Modernist myth: The individual

There is a tendancy to respect the individual outside of the context of a community. One can create theology outside of discussing who are we, and what we can do in general; by discussing only who am I, and what I 'think' I can do. This myth is to say that importance is placed more and more on the individual alone. This is seen in choice and modern evangelism.

Choice is hearald as an individualist right in salvation. God forbide, that God is a respecter of individuals. (Yet, this claim can be leveled just as well against Arminians as calvinists.) It does not discuss the context of grace towards the community of believers. Or the necessity of grace for the placement of that person into the community. It is also the community that gives context to an individual. Someone, who i generally disagree with, once said, "No man is an island." Modern Evangelism has fallen into such. It says Christ died for you, without saying Christ died for sinners and you are one in fact in that community. It does not say that Christ died for the church on a community level; he did not die or spill his blood for those outside it. By placing worth in the individual, rather than the context given to that individual, is to sacrifice the gospel. Postmodernism does not like defining individual, much less anything. It is right in this rejection of modernism's individual but it does not establish community.

We can see how modern churches have become groups of individuals rather than communities. It is perhaps a cause to why we see people date churches. I realize that there are individual considerations but they are not independant from the context given to them.

I am not exhaulting the church but rather am exhalting the means that God has instituted. They are not from or for the individual alone. Election was the selection of a nation of individuals that are to be built together. It was not the selection of individuals who would remain such. It is not the choice of individual to gain an individualistic salvation, apart from a community, by themselves.
Such rugged individualism helps exhalt pride, merit, and choice of individuals in salvation rather than grace and faith lived out in a community. Without a community, believers are fish out of water. Life takes place in a community of God. Life does not take place in the solitude of an individual.

Now when the prodigal son was called home. He was coming home from a life of rugged individualism. He was came home to a family. Let it be like such in Christ. Christ seeks to have communion and fellowship with us in this life and the next. Men were made for such.

Death to Serventes--Rant

Before people start accusing Calvin of being a murderer. I am accusing Arminius with being one. Worse, I accuse him of participating in crimes against humanity by proxy. I am sure Arminius was an expert witness against the protestants. If he was a good Catholic he would even consent to the means that the Catholic church used in his time. For the catholic church is inerrant in its papal anathemas that were enforced. A good catholic follows the leader. (Or rather swallows the leader)

Arminius would consent with the lutheran wars. These wars ended because Germany's population was so badly decimated. It was 1/2 of pre-war levels. It was like the war on the hussites fought to decimation.

Arminius would consent with the persecution of protestants in France. He would consent with killing the Hugenots. What? Who are they? They are the 2million protestants living in France who were exterminated. They don't really exist anymore.

Arminius would consent to brutal child kidnapping of protestant children so they can be raise catholic in monestaries.

Arminius would consent to a St Bartholomew day massacre. At least 8,000 protestants killed in one day. Furthermore, He would not consent to an apology. The catholic church still hasn't apologized,

Arminius would consent to much much more than just this as an expert witness. So why are we still talking about Serventes. He is dead. The world was probably better off. I can't say the world is better off with so many dead protestants who are not heretics.

Now why don't we start talking about Arminians and the head of their theology? That Arminian theology must be demonic from a demonic institution. Let us not even touch that stuff. You call it unfair. You prove my point on total depravity. Now shut up about calvin.

Now all things considered. This is like people who charge Calvin, instead of Geneva (who even kicked Calvin out once), for the murder. Then manage to some how extrapolate an impact on the man's theology. It is an absurd log in one's eye!!! Yes, Arminianism came straight from Catholocism. I can debate anyone under the table on that assertion. Death to serventus because I can show anyone that protestant were a lot more tame than Arminians of that time. Furthermore, I can show that religious freedom later came from not the Arminians but the Calvinists!

Kudos to JI Packer

Quote: "The amount of misrepresentation to which Calvin's theology has been subjected is enough to prove his doctrine of total depravity several times over."

The way I see it Rant-

-Christ died for the church.
-He died to make two flesh one.
-Marriage shows this unique and particular union between Christ and the church.

Gay marriage, Gay marriage. I have had enough of trying to explain why I hate it.
It is an affront to God. Even more so than the acts of Homosexuality.

You know whatelse I hate, people's understanding marriage. They don't see that Marriage requires love to be mainly for the wife. I hate Adultery!

To say Christ’s love lay outside of primarily this union, indiscriminately to everyone, is to ascribe a universal love for every harlot as being equal or greater than that toward a wife. Some call this doctrine unlimited, universal, or hypothetically universal atonement. I would much rather call it, slutty.

Spiritual baptism

Charismatic theology has some influeces into baptistic theology. Unfortunately, they are very nebulous. They often break apart Ephesians 4:5, one baptism. It is not discussed enough but I find that this appearant inconsistancy that needs to be examined. This is really an extension of the line of thought I had at VQ06. I was using strictly a presbyterian heurmanic. This makes it impossible to accept the third wave anwser to spiritual baptism. Only at conversion. Yet, i know that this need not be the case.

I cannot resolve Acts with a third wave approach because I arrive at what I see are greater errors. I cannot just allow a second wave approach to call it two baptisms either. I cannot allow such for i am not strictly second wave. Nor do I hold a strictly pentecost understanding of the occurance. I am pre-charismatic in similarity to bunyan. Also, the second spiritual baptism cannot any more be a sign of regeration than water baptism is. Yet, spiritual baptism is distinct from both of these as a sign and as a grace.

I hope to spell something out more specific on this baptism. As well as relation between the three. We know how water and regeneration are related. Spiritual baptism cannot be the weird uncle in this match. It is related in some means too. I am afraid I may walk new ground in part of my justification of 'one Baptism' but I see no other way. This is for later posts though.

I am not as far away as I thought from what others have said over a particular verse. In short, the Presbyterians are in error here in one part of their covenantal theology if spiritual baptism is thrown into the mix. Yet, I dare not take a dispensational approach on discussing the newness of the spirit at pentecost. I believe that is in error. I rather believe it has been poured out throughout time in the covenant of grace. But specially at pentecost.

Finally, my last thought on water baptism. I have no strong opinions about immersion other than it is more preferable.*

Persuasion

I can explain something logically and thoroughly until the cows come home, but some will still never be persuaded. Some will not care. I have been wondering if I would be better off ringing aloud the bell of truth rather than resting upon on the erosion of the ocean tide in proving something.


To what degree should I be fast, strong, and concise with my statements.
To what degree should I be thorough, steadfast, and calculated.

It is hard to strike an appropriate balance since I cannot decide if I should be defensive or offensive in stating things that have been suffiecently proven in the past almost as fact. Or in stating things that are suggestive but not proven.
I would have little trouble if I did not feel also feel that I had to prove the same eternal doctrines as the people who preceded me theologically.

Do I have someone's shoulder to stand upon or do I need to build something up myself these days. This impasse shows up in the problem of retaining an orthodox. Am I to establish orthodoxy or Am I to maintain it? I side with BB Warfield. I have more problems with people who are perfectly content with orthodoxy than with those who will test it against the Bible and their theological system.

Fixing orthodoxy in places like the emerging church seems to have this two-fold problem. There are some who openly attack it. It would seem that their position need to be eroded from under them. There are others who just need their convictions awoken to truth.

I am taking up some old drafts for some work. Ironically, this is one of them. They are likely next on my list of updates. Ultimately, the reason boils down to how much logic do I wish to use to prove my position? Or how much conviction do I wish to show on their behalf?

In all of this, I am sure on the presentation of the Gospel. It needs to be sounded off to people. It is not something that people need to hear a complete and calculated presentation of logic in support. The Gospel is something needing to be heard concisely and with the strength of conviction. It is in these other things that I have not yet considered what persuasion is appropriate. Or even if the use of persuasion is appropriate.

Baptism and regeneration 2

Lets move on to 1 Peter 3:18-21
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And (A)corresponding to that , baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(A) Greek word: antitupon- a type or copy. This means that it is like that which does. It is does not do it itself.

Within these two contexts you can see how proclaimation to spirits in prison responds not to dead people but ones in bondage to sin. Ones spiritually dead who are baptized. It follows that it is upon the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus. Not upon water.

Christ was raise for our justification. Not so baptism can save but rather he can save. This justification is in regeneration which is shown in water baptism. This justification is further shown through sanctification with grace from Spiritual baptism.

Baptism and Regeneration

Having dealt a blow to the catholic idea of baptism by desire and wedged in salvation by Grace through faith. (A while ago.)I have hopefully said that salvation follows the grace not the outward act.

I shall also show that the act of baptism is a type/sign of sanctification and salvation; not what saves. It brings us to what scripture says particularly in Romans 6 and in 1 Peter 3.

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self [1] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free [2] from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

The link to baptism with God's redemptive plan cannot be over looked. Nor can God's work at causing obedience cannot be overlooked. Yet, Paul leaves little room for such a link not to be present in baptism. The question becomes what is this link.
Paul says also elsewhere: "As many of you as have been baptised in christ have put on christ."(Gal 3:27) This clearly states the numbers between obedient to teaching from the heart and baptized are equal.

To hold that water baptismal regeneration happens, one must also hold that it always does and achieves the result of putting on Chirst. The aorist verb for "put on" is indicative without respect to time. Meaning it has indeed happened or is happening. Yet, the continuance of baptism and newness of life that are also seen in Romans 6. The charge of water baptism being rejectable cannot be sustained from the discussion of ongoing nature in sanctification. It is guaranteed because of the perserverance of the saints and God who both wills and works in sanctification.

Since there is no escape left for "As many of you as have been baptised have put on christ" " One counter example destroys the argument. This is to say that the grace of baptism must always attend water baptism. I can say from personal experience that it does not always attend a person being thrown underwater or sprinkled as a child or an adult. It rather attends itself than externals.

Let us consider colossians 2:12 "11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. "

Circumcision done without hands. It is not done by a person or a substance/tool in a person's hand. It is done by christ as is stated in the verse. It puts off the body of the flesh. This circumcision is what is ascribed to this baptism. Not of water but of Blood. It is from the application of Christ's blood. This baptism is seen as putting off the flesh and putting on Christ. This is confirmed in verse 12 as being from God not man. It is the grace of baptism in which one is raised through faith in the powerful working of God. This is while being dead in transgressions and in uncircumcision. This is faith not the works done by us in righteousness.

Christ's grace in baptism is the lavar of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. It is confirmed in Titus 3:5. "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." Since Water baptism follows under works done by us in righteousness. It cannot save. This washing of regeneration is nothing but atonement by the sprinkling of his blood at conversion. It is a rightly a baptism but it is of another type. Lets move on to 1 peter

covenant and baptism

Baptism now can be discussed in covenantal framework. Being baptised into christ's death is very similar to the idea represented in union with christ with our iniquities of the flesh and our person being punished on the cross. It shows how the flesh as a whole is condemned in Christ and killed, dead and buried. And how we are in a way. Yet we are raised also. This applies to how new humanity is raised in 2nd adam.

Yet, true grace of baptism occurs in regeneration and not necessarily in water. Water is merely a sign because it is outward truth not an inward one. It can never be an inward one for it is a sacrement. Its efficacy depends on what is inward. Water baptism fits with circumcision as an outward covenantal sign on all its members. Yet we also know that the water does not reveal those who are sons of light but only does so in part. The egyptians also circumcised yet were not of abraham nor under the covenant. Their circumcision was counted as uncircumcision.

In this idea, the perserverance of saints seems to be reject if water baptism of the external church is meant to reveal sons of light who are not such. Such we must consider the baptism of unbelieving childs as uncircumised but not necessarily unclean. We know that Water Baptism is a sacrement so if efficacy does not arise from what is outside but rather from the inward truth of baptism. (Like circumcision) It then appears that water baptism is as much of a part of being shown justified by likeness within the revelation of covenant as it is to covenantal adminstration and identification to the covenant. This is to say it is for believers who have been regenerated and part of sanctification. It follows from the idea that christ's blood cannot justify a believer and be ineffectial. I call into question the purpose of a sacrement otherwise. One would dare not give communion to a non-believer. Why should baptism be different?

Now should paedobaptised people be rebaptised. This is difficult to say since one cannot be recircumsized. Yet, baptism is like the sign circumcision. While regeneration is like the truth and seal of circumcision. Paedobaptized are only accounted uncircumcised even if they are. It follows that it may be possible to be rebaptised since the first one was a sacrement without grace. Yet, does the grace arrive after someone who is clean is next considered circumcised. It was not a covenantal sacrament originally but merely a ritual denoting change. Yet, does it become one? Is this proper to rebaptise? I do not easily know.

Spiritual baptism remains to be discussed at a later time. Yet, it is related to the grace and power of showing Christ's image outwardly.

My Confession of Religion surfing

I came across an interesting link about religion and the internet. It was after 9-11 but I am sure some of it still holds true. Or else I would not be up writing this blog entry.

Religion Surfers

I can only speculate at the future of religion in Cyberspace and church life. The internet is fastly growing into a prime source of spreading information to large groups of people. It also stores and makes information so very accessable. We take it for granted. This story is 6 years old, even before wiki was big.

The web is able to be searched very effectly to. You don't have to be as well read or hunt through books. I admit that I am a big googler and a wikipedian. The quality and quantity of what is online is also improving. This raises some issues to discuss.

First, new sources of error arise. There will be an overload of lies and heresies that are no longer isolated by geography or by number. The people influence by them will be more informed than before by strong delusions. The pastors of a local church will have to be more educated likewise to refute theses errors or let them drift further into them.

Second, the truth is out. (No, not like the x-files.) This will open up doors for those who live with lies. It thus serves as a medium for advancing the truth and the Gospel.

Third, it will speed up the business of how Religion is done.

Fourth, there will be a greater source of information to help pastors and the laymen alike. (Thank God for public domain)

Fifth, there may be more latitudinarians who will not care in what one believes. This is the lazy way out of information overload.

Sixth, there will be religion surfers out trying to educate themselves on these things as the article mentions.