Predestination

There is a belief that God works all things in invisible and unknowable ways. Some call this belief predestination. I laugh at such an attempt to label it. It is those who put this label on the actions of a sovereign God on our behalf who are in error. They are obsecessed with the speck of fatalism when they do not see their own log. Free will and choice do not solve fatalism. The choices and the events of history move out of God's hands and into man's. Our fate does not lie in the infinite wisdom and goodness of God but in the hands of our sinful selfs and many times other sinful men. No man is an island. Our fate, in part, comes from the actions of other people. It is subject to the free choice of another man. It is by this that wars are started. Jobs are lost. People drink and drive. People commit crimes. People ruin lives. People lie, cheat, steal from others. The actions of people are causes the worst evils. Our fate is not commited to a person with infinite goodness to work on our behalf in ways unknown but to one who is fallen. If God cannot help in these things, where is God?

Now let us look at predestination for a sec. It is really God's absolute sovereignty as seen in the future. I must admit predestination has one problem. It become the worst monster if God was not all good. If there be but a shadow of evil, even the smallest part. God turns into a white whale. He works evil towards us. I would hate predestination if God be 99.999% good and .001% evil. I would hate God for it also despite being 99.999% good.

It is from this vantage point that we see predestination is always attacked by attacking God's goodness. They bring up the Old testament with its sanctioned genocide and slavery. Or they can just bring up the evils everyday life. It is as if they believe that the small strand keeping them out of hell already, is not grace. What is hell anyway but the genocide of all unbelievers. What is hell but the chaining up of unbelievers? They attack God and say that God is good but not all Good. This is unbelief. They expect they can get away chipping just enough off to discredit predestination.

It is with this I take issue. It is to make Him less than holy. It is to make him less than good. It is to make Him less than God. I only want my God to be all powerful on my behalf, even in my own choices and the choices of others. I cannot see this happening without accepting some form of predestination. Do I dwell on the predestination then? Never, I dwell on a mighty God, mighty to do good, mighty to save. All on my behalf with an invisible hand. It is too high for us to understand. It is too wonderful for us to know. Job 42 and Psalms 139 put it in the right perspective.

American christianity

We have historically been the most God-fearing nation. The revolutionary war even had many religious overtones. It seems we are now losing that base set down. We have already moved past the Christianity they believed. Yet, never so far. It is entrenched in our folk religion. We still pray for pastors to be effective. Not at being a good orator, but we pray for the holy spirit. This is distinct from most other christianity. It is as if we still believe that God is required to act in conversion. While, the official doctrine says man must act. It is in this belief in which we see that God is the one who opens hearts and eyes to save. Man does not open them.

There is hope yet that God has a place in our society and in our lives as the only sovereign. What evangelism denies in belief has been entrenched by the grace of God. It may take one to become a missionary or evangelist to see it but God still acts in mighty ways. The churches that aught to see this truth do not send out missionaries who bring the truth back with them. They send out a social gospel that is nothing but an invitation to a group hug. Let us waken them to the belief the God works all things. Let us show them his mighty works. Especially in his sovereignty

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.

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.