under the Ten Commandments and instead being under the Law of Christ is not antinomianism:

B. Theological: An Evangelical Reform Movement

Theologically, Christian Reconstructionism may also be viewed as a reaction (and in the author’s opinion, a well-meaning, but misguided, overreaction) to four prevalent tendencies in American Evangelicalism, and to what most traditional Christians would regard as general Western social decadence.

1)First, Reconstructionism constitutes a challenge to the widespread peripheralization of the Old Testament in forming the Christian mind in the sphere of personal and social ethics. The peculiar view of biblical history taught in many evangelical churches reduces the Old Testament to a shadowy, pre-Christian, even sub-Christian form of the New Testament, rather than the very foundation of God’s revelation. Hence, the Old Testament is valued only for end-time prophecy, moral tales, types of Christ, and if its teaching is not re-confirmed in the New Testament, it is regarded as outmoded. Reconstructionism is deliberately contradicting this pattern.

2) Second, Reconstructionism wishes to rebuff the general evangelical tendency to disengage from societal responsibilities. The sacred/secular dichotomy and the suspicion of any form of “social gospel” has led most fundamentalist-influenced church members to abandon any sustained or regular attempt to impact government and society. This continues to be the norm today, with the exception of so-called “family issues” like abortion, school prayer, home-schooling, “family values,” and homosexuality, but even then rarely is a Christian voice heard except in protest. Theonomy wants to dump the sacred/secular dichotomy for a Kuyperian view of vocation and explore the long-ignored civic “salt-and-light” responsibilities of Christians.

3)Third, Reconstructionism is a reaction against the tendency to (totally) subjectivize and individualize the Christian faith . There is, of course, a vital subjective side to the Christian faith as all Christians would agree. The Puritans, for instance, would have called this “experimental religion” while Roman Catholics call it “spiritual formation” and it is an essential element to vital Christianity. If it is not there, faith is dead. But when personal piety is substituted as a part for the whole, it becomes an “ism.” In other words, when Christianity is reduced to purely individual, personal spirituality (and this has been a characteristic error in much evangelicalism) an important aspect of historic Christianity is being disregarded or lost. The Reconstructionist movement wants to redress this imbalance (though it seems overly non-experiential at times) and remind the Christian of the outward demands of true Christian piety.

4) Fourth, Reconstructionism is a response to the anti-law spirit which pervades Christian circles where cheap-grace teaching is the norm. No one who has followed the Lordship controversy, even at a distance, can doubt that antinomianism has achieved almost confessional status in Dispensational circles. In many churches, any suggestion that Christians have an obligation to keep the Law is considered an attack on the Pauline teaching on grace. Theonomy challenges the church to return to Reformational teaching on the grace of law, the role of the law as standard in the Christian life, and the consequent relevance of Old Testament law to Christian ethics. These four trends are readily apparent in American Evangelicalism in general and particularly in churches which have been influenced by the theology of Dispensationalism, with its emphasis on the antithesis between law and grace (in an unfortunately eccentric form), its curious version of the history of redemption, and its peculiar eschatology. Theonomy is, among other things, a rebuttal of Dispensationalism.

Why feel threatened?

If my requested meeting with elders happened in July 2008, instead of Pastor M closing the doors immediately to any dialogue or discussion with an open bible, then today would be different. I might have stayed at JLOAPC or even if we left them-it would be in better terms instead of disrespect or closeness of mind.

If Pastor M believes that infant baptism is defensible from the scriptures then I don’t think he should not be afraid of defending them. If he believes that he already knows my baptistic view (which he does not-since it is the new covenant theology variety and not the simplistic baptist view) then he should be braved in pointing out to me where in my scriptural understanding that I went astray. But he did not do both. Why?

Because he thought it was an assault against his authority and he is hiding his views regarding tithing that he stopped any means of dialogue. He is afraid that two of his elders will understand new covenant believer’s baptism and grace giving than him and might decide that his beliefs is not really in-line with Scriptures. He feared for his job-his source of additional salary since his main salary is as a company employee for an air conditioner  maintenance company.

But if he only tried to open his mind and investigate and study the scriptures and articles I gave him-then instead of feeling threatened-he should feel liberated. Does he think that there is comfort in numbers like we experience last 2007 GAPCP’s anniversary? There is only comfort in truth.

Sayang. Magkakasama pa sana kami.

Put down that dagger: Calvinism and Arminianism

This is not new. I read it in the “Revival” of Pratney and found it in this website:http://www.logos.com/products/details/3050

It seems to summarize my point of view right now:

During the late 1700s and early 1800s, at a time when there was no formal ordination training, Simeon began teaching a fortnightly sermon class for those intending to be ordained and started hosting a weekly conversation party open to all undergraduates. Also during this time, Simeon began outlining his convictions in a series of university sermons. In 1792 he read An Essay on the Composition of a Sermon by the French Reformed minister Jean Claude. Simeon found that their principles were identical and used the essay as the basis for his lectures on sermon composition. Claude’s essay also inspired Simeon to make clear his own theological position, the result being Horae Homileticae.

Simeon was neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist but described himself as “a moderate Calvinist” or “a Bible Christian.” His conviction can be witnessed in a well-known dialogue between himself and the Arminian John Wesley:

[Simeon:] Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

[Wesley:] Yes, I do indeed.

[S:] And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

[W:] Yes, solely through Christ.

[S:] But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

[W:] No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

[S:] Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

[W:] No.

[S:] What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

[W:] Yes, altogether.

[S:] And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

[W:] Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

[S:] Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree. (from Charles Simeon: Biography of a Sane Saint)

Collision 5: Stoicism or Miracle

My grandfather (Vicente Villena) visited me at my sick bed at UST hospital. He did not say anything. But the previous year-he invited me to be part of a seminar at a QC subdivision regarding the Marcos era and the economic troubles we are in. There through Pastor Banzuelo -my mother and I was bale to renounce our reliance -during my childhood-on ‘tawas’ and listening to Johnny Midnight. I also came forward so as to acknowledge Jesus before men.

 

So during his visit, he gave me a book on healing the body by positive thoughts as directed by the Scriptures. I think I lost this book due to one of the floods. During this time I am still affected by some things I have read. Like the stoicism as espoused by Spock of Star Trek. If I can control my emotions I can be okay-unfortunately-it doesn’t work that way. Instead , the Scriptures wants us to direct our life to a better and more worthwhile endeavour like following the Lord.

 

So -reason and stoicism cannot really face reality. Only faith in Jesus can. But this does not mean superstition or medievalism.

Post-New Year at Trinoma

Here are two pictures of our Janaury 3, 2009 mall hopping at Trinoma:

My family at Trinoma-Top Garden

We immediately went to top garden of Trinoma-and found the place awesome-and cool. There are a lot of ‘barkada’ places there where evryone can enjoy leisurely your coffee and snacks.

Garden area at the main floor

The other areas are almost the same-except for these garden areas. It is like the new Greenbelt area crossed with the existing Glorietta area.

If you are thinking if it is worth to try Trinoma at least once-then do-you will not regret it. It is new and different.

TGIF: Matthew 12:1-8: The Lord-not the Sabbath

Usually these verses were discussed in what the allowable activity was for Sunday or Sabbath. They complete missed the point of the passages. Previous chapters showed that the Lord Jesus had already sent his apostles to the countryside and expect some response from the people. But in spite of the work and miracles of his apostles-the people are still lukewarm and their leaders hostile.

And so at the end of chapter 11, Jesus mentioned regarding judgment, predestination and hiding divine mysteries. Then he mentioned about the rest that the Pharisees cannot give in their multiple laws and interpretations.

Sabbath is about rest; in the previous verse-Jesus talks about rest in him-have you heard that? Different words-anapausin and sabbasin-but both pointing to resting. Jesus is drawing others to rest in him. And yet others will use Sabbath to pick a fight.

He mentioned obliquely that he is greater then David and the temple, by saying that his disciples were innocent in plucking and eating grains during the Sabbath. Surely he knows who he is. Yet the Pharisees do not recognize him.

As previously mentioned at Matt 9:13- the desire for mercy is not directed at him but for the sake of others. But the Pharisees are more concerned with outward conformity and practice. They should have seen that the Messiah is for others.

 

Two Letters

I had been accused of going house to house with these two letters. But not even one of them were given to everybody. Only to 4 persons. Here are the details:

 

I am trying to maintain my belief that in discipline-the elders must be able to interview and make recommendation regarding the discipline-that it is a basic presbyterian church government whether it is the denominational type or the biblical one. Lately I now believed that actual casting out or final resolution of the discipline must be borne or carried through the end by the whole assembly, since I now believe in the baptistic ecclesiology.

 

Letter 1:

The first letter is a simple 1 page , telling that I am awaiting for the requested meeting with the elders. (I am still one of the elders-as per southern presbytery-since Elder S is still the elder-in-trainee, not had gone through them yet. So besides Pastor M and his elder-brother, I am one of the legitimate elder. But in deference to Elder S, I must include him-so he can be part of the deliberation.) and a notice that my family and I will be attending Christ Commission Fellowship for the time being.(We only went there twice since due to its distance-we tried other 6-7 churches until we were able to settle with Powerhouse). It slo included the attachments regarding tithing and infant baptism especially the article by Greg Welty.

 

This first letter was given to Pastor M, Elder S and his Elder-brother. I have a receiving copy. I shown it to the Libaos, but had not given them any copy. I have given them the attachments and due to their pleadings, I was able to explain in summary why we were no longer attending JLOAPC in the meantime then. I gave the attachments because to me the doctrine of covenantal believer’s baptism and grace giving is a source of joy and freedom to me. Through it I understand more what our Savior had done for our salvation. So I just want to share it and not to be controversial. But for those that think that truth is a threat-it will always remain controversial.

 

Family P has also a copy of the letter-since they are involved in one of the areas concerned. I was also able to interview them in my farewell visit , including the articles. I am hoping that they can change for the better.I am still hoping.

 

Letter 2:

The second letter is a response to the two page letter sent by Pastor M in the preceeding Friday morning containing the congregational letter mentioning my suspension from any teaching duties and forbidding the congregational from any talk with me. (This is without my requested meeting and also hearing my side through a face-to-face meeting. Either they are afraid of me or Pator M does not want to exposed his motives why he immediately suspended me after I insisted that we continue interviewing the Family P regarding their ‘tithing’ insult. I think Pastor M wants to dominate the church with his tithng opinion-which was defeated before by the other elders before.)

 

I mentioned there my three points of contention with numerous typed exact verses supporting biblical position regadding the following: 

 

1        Process of discip;ing an elder or even an ordinary member

2        Covenantal believer’s baptism only

3        Grace or generous giving

 

I ended the letter with my thanks. I do remember including articles by Russell-Kelly on the biblical tithe and a summary posiiton by Reformed Baptist re: infant baptism.

 

Pastor M, his elder brother, Elder S and our corporate secretary -Geordel Libao, each received a copy of the letter-which was 4-5 pages long. The board secretary have no copy of the articles.Nor did Sis Tess dela Cruz have any copy of this or the attachments. I don’t know who is feeding Pastor M on his sources.

 

Our farewell meeting with Sis Tess evolved from the telephone talks with my wife. I am hesistant to talk with her but since I discipled their family for a long time-it is only proper to saythe proper goodbyes. It took so long since Sis Tess cannot understand why and how things happened. But no letter was shown or given to her.

 

So I hope by recounting and typing it now-I can now forget all about this. This serves as a record of that period of confusion and lies made and perpetratedthat I  am “humihingi ng simpatiya” and I am going “house-to-house”.

 

But If Pastor M does not believe Elder S and his brothers as competent elders-then tell them and don’t hide from a presbyterian doctrine of the plurality of elders. Because he no longer believes in it.

 

Objectivising the Covenant: Infant Baptism

This recent blog from Mark Thompson, ead of Theology at Moore College in Sydney (http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2008/11/federal-vision-iii.html) points to the danger of practicng infant baptism as it confuses our children in their status:

(BTW:I do believe that children can be part of the covenant-just read the Pauline epistles. But it is based on faith in Jesus. However young-one can have faith, simple faith in the Messiah. But really-paedobaptist in actuality do believe in baptismal regeneration-the way they treat their children-I know-I did that for the last 15 years of my married life. All creation is His-but one must accepts God willingly to be his treasured possession.  You might think it is Arminianism- but grace does not swallow-up faith. It in fact sustain and nourish it. It is not unimportant. And our Irresistible Grace or Effectual calling emphasizes this response of faith.)

As I have made clear in a previous post, I am unconvinced by the extensive use of the word ‘covenant’ (and the concept it conveys) to describe the character of our relationship with God and with each other. Undoubtedly the Bible speaks of ‘covenants’. Scripture makes clear there was a covenant with Abraham, with Israel, with David, and there is now a new covenant brought into effect through the blood of Jesus (but which was itself promised through the prophets). However, the terminology of covenant is not writ large on every page of the New Testament as it is on just about every page of covenant theology in general and the Federal Vision in particular. Jesus does use the language of covenant during the Last Supper (Matt. 26:28). Hebrews speaks unambiguously about a new covenant which supercedes the old (Heb. 8). The language and the concept are not entirely absent from the New Testament. But neither are they the consistent pattern of its description of life in Christ.

The imposition of covenant language at points where it does not appear in the New Testament has a number of effects. First, it tends to obscure the dominant language of ‘gospel’. Of course Federal Visionists speak of the gospel. They haven’t abandoned the concept or the terminology for a moment. However, it tends to be nowhere near as prominent in their theologising as it is in the New Testament. Second, the concept of covenant has been historically (and still is today) easily confused with the quasi-legal notion of contract. In one sense this is very hard to avoid whenever you start speaking about obligations and sanctions. Yet it appears that the structure of one of the major Old Testament covenants, the covenant with Israel at Sinai, is read into both the covenant with Abraham and an implicit covenant with Adam and into the new covenant as well. Certainly Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant (Heb. 9:15) and this new covenant is the new covenant in his blood (Luke 22:20), but I think there is a genuine risk of freedom and grace being swallowed up by a new legalism which might even turn joy into an obligation. The ethos of covenant theology seems different from that of the New Testament, notwithstanding the fact that it is meant to be drawn from the New Testament.

However, I move from discomfort to outright concern when I read the Federal Vision approach to baptism and the objectivity of the covenant. Once we start to speak of the act of baptism making a real difference to the baptized, ‘[r]egardless of the state of their heart, regardless of any hypocrisy, regardless of whether or not they mean it’, when we suggest that by virtue of the act itself ‘such a person is now a visible saint, a Christian’, we have moved a considerable distance beyond the teaching of the New Testament. This concern is not ameliorated in the slightest by caveat that ‘God has made a statement concerning this person, and the one baptized has an obligation to say amen to God’s statement through how he goes on to live his life.’ The attempt by Douglas Wilson to make use of the Catholic slogan ex opere operato takes things further and is problematic at a number of levels (unwise given the history of the expression, misleading given the New Testament emphasis on a union with Christ by faith and in the Spirit).

This has its most practical impact, of course, when it comes to the baptism of children and infants. I have never believed that the covenantal framework is necessary to justify the baptism of the children of Christian parents. (Each of my four daughters was baptized within a few weeks of being born.) God certainly does deal with us in the network of relationships in which he has placed us, he has made promises regarding Christian homes and the children he chooses to give to us. The Federal Visionists are right to rail at the individualism which is so rampant in our churches and is more the result of post-seventeenth century secular philosophy than the Scriptures. They are right to suggest that the normal expectation of Christian parents is that their children will grow up never knowing a day when they did not love Jesus. They are right to insist that Christians bring up their children as Christians, teaching them to pray to ‘Our Father’ and to relish the fact that ‘Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so’ (and of course the Bible tells me so by pointing me to the cross). However, Federal Visionists want to say much more about baptism, and especially the baptism of infants, than would seem warranted by the statements of the New Testament.

It seems to me that this is one of those places where there is considerable room for Christian freedom. We know from the pages of the New Testament that when pagans or Jews were converted they were regularly baptized ‘in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’. There are plenty of examples. In some of those cases households were involved and a great deal has been made of this in some circles. However, the simple fact, it seems to me, is that we do not know what happened when the converted and baptized once-pagan now-Christian had children. For one reason or another this was not such a big issue that it should be addressed directly in the apostolic letters. Those tend to address first generation believers and only occasionally second generation believers. So I take it that we have a measure of freedom in this matter. A good case can be made from the New Testament for the baptism of infants, when those infants are the children of Christian parents. I’m persuaded by that case and have acted on it. But a good case could also be made for baptism being delayed until the child is able to confess their own faith. I might not find it as convincing, I might think it replaces the promissory nature of baptism with a confessional or testamentary element that changes its basic character, but in the absence of direct teaching on the matter in Scripture, I want to recognise the freedom of Christian parents to take that option.

(My Note: I think they better study baptism outside of the theological construct of the covenant-and see it under the new covenant, kingdom and the gospel-so that there is a direct link beween them-than this covenant theology. It tends to push us to find ghost anywhere where there is none)

Here is one of the most disturbing pastoral effects of the Federal Vision controversy, at least as I and some of my friends have experienced it. Little grace is shown towards those who differ on the issue of infant baptism. The decision not to baptize children is parodied as denying them covenant blessings, or in more unguarded moments, spiritually disadvantaging them. The language can be quite emotive and it can raise the prominence of the baptism issue way beyond its place in the teaching of the New Testament. As a result Christians are polarised and the spectre of division raises its ugly head. It becomes a matter of primary importance to challenge those who do not practice infant baptism. In extreme cases, accusations of ‘spiritual neglect’ and ‘abuse’ have been levelled.

It is hard to see how this has happened. How has the practice of baptism, even more precisely, the timing of baptism, and the theology associated with it, become the litmus test for Christian orthodoxy? Given that practitioners of adult baptism are vitally concerned for the spiritual welfare of their children too, given that they are trusting God for their children’s future too, praying genuinely and earnestly, and given that the Bible really says very little about baptism and certainly next to nothing about when baptism was administered in the second generation of Christians, why has such energy and emphasis been placed at this point?