A grave moment

Under diverse circumstances, I have recently visited a cemetary for a decent amount of time. Forgive the pun in the title. I don't believe I have ever really been to a cemetary. I have been to Arlington in DC but only in passing.

I realize now how grave and reposed cemetaries appear to be even at night. It is certainly true that death is the great equalizer and that we all return to dust. Yet, we know that this is not the end. Though the idea of rest with God is sweet, it is not yet our place. We are very much alive. We are very much moving. Things of today and of eternity require our attention, in ways that they could not in death. Let these be for and of God. I see this contrast in the idea of being buried with Him in baptism. The world is no longer the same as when we die to it and it dies to us.

In some ways, the world is like a cemetary. We look around and see the walking dead. We see people who will not actively praise God. We see people whose throat is an open grave. We know of the putrifing flesh of men, that lies only six feet under, but we dare not speak it. We are superstitious not to disturb the dead. We may as, some look at it, be afraid of the dead in this world.

In some ways we must respect the world differently than a cemetary, if it be for God. It is life that determines what is sacred ground. Let us not dedicate to God and call anything sacred if it was found within a curse, like the grave. Let us rather dedicate to God what was found in His blessing, life itself. Let us rather bid dead people to rise. Let us proclaim truth in a place that is silent. Let us focus on the cross, not as a marker but as a living thing that Christ has placed to give us life. Let us dedicate to God, his life in us. Let us live for God for tomorrow we shall die.

Catholics and baptism: Coup de gras. A blow of fat

OK, if you haven't studied french you won't get the second pun. Time to sock catholics on baptism and salvation by faith.

FIRST. To tie in the lose ends what if one defines baptism as the first act of obedience representative of the grace received. Then to deny it, is to deny that the grace has been received. Or it is to deny one's sanctification arising out of true faith. A true believer will have nothing wrong with baptism but that doesn't mean it saves. Catholics have stated that a desire to be water baptised must be implicit to one's faith to be saved. Within this definition, what is required is only this desire from a newly regenerated heart. I say that this desire will not be rejected in such a heart following augustine. Furthermore, this heart will seek to put to death sin.

SECOND. The lavar of regeneration. What if one were to say that regeneration is the application of Christ's blood to cleanse a believer. This in itself would be a baptism of blood. It fills in what is asked for at Trent on both accounts. The grace itself and regeneration.

THIRD. Regeneration and union with christ, denoted by faith: may be said to fill in all the requirements for salvation prior to baptism. Faith is suffiecent. This true faith will not be superficial for I consider it to be present by an act of God. It will not resolutely reject the calls of sanctification including one of its first acts called baptism.

Let the argument be rather about who remains within salvation and if one can fall from grace within sanctificaion. Let us consider the second plank of justification/salvation for Catholics. It is for those who shipwrech their faith. *Cough*Everyone*Cough* I say this to imply that it has become their only form of justification outside of people on their deathbed and infants. To attribute it to man is to be pelagrian in this protestants eyes. Let us also move beyond the transformational model of justification into a protestant one.

It is easy to see why salvation follows the grace not the sacrement. If one places conversion and faith concurrent with the grace called regeneration. Let us also consider that this grace as suffiecent to bring about the desire for baptism as well as faith. It still holds that one becomes saved by catholic standards upon faith not baptism.

A miracle. Perhaps. I argue this is what protestants said when Luther trumpheted salvation by a faith that begins in an act of God. This faith is by grace alone, through faith alone, in christ alone, for God's glory alone, and by Catholocism alone (smirk smirk as I just proved). My new quote: "Catholic, God will hang the truth like an albatross around your neck with your very own theology. Until he drags you to calvary to behold christ by faith." by me.

I see Catholics confusing grace and the sacrement. I shall prove the two are separate. Why should I? the catholics already said they may be. It has happened before in 'extraordinary' circumstances of charity or by an act of God. The difference on sacrements is the fundamental source of all protestant 'truths' or heresies, besides rejection of papal authority. The rest was confused in the catholic system.

Catholic and baptism 2

Ambroise and his disciple Augustine repeat the idea that the person is considered saved but How? He was shown to undergo santification by the spirit prior to baptism. So he had the grace. Furthermore, there was a rank of Catchumen, unbaptised converts that were considered saved since a desire to be baptised by undergoing this process. It is called baptism of desire.

Let's us further consider this: These quotes are taken from second hand from "Baptism and the Baptism of Desire. By Raymond Taouk"
I will analyze these quotes in itallics.
[[
Pope St. Pius X states that "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least IMPLICIT OF BAPTISM, and this is called Baptism of Desire"... So what is required is a perfect act of love and contrition with a desire for obedience, namely that of baptism

Catholics at trent State: "the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it"....Let us note the requirement for regeneration. It is important later for it shall show us something.

The word “Votum” (as used by the Council of Trent) is not some superficial wish. That is not the meaning of the word at all. In fact, we must keep in mind that the very nature of faith means that it cannot be totally implicit as it is necessary to know and believe something divinely revealed with a supernatural faith. Laboring under invincible ignorance does not prevent a person from being converted to God by contrition or by an act of perfect Charity. In this act of contrition or perfect act of charity must be contained either an explicit or implicit desire to receive baptism by water according as the notion of baptism is or is not present to the mind of the Person who has turned his heart and mind to God. Ignorance does not prevent one from being converted. The Catholics hold out the idea of the desire for baptism by water.

St. Alphonsus Liguori says "In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." Does the holy spirit provide this upon regeneration. Notice the hold out specific to the desire for water baptism.

St. Augustine also distinguishes between the sacrament of Baptism and the turning of the heart to God. He teaches that if either of these conditions cannot be secured, the other will be sufficient. A baptized Child is saved, without turning its heart to God, should it die before coming to the age of reason, and a man who turns his heart to God is saved without water baptism, provided he in no way despise the sacrament. This is perhaps the most clear. Augustine offers a weaker hold out. As long as they don't reject baptism.

In any case, there is no Baptism of desire without the supernatural virtue of faith and a certain explicit knowledge of the essential points of faith. Since the nature of faith means that is impossible, that it be completely implicit since faith is a supernatural light to the intelligence. Supernatural faith and explicit knowledge of essential points. Lets reword this to the Gospel and true faith. Let us also make it necessary to believe in cornerstone doctrines like the trinity that tell us which Christ and which God.

This teaching of the Church far from taking away the obligation to be baptized or to enter the Church rather affirms to us not only the necessity for entering the Church but also the necessity for baptism. It shows us the real implications for willfully neglecting to receive baptism and enter the Church, which is the sole ark of Salvation. Even if the Church teaches that it is possible to attain salvation by of the "baptism of desire" or "Baptism of Blood", she is not teaching that it is the ordinary means of salvation for anyone. It would only be by a moral miracle that a person could be saved in such a manner, since what is by definition beyond the ordinary is extraordinary. There is no question of individuals being saved by their own efforts, without God's grace, and therefore outside the Church. On the contrary, it is stated that because these individuals are holding to the true teaching of Christ that they are joined invisibly to the Church. Thus, strictly speaking, one does not say "non-Catholics may be saved" or "Protestants can go to heaven." There are no non-Catholics in the Church and there are no non-Catholics in heaven. The only souls in heaven are those who have joined themselves to the Church in fact or desire....I thought calvinists believe in an extraordinary ordinary miracle called regeneration before faith upon Gospel preaching, this calling is done by God. Finally saying something doesn't over and over about protestants does not make it so. Especially, if it is about conflicting definitions of the true church.]]

See my next article for a Coup Coup de grâce. Forgive the pun. It ties the analysis together.

Catholics and baptism.

Let us first begin with catholics. Let us not be confused with their theology. It is complicated.

They believe that Christ's blood is applied in water baptism. The person is then regenerated and filled or rather infused with all the graces that leads one to be sanctified. These graces enable a person to do good until the person rejects them. Babies are saved in these graces (by baptism) because they are unable to reject these graces until they can reason and reject them. It is also up to the catholic to maintain this deposit of faith. A Catholic will remain righteous and thus saved if he does not reject these sanctifying graces.

This requires the ongoing act of Penance, works, and confession. Some catholics will believe that God works and wills within people within their sanctification. It is done by God alone within a person. This credits God not man for sanctification. It can be said that Augustinians may place the merit/value to God's credit. It is from this they can maintain that men do not make themselves righteous and God saves from first to last. These people rely on God to save.

But many times this turns into a synergism (Thomisians) of effort which credits both. Lastly there is the idea that God only gives the ability. The works are then ascribed as the person's merit which become necessary to be saved. (Most common and close to pelagrian.) A smart catholic would conclude the grace (despite it being granted by the church in baptism) is from God. They would say it is necessary but not suffiecent. This lack of suffiecency means that man's merit is required for God to save.

Augustinians may believe it is suffiecent but not without God's sanctification in a person. The person must still work to be saved but it is and is not him working. I cannot say they beleive in salvation by works but they don't believe in a righteousness apart from the law. This is a short summery of catholocism as I understand it. I may have left a great deal out but I hope this has done them justice. It is from this that one can conclude a few catholics, who trust in Christ for their righteousness, are saved and many more are not because they trust in their works. The invisible church remains unbroken since the time of Christ.

We shall look more closely at baptism from now within this foundation. It is understandable that Early catholics put off baptism to lessen their requirement of keeping themselves righteous until their death. Once baptised they are saved none-the-less. This changed once catholics made purgatory a dogma sanctification was still required even if one waited. There was no longer an urge to wait. It is also shown that Early catholics saw baptism as entrance to group of the faithful and the lord's army by application of the Grace. Baptism served for full entrance into the Catholic church.

Now Catholics who put off baptism till their deathbed were faced with a dilemma. What if they were not near water, a priest, and were dying. Could they be saved. They were willing to be baptised but had not the means at hand. If they died on their way to be baptized by a priest. (Not just any believer but one invested with the power of Rome.) What happens to his soul? Is it saved?

Lets see how in my next post the catholics want to have their cake and eat it too.

Contemplating baptism

I have recently been contemplating the ideas and doctrines behind baptism. I hate to say it but these are often not on par with other exigesis in scripture. For Presbyterians and For baptists and let us not forget Charismatics. This was brought to my attention at VQ 06 and sorta resolved. I have come back to contemplate it since a year ago. FV/AAT has brought the issue of baptism up again when I stumbled into their hermantic when looking at problems with NPP.

It is more of an issue for my theology to fit together since I am charismatic, reformed, and a baptist. If Water baptism and regeneration are too closely tied to covenantal theology (grace/sign) of administration. Spiritual baptism becomes a wierd uncle in short because it is a baptism that is not linked to covenant theology, or even the other two baptists, by any stretch of the imagination. The problem is elsewhere. Man-made Theology then has made it such that the inerrant book of Ephesians in the bible falls on its face when it states one faith, one god, and one baptism.

I plan on discussing baptism in a long series.

Confession of my sin at being a christian

I have been a christian a long time. I have been saved for a long time but not quite as long as being a 'Christian'. I grew up a ‘Christian’ without actually being such for a while. I many times acted 'Christian' without faith. This should be a contradiction at its very core. It is a red flag. True christian things cannot be done rightly by unbelievers. Everything must be done by faith in faith.

Now when i look back through some better eyes. I see that I tried to do everything myself without Christ. Then, I would get mad at myself or maybe frustrated with God when I failed. This a perfect endeavor into a false religion. It is the largest religion of the world. It is the chief component of judiasm, catholicism, islam, hinduism, and a whole host of other religions. It is called Legalism. My childhood faith consisted in this with its own false God for a while. During this time, I had gone to a Presbyterian church that was sound. It was very orthodox. It was so sound that it was sound asleep. A hollow shell of the former self.

They had fallen into the trap of placing morality and ‘Christian’ living above the gospel truths of Christ and Him crucified. They shyed away from any controversy. The gospel was present but not arrayed in its full glory.

My salvation came later in middle school after I had moved from Pennsylvania. I was then going to a nondenominational evangelical (essentially Baptist) church in Indiana. I know that my trust was to be in Christ alone. I also learned that in trusting Christ, perfection was not the end of religion. Christ himself was the end. I certainly was a lukewarm legalistic "Christian" before this time. I can clearly say that christian are called in power. They should actively seek to be more Christ-like day-by-day. This is out of respect and honor of that person. Worship comes from Worthship, as in giving or showing the value of something. Namely recognizing worth and weight to God’s Love, Mercy, Grace, Purity, and even His Being. He is due from every creature this worship for he is our creator.

This transition from morality and duty into trust and worship began with a bang. It was not the same but my faith still had to grow on me. It slowly changed me over time to a complete faith. I was further blessed and strengthened in faith by several years spent at a sound SBC church in Tennessee throughout high school. I have now benefited from a sovereign grace ministries church. I also benefited by the encouragement to seek out God in the Bible and also from the shoulders of other men through personal study.


Before being saved, I just I wasn’t truly into following Jesus. I thought I was. (This is such a false hope that I would not have known without God.) The right way does not lead to a dead end with a mountain crashing on top of you. The short comings of doing 'good' is not the bases of a relationship with God. Real faith leads only to Christ and him crucified. No further.

I see that many times my past efforts to do what was right were shipwrecked by a blind man at the wheel. I was dead for a lack of knowledge. I was dead for a lack of faith. There was no way for me to fix it without God's help. I had to be born again for I could not spiritually discern truth. Natural man cannot. There is no faith apart from truth. There is not even a chance for truth without God himself and the Holy Spirit activily revealing it. God must open eyes and hearts.

It is by this truth of what faith is, that we can know that it is God who saves sinners. He will take the greatest legalist, even the most zealous of them. One which persecuted the church with all of hell's fury. If can be saved, we know that it is not of himself but of God. Let us not think about the ficticious line between sinners and saints, "he's a good guy", or anything like that. The Gospel is worthy of total exceptance by all and anyone. God tells the legalist to stop digging his hole. It is the ongoing sin of unbelief that keeps them at digging. Jesus had to die to overcome this also for his choosen people. He also had to send his spirit to convince people that righteousness was manifest apart from the law.

A natural man cannot please God without knowing how. Natural men think they are doing a service to God but the truth is that they are heap more coals of judgment upon themselves. They exalt their own pride and position rather than being humble enough to submit to Christ. They exalt their filthy rages. They exalt their 'required' service in praising God in such a way that it pays for their short comings. It does not. It is an ever present unbelief that condemns them.

My Exposition of Calvinism, TIULPI

I would first discuss Depravity and original sin. The gospel is too good toward man for a sane person to reject. It is because of sin. It reasons then the sin that Christ supposively died for that stands in the way of one's acceptance of the gospel. How can this be so? I propose it isn't because salvation is all of God. This is the heart of calvinism.

God must act to save people. God does this by regeneration prior to faith. God opening eyes and hearts. Sinners then see the truth and accept the gospel. It is in this act that the workings of God's election are first made manifest in a person.

The death Christ died was God's design to save a particular people while make full atonement for man. This design is first seen in the act of regeneration of sinners to faith. The design centers around His actions not ours. It is ment to bring about a complete salvation including faith and the things that accompany it by one's union with Christ.

Finally, One cannot be lost by the sin that Christ came to save men from. Christ died once and for all. Furthermore, salvation brings along with it the spirit. He will always bring one back to repentance. (This is more of being raked over the coals by the Holy Ghost than a believer remaining in sin and being saved.) Once saved always repentant.

Finally, throughout all of this, Grace comes apart from the trappings of sin and the devil. God is invincible in his plan to save sinners.

In short TIULPI.
Why 'I' twice. It is the center of Focus of God's sovereignty being 'absolute'. The first I was with respect to man's actions. The second with respect to God's plan being invincible.

Note: One can also throw in postmodern/neocalvinist ideas with total depravity if they so please but only if they attribute the problem of understanding to sin or the person rather than the language or God. It is one bridge to postmodernism and back.

TULIP or was it UPLIT

I came across a forum that was researching the history of the mnemonic TULIP. Appearantly, it is a new invention (circa 1932) perhaps by Boettner or some other preacher around that time. It became popular in the 1970s. TULIP was just called the five points before this time.

They were often known by different names too.
T- was Total inability, Human depravity, or Radical depravity.
U- was sovereign election or unconditional predestination.
L- was definite atonment or particular redemption.
I- was efficacious grace or invincible grace.
P- was always the same name.

The five points were often presented in different orders. ULTIP was what Spurgeon used. Dordt has them all over in each section, Starting with TUP. It is in no way monolithic. I much prefer explaining calvinism without Tulip. I shall exposite what I see is a good way of introducing calvinism outside of a polemic or contrast.

High and Low Grace

There are many kinds of calvinists. I want to first discuss what high calvinism and low calvinism are. I sorta hinted at what dutch calvinism was when i started talking on neocalvinism.

First off, the distinction between infra/supra-lapsarianism is insuffiecent for classifying high and low calvinism because each system leads to the same conclusions. John Gill showed this. It is based on perspective just as much as anything. High calvinists will tend to be supralapsarian whereas low calvinists will be infralapsarian. If you don't know these terms, you are likely infra.

The real distinction for high and low is on the focus. High calvinism will stress decrees from eternity past and predestination. Low Calvinism will stress God's sovereignty without addressing these things outside of God's active work within creation. Low calvinism will also be more means oriented with the idea of instrumentality and respect secondary causes like gospel preaching to all. There is some overlap between the two. People were called low and high calvinists often in a derrogatory way.

It should also be noted that high does not = hyper. Yet, all hyper calvinists are high calvinists. Hypercalvinists are in fact high calvinists who forget the gospel applies to all men without exception.

I am somewhere in the middle between these two like most people. I started higher in my doctrine but have moved downward slightly. I guess it was a good thing.

Creation

Some people take creation as entirely literal. Some take it figurative. Others subject the narrative to science. Finally, some take it for exactly what it is in light of the rest of the bible. I bring this up because I was thinking about the creation for sometime.

I see strands of thought that easily incorporate old earth creationism by a literal reading of the passage in Isaiah. "They shall not enter into his rest." as referring to an ongoing sabbath rest. I see other strands of thought that so prove a six day creation, such that no liberal theologian aught to even deny its existence. I have looked around at where I stand on this issue. I cannot find fault in the short creation week. I also cannot exclude a long creation week either. I stand nowhere.

I find it more difficult to conceive of a long creation week but not impossibly. I wish not the difficulty of believing a long creation week on anyone in light of the plain reading of Genesis that glorifies God's work. It is not essential because we can be certain that God made it. We can be certain that He also made it good. In short, I realize stand I nowhere on this issue. I will likely keep this position.

I looked more deeply into Genesis 1 and realized that the creation story has more nuances than what is written. What of Angels? What of the true Heavens, which exist outside of our material existence? Are these the heavens mentioned or is it just the sky. Next, where does this sky end. The firmament includes both sky and stars. Are the true heavens mentioned in this creation or just stars. What do we make of the waters above and the waters below this expanse, in light of these things. What is the deep vastness that existed before creation. Is the creation story just of the earth or is it of the universe. Also, how long was Adam in Eden?

There are many questions. I don't have the answers. I don't think they are necessary to faith. Yet, God had to create the real/true heavens at some time. Yet, they are not eternal. They are created and real outside of our universe. Furthremore, Angels are creatures like men. They cover their eyes, they fly, and they cover their feet. They, even if they live forever, have a beginning.

Since we can see the splendor of the first creation so clearly. It matters not how it was made but who made it. Let us look at the second work of creation. A work that is done by God. He takes not an old man and remakes him. He creates a new man in place of the old.

This is in a work called regeneration, it is worked out later by faith. It is inadequate of an expression to the world's eyes of God's creative glory. Yet, it far surpasses the understanding of the saints that God can make a stone heart alive. That God can clean away the leopard's spots or change the color of an Ethiopian's skin. That God can forgive sin. It far surpasses our understanding of how we came to love one that we were the source of hatred against. It is not that we first love God but that God first loved us. While we were yet sinners, he sent His Son to die for us. It is by this and Christ's effectual prayers that God was please to make men anew in Christ. Desires change and duty becomes delight. God has been found by those who sought him not. Be it always to God's glory. Amen