|
|
| Post 1: "It would be like claiming that Daniel doesn't understand the physiology of whale gullets." Do you mean Jonah? or am I completely missing the reference? by: george (URL) on 2006-11-26 18:56:46 Post 2: Hah! Yes, Jonah. I wrote that moments before my Sunday nap.... by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-26 19:35:38 Post 3: The issue should be on the specific claims about things Waters gets wrong. Tim Gallant has a list in his review. Has anyone ever responded to those things? "Related to the above, Waters on numerous occasions says that justification in Wright (and Shepherd) is a process. He nowhere demonstrates this claim, which is in fact explicitly and emphatically denied by Wright himself ("Absolutely not!" says the bishop, in "The Shape of Justification")." by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-26 21:38:44 Post 4: The bottom line is that guys like Scott Clark claim that the FV guys have "closed minds" but he has no idea where the closed minds really are. Just look at federal-vision.com or any of the responses to anything Waters has written. The criticisms are never dealt with, with the exception of Nick Perrin's review in WTJ. When I read Clark's cocksure postings on the puritanboard site, it just makes me sad. This whole debate gets filtered through an outmoded insider / outsider point of view. Gallant is "just a pastor somewhere" and people like Clark are highfalutin professors. Appeals to authority are only allowed to them. And then the moment we claim they have misunderstood someone, they then blame the author and say it is just scholarly doublespeak. How many times do we hear Phillips misquote Wright about the "performance not profession" passage? And yet I've never heard Phillips apologize for that. We have our professors on all sides of the issue; it's time to start focusing on evidence. The bottom line for me is that this is all a bunch of picky stuff that should be of mild or no concern. Who cares if Wright mischaracterizes Luther? Luther is a dead anti-semite who got a few things right at an important point in church history. Far more egregious is consistently misrepresenting a living brother in Christ. Far more of concern to me is Scott Clark's saying that the mystical union is not metaphysical. That is such a huge departure from the catholic tradition... What a barrier to ecumenicity! How do these guys get so cocksure? by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-26 21:48:44 Post 5: I enjoy reading things like this by Presbyterian pastors: ONLY the good old Pauline doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, which is the HEART of the gospel, saves Oh, snap! That is cold; NTW got pwn3d! by: wyclif (URL) on 2006-11-26 22:32:14 Post 6: Isn't the Aurburn Ave. Perspective basically a return to R. Catholicism in its view of justification? It seems to be a very seductive schematic to the clergy where they can dangle the keys of the kingdom over their laic lambs. Before one may enter the "church," he/she must be christened by Peter's putative progeny. Once baptism sows the wheat germ, one must make sure that it doesn't mysteriously transmogrify into a tare. The Christian must perservere to insure that his essence does not change before he crosses Jordan. Doesn't this belief seems inimical to salvation by grace through faith alone where God is the One Who regenerates and keeps us until that day when we see Him face to face? by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 10:08:40 Post 7: No one (outside of folk Christianity) believes that Baptism sows a seed; everyone in Christendom believes that God does all the sowing of seeds. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-27 10:46:31 Post 8: J - to expand a bit, everyone believes that God does the work; some Christian traditions say that God does the work through baptism, but that's different than saying that baptism does the work or that ministers do the work. As for perseverance, neither Roman Catholicism nor Calvinism gives an individual believer absolute assurance. In Roman Catholicism, one can fall away from true salvation. In Calvinism, one can be exposed as always having been a hypocrite. You're perceptive to see the issue of apostasy as the key issue at debate in the Auburn Avenue theology. Most presbyterians with weak sacramental theologies think it is all about baptism or even (oddly) the eucharist. But apostasy is really the skeleton key and most of the critics have too many preconceptions to see this. My own diagnosis? Auburn Avenue theology is not especially Roman Catholic, anymore than Calvin's or Luther's theology is. My guess is that you've been hearing otherwise, but perhaps a visit to federal-vision.com can help dispel some of the criticisms you're hearing. As for Auburn Avenue theology giving the ministers some kind of coercive power over their flock based on soteriology, that's just not true. Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to the apostolic church. Every church believes that what is binds on earth is bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. Except for most of presbyterianism these days which is full of external / internal and appearance / reality dualities. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-27 10:59:42 Post 9: Is a wheat seed sown in baptism (regardless of its origin), and can a wheat seed be sown outside of baptism? (Btw, what exactly is "folk Christianity"?) Jon, before I respond to your second comment, I intend to visit the federal-vision.com site. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 11:27:03 Post 10: Ordinarily, and yes (don't know what you mean by 'origin' as long as we're talking Christian baptism). By folk Christianity I just mean sometimes the laity misunderstands either by their own fault or by misleading pastoral practice. To be concrete, the fact that some Roman Catholics think that baptism qua getting-wet-in-the-triune-name saves (as opposed to God being the one who saves) doesn't mean that this is Roman Catholic doctrine. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-27 11:39:40 Post 11: Jon, your last paragraph eludes me as to its full import. I don't believe that most Christians believe that the church hierarchy determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Perhaps, the hierarchies do--or, would like to. If Christening were a seminal event in salvation, why is there no specific reference to it in the New Testament? by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 11:57:02 Post 12: Post 11 pertains to Post 8. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 11:59:14 Post 13: I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Christening is not mentioned in the bible - baptism is a big theme all over. Basically we're talking about church discipline - no one can (ordinarily) have God as his father who does not also have the church as his mother. That's the "power of the keys" and it is consistent in Lutheran, Calvinistic, Roman Catholic, Anglican theologies... How does one enter the church? Baptism. How does one leave the church? Excommunication. This is all in the WCF too - that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside of the church. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-27 12:04:44 Post 14: When you say that a wheat seed is "ordinarily" sown in baptism, when would a seed be extraordinarily not sown in this rite? As to "regardless of the origin," I simply wanted to take any misunderstanding in that vein out of the discussion in order to deliberate on the process and result of such a sowing. Jon, I appreciate your considered answers to my queries. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 12:11:28 Post 15: Luther was excommunicated: is he in hell? Surely, you can not believe that the church leadership can doom your soul to hell or elevate it to heaven. Further, with the current fractured state of Christendom, do all of the leaders of the various sects and divisions have copies of the skeleton keys to the Kingdom? Can we forum shop? by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 12:14:59 Post 16: Sorry you got me exercised over the "church discipline" discourse: I forgot to respond to your baptism comment. Believers' baptism is all over the New Testament but infant baptism is not (unless you make the leap in a few passages about "you and all of your house." As to entering the church, you do so upon regeneration and you never exit. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 12:28:32 Post 17: Not sown? Well, in the case of hypocrisy, for instance. But even when not sown (I'm assuming you envision grace as some kind of deposit here - an assumption I don't really share - grace is God's favor) baptism is a pledge that one can either be faithful to or abandon. So even the hypocrite now is judged as breaking a promise - it is worse for him than if he'd never made the promise. Churches can err, but they still have the keys. No, I don't believe Luther is in hell because I believe churches can make mistakes, but I also take Jesus words about the keys and about making disciples to support the idea of the keys. This is ordinary Christian theology, J, it is nothing new. The doctrine of the keys is not that the leadership of the church can doom one's soul to heaven or elevate it to hell. The doctrine of the keys is simply that salvation is for the body of Christ, and that church discipline ordinarily governs one's admission to and exit from the body of Christ. That's why excommunication is so serious. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-27 12:28:37 Post 18: As to an infant, he/she can make no promise: however, if he/she is reared by Christian parent(s) and/or a church, they are more accountable because of the increased knowledge that they have of God and His Word. You and I may be having a disagreement based on semantics. When I say "the body of Christ," I mean the elect, i.e., the invisible church. I believe that once one is united with Christ, he/she is always united with Christ. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 12:37:52 Post 19: Well, I didn't really intend to get into an infant baptism debate - I assumed that you were a presbyterian. For me, all baptism, even of adults, is "infant" baptism. We all come to Jesus, adults and children, as infants who need to be given faith in order to stand. You claim that we enter the church by regeneration and never exit. I don't see that in the bible. The bible says that we are washed with the "laver of regeneration" true enough, and that's how we enter the church. Real people admit us to a real church, and they cannot determine who has been regenerated any more than Bush can look into Putin's soul. Those who are in the church now will not all be in the church at the last day - some will fall away. Some are excommunicated. Some are hypocrites who never expose themselves for who they really are. I'm not saying one can be elect and then become non-elect, in the sense of God's changing his mind about predestination, but I am saying that election is secret and is thus not a useful category for church life, nor should election be used as a theological universal acid that erodes all confidence in promises and rites. As for regeneration - it is essentially one metaphor among many and it simply cannot be pinned down to a univocal meaning in church history or in the scriptures. The important thing is to be found "in Christ" which I take to mean a Holy Spirit formed actual, metaphysical union between the believer's soul and body and Christ that ordinarily is initiated at baptism, if God's promises are to be believed. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-27 12:40:55 Post 20: j, Infant initiation into the covenant is all over the Bible. Where is the explicit command to the Jews to cease initiating their infants into the covenant now that the newest has arived? We're told that animal sacrifices have come to an end, food laws have come to an end. Where does it say that infant initiation has come to an end? Just because the rite has changed from circumcision to baptism doesn't mean that qualifications for the rite have necessarily changed. by: Richard H. (URL) on 2006-11-27 12:43:51 Post 21: I am a Christian within a divided Christiandom where I find myself more aligned with Presbyterian perspectives than not. I disagree that we come to Jesus to be given faith: we come to Jesus because he has given us faith. No one admits us to Christ other than God: there is no St. Peter at the proverbial golden gate deciding whether to grace us with entry. Further, if we are in the invisible church (wheat), we cannot fall away whereas if were are in the visible church as a tare, then we will. (Once one is a new creature in Christ with a heart of flesh, one doesn't somehow transmute into one's former self with a heart of stone.) It doesn't matter what we humans think, it's what He has preordained. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 13:04:52 Post 22: by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 13:05:09 Post 23: Didn't mean to send a blank comment. Sorry! Howard, where does Scripture say that Christian baptism is a continuation of Jewish circumcision? Don't you find it of some note that infant baptism is no where mentioned explicitly in the New Testament? by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 13:13:34 Post 24: No stranger than that female baptism is nowhere mentioned explicitly. The New Testament is only a small fraction of the biblical revelation; God tells us all about worship and initiation and children in the OT already. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-27 13:26:27 Post 25: It is through peter and other apostles that the message that God uses to draw you to christ comes. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-27 13:43:11 Post 26: Surely, you said that it jest, Jon: as we know from Scripture, God is not a respecter of persons, i.e, male or female, Jew or Gentile, etc. To mix the apple (a difference in sex) with the orange (a difference in the "age of accountability" or an age to contract (or covenant) seems a bit disingenous. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 13:44:38 Post 27: *ingenuous by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 13:45:06 Post 28: Pdug, it's through general and/or special revelation that God manifests Himself. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 13:48:05 Post 29: I'm sorry, what was the biblical reference for the age of accountablity? by: Richard H. (URL) on 2006-11-27 14:50:14 Post 30: Special revelation (aside from the prophets themselved) is always mediated. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-27 15:56:32 Post 31: As to the "age of accountability," consider the Jewish concepts of bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah? by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 16:13:55 Post 32: Special revelation is the entirety of holy Scripture. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 16:17:34 Post 33: I don't see any mitzvahs in the Bible. What about biblical warrant for the existance of such an age? by: Richard H. (URL) on 2006-11-27 16:46:13 Post 34: Richard, consider that the LORD did not punish the children of the Israelites by not allowing them to enter the Holy Land. Cf. Nu. 14. The principle of accountability is implicit in this passage. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 17:16:59 Post 35: Jon, when you say that regeneration "is one metaphor among many", surely you are not saying that regeneration is to be understood as a metaphor of an actual event instead of as an actuality of a real event? by: joseph (URL) on 2006-11-27 17:37:09 Post 36: *"age of accountability" by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 17:51:19 Post 37: Hi guys - had to work for a living today, so not much time to keep following up. As for regeneration - yes, it is an actual event. Now, what is it? That's what I'm saying. Being born again is yet another metaphor. What is it? The meaning of "regeneration" has differed in various figures of the Reformed faith. Sometimes people use the heart of stone / heart of flesh analogy, but that analogy seems to misunderstand that passage which is about replacing a heart of stone (the stone tablets of the law) with a heart of Flesh (Christ). And so some see it as a "change in the ordering principle of the human heart" - which is just another way of talking around the issue. I believe in God's changing us and uniting us to Christ. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-27 18:24:25 Post 38: True regeneration - from a goat to a sheep and from a son of Satan to a son of God. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 18:37:47 Post 39: When does that happen? And how do you know? by: george (URL) on 2006-11-27 19:05:30 Post 40: Also, how is it that regeneration means that? and is that what is always means? by: george (URL) on 2006-11-27 19:08:27 Post 41: God brings us from death to life as written pellucidly in Scripture. Instead of worrying about Talmudic scholars and church canons, look to the Word (Jesus) and the Word (Scripture). If fishermen, children, and others among "the vulgar," understood Him, why would we need the clergy to explain to us what the Holy Spirit clearly shows us? The clergy who wish that the laity were still illiterate and the Bible was unavailble to the masses no longer can pontificate to us. God has given us our reason, His Word, and His Spirit. Use it! by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 19:22:59 Post 42: I'm not sure if you are responding to my questions or not. I guess I was too unclear. In case you were responding to my questions, I meant that I agree that your description ia A biblical one, but is it THE biblical one? Or do the authors of scripture use regeneration and regeneration like terminology in ways that might not fit so snuggly with your description? You might consider taking your own advice on this one. by: george (URL) on 2006-11-27 22:03:28 Post 43: George, what do you suggest that regeneration means other than God's giving life to those dead in trangressions and sins? I have taken my advice: if you don't believe me, scoff at your pleasure. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 22:17:43 Post 44: who says anyone is turned from a goat to a sheep? The sheep/goat picture in scripture is usually used to support the elect/reprobate pair. Jesus comes for his sheep only. They begin as lost sheep and become found sheep. He doesn't take goats and make them sheep. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-27 22:25:28 Post 45: J, I spent 20 years in the Church of Christ (Campbell Stone movement) and struggled quite a bit over infant baptism when are started attending a Presbyterian church. One of the things that convinced me (as Richard suggested) is that children would be excluded in the New Testament if baptism is only for believers. Can you imagine a Jewish family in Jerusalem after the day of Pentecost coming to the Apostles and saying something like: "Ok, the Kingdom is now open to Women and Gentiles but is now closed to children?" Do you really think this would be easily accepted as God's will? by: bobber (URL) on 2006-11-27 22:37:31 Post 46: Bobber, I'm not sure what the Campbell Stone movement posits in this regard but I assume that they are not necessarily in favor of infant baptism. I believe that the Kingdom is open to all (including children): however, I believe that baptism of infants is more of a dedication of children to God in the hope that they will become the children of God if the parents are faithful in their teaching and practice of God's law. To assume that the infant becomes a Christian at baptism is a false hope in my view: in the PCA, the child has to make a confession of faith before taking communion, doesn't he/she? Even if one were to become a "Christian" at baptism, he/she could "apostacize" at any point thereafter. Ergo, when the pastor addresses the visible church, he may well be speaking to tares aplenty whether he deems them Christians or not. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 23:05:31 Post 47: So a person can be in the Kingdom of God but not be a child of God? When you mix up the invisible things of God with the visible covenant of God, this is the kind of confusion that happens. by: bobber (URL) on 2006-11-27 23:13:53 Post 48: A person can definitely be a member of the visible church as Christ Himself tells us with his parable of the wheat and tares. As to any confusion, I don't see any with what I've stated: the confusion to me comes with the assumption that the rite of baptism makes a person a true Christian. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 23:25:04 Post 49: *without being a member of the invisible Church (1st sentence after "church) by: j (URL) on 2006-11-27 23:26:21 Post 50: Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean." But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, "Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper.... So he turned and went away in a rage. But his servants came near and said to him, "My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it? Has he actually said to you, 'Wash, and be clean'?" So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-28 00:27:49 Post 51: j, You said "The principle of accountability is implicit in this passage." I don't suppose you would be suggesting that children 19 and younger are unaccountable before God? And what of the children who died when Jerusalem was sacked in the exile? Did God lower his age limit? Or what about all the times in history when God didn't punish men and women at all during their lives? The principle of the Numbers passage is that we should beware lest the same thing happen to us. In fact, Paul's comments on this period of history in 1 Cor 10 is helpful. "All" our fathers were under the cloud, were baptized, ate the spiritual food and drink. Young and old, babies and ladies, they were all God's covenant people, partaking in the blessings of the covenant people. "Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown." The principle is the necessity of faithfulness, not some age of accountablility. by: Richard H. (URL) on 2006-11-28 00:35:00 Post 52: J, I hope I didn't come across as scoffing. That wasn't my intention. I don't have an answer for your question about other options. I was asking because I want to know. I am genuinely curious about how we use this word, where our definitions truly come from, what the semantic range of it is, and how we have treated it historically (not necessarily for authority reasons, but to see if history has been fair to what we see in the Word). Again, I did not mean to scoff. I just wonder if your strict, systematic, definition is how it was originally intended (and always intended) by the apostolic witness, or if it is from what our historically recent clergy telling us what regeneration means. Honest question. by: george (URL) on 2006-11-28 00:41:33 Post 53: Pduggiee, please elucidate as to what you believe that that passage means with regard to our discussion: thanks! by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 00:56:55 Post 54: simple water as an agent of divine power is unsatisfying to alot of people. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-28 01:06:51 Post 55: No. However, I do believe that the Numbers passage is clearly indicative of an age of accountability. I Cor. 10:5a says, "Nevertheless, God was not pleased with MOST of them." [Caps added for emphasis.] Your dismissal of bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah as Judaic principles seem inimical to your embrace of baptism as a logical continuation of Judaic infant initiation into a "covenantal" relationship. Whereas these Hebrewic rites indicate the coming of age of a young man and young woman and their formal commitment to the observation of the commandments, the Christian rites of confirmation or a profession of faith seem similar in their import. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 01:20:17 Post 56: George, I appreciate your kind clarification. As to other possible definitions of regeneration, Jon appears to believe that they exist. I'm not sure what he means but I also await his elucidation in that regard, especially, as to whether they exist within Scripture or church tradition. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 01:30:06 Post 57: Pduggie, do believe that simple water is an agent of divine power? If so, in what way? What exactly do you think occurs with the rite of baptism? by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 01:32:31 Post 58: "How is it that baptism washes away sin, unites us to Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism." by: Charles Hodge on Ephesians (URL) on 2006-11-28 07:24:28 Post 59: Thanks, Hodge by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-28 07:48:35 Post 60: Did the thief on the cross get a special dispensation? by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 09:20:52 Post 61: Sure. That's why all of the discussions about the efficacy of baptism make use of the term "ordinarily". Desert islands and theives on crosses are special cases. Special cases are a bad place to go to when forumlating general rules. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-28 10:21:18 Post 62: The very absence of a baptismal rite to the person that Christ declared unequivocally would be with Him in paradise shows that it is not a requisite of salvation. Baptism is symbolic of the cleansing of Christ's blood not the means by which it occurs. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 10:54:41 Post 63: j, But Paul tells us what God did to the MOST: 1 Cor 10:5b "they were overthrown in the wilderness". You seem to imply that the "most" included some number of those under 20, but I don't know that the text says that. Paul seems to say that all those who displeased God were punished. And I dismiss the mitzvahs as relevent to a discussion of biblical practice. The Jews may have had this practice in Jesus' day, maybe in David's day, but it wasn't a biblical institution. The Pharasees of Jesus day had many unbiblical practices, some helful, some not, but none binding on the concience. My point was that baptism is the continuation of (among other things) circumcision which was administered to professing adult converts, yes, but normally to covenant infants. THIS is the enduring practice that would have required some explicit correction if it were to change in the new covenant. But look, I'm not arguing against rituals that mark transitions in a persons life. Those are quite useful. Our lives are filled with transitions that could be recognized and aplauded. But biblically, a child born to a Christian parent is to grow from faith to faith. His transition is to be from immature faith to mature, from his baptism on. The milestones are simply that, milestones, markers along the road of faith. My children are my chilren from the day they are born. Many transitions will occur, but they will continue as my children. God's children are his from the day they are born again, born of water and the Spirit, ie, baptism. You want to insist on the pure undefiled biblical religion? Then don't bring extra-biblical institutions to the discussion for your support. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. by: Richard H. (URL) on 2006-11-28 11:04:01 Post 64: Richard, you are the one making the claim that baptism is an avatar of circumcision. You are the one who bears the onus in that argument without clear Scriptural affirmation of that point. I'm merely discussing with you in your own Talmudic element that there are things that militate against your arguments in the realm that you presuppose. Remember, we are adopted children: i.e., we are not natively of Him. To suggest otherwise, I believe is very dangerous. As to the Numbers passage, the aspect of age accountability is clear: there is nothing in I Cor. 10 that indicates otherwise. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 11:40:05 Post 65: Does the question boil down to whether or not baptism is a symbolic manifestation or an instrument of admission into the body of Christ? by: joseph (URL) on 2006-11-28 12:04:50 Post 66: Joseph, I think that you have nailed it. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 12:12:17 Post 67: "The very absence of a baptismal rite to the person that Christ declared unequivocally would be with Him in paradise shows that it is not a requisite of salvation." It shows that it is not an absolutely necessary requisite, but it might still be (and is, according to all major Christian traditions throughout history, except for anabaptists) an ordianry requisite. You don't seem to be engaging the ordinary/extraordinary distinction at all, j. by: Xon (URL) on 2006-11-28 12:44:20 Post 68: "Does the question boil down to whether or not baptism is a symbolic manifestation or an instrument of admission into the body of Christ?" Depends on how you are defining "symbol". Perhaps all things are symbols, which makes this distinction unhelpful...see Leithart ex cathedra on this. ;-) J, perhaps you can tell us whether you think that anything can be said to be an "instrument of admission into the body of Christ"? This might clear up some things. by: Xon (URL) on 2006-11-28 12:48:06 Post 69: When did God start dealing with asterisks? What is true is true, and what is false is false. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 12:53:37 Post 70: Xon, I am not Joseph. Your arcane Leithart ex cathedra is unhelpful to all but the initiated of which I apparently am not. God regenerates of His will, and we His children then respond in faith. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-28 12:57:52 Post 71: I think you guys are biting off a little too much at once. First, how does God save a sinner? Answer: God first sends the Son to accomplish redemption. And then the Holy Spirit applies that redemption by uniting the sinner to the risen Christ, and as a result of that union, the sinner has Christ as his propitiation, he has Christ as his justification, he has Christ as his regeneration, etc. Now, with that background one can begin to ask questions about faith, about baptism, about preaching, about believing, etc. How do all those things fit into the picture? Strictly speaking, the question of the "necessity" of anything related to salvation is conditioned by how one defines "necessity" and how one approaches God's work - whether God uses means of salvation at all, for instance. But if you want your Christianity to be of the catholic variety, then you must confess that "there is one baptism for the remission of sins" and adding the word "ordinarily" liberally throughout one's formulations is a wise way to inject humility into doctrine. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-28 12:57:55 Post 72: "Depends on how you are defining 'symbol'..." I just had a flashback of Clinton's Monica Lewinsky testimony... shiver! Let me rephrase my question: "Does baptism effect admission into the body of Christ or is it simply a rite to symbolically portray admission into the body of Christ? by: joseph (URL) on 2006-11-28 13:07:17 Post 73: rather, "Does baptism instrumentally effect admission..." by: joseph (URL) on 2006-11-28 13:11:51 Post 74: hey J, One question that's been bothering me generally I am reminded of by your post when you say "Baptism is symbolic of the cleansing of Christ's blood not the means by which it occurs." You make baptism a symbol of a real event, the cleansing of us by Christ's blood. But what do you mean by making that the reality. Do you mean physical blood and phisical cleansing from sin as if sin were a psychic stain that only Jesus' special divino/human blood could erase? If not, then in what sense is "cleansing with blood" a relaity pointed to by baptism. It seems like most folks (myself and you included) use cleaning with Christ's blood in a metaphorical sense. But is there or should there be more to it that that? I'm interested in your thoughts. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-28 13:22:58 Post 75: Admission to groups is always by symbolic exchanges anyway. it's not one or the other. Aside from natural birth, you get married through the instrument of words/symbols, you join clubs through the instrument of words and symbols and you become a citizen of a nation through the instrument of words and symbols, you join a corporation through the instrument of words and symbols. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-28 13:28:23 Post 76: j, Joseph appeared to simply be asking a question about how to formulate the disagreement folks are having here. You said that Joseph "nailed it." So, I took you to identify with Joseph's "instrument of admission into the body of Christ" language. So, I asked you a question following up on that formulation. I did not confuse you with Joseph. My Leithart comment was a joke. Ho hum. by: Xon (URL) on 2006-11-28 14:59:03 Post 77: Wow. One looks at comment thread expecting to find a discussion of Guy Waters and the New Perspective on Paul and what you find is a conversational train wreck about the relatively unrelated topic baptism. :-) Since I'm not one to simply gawk at train wrecks, maybe a few comments might help, especially since there seem to be several distinct (though interrelated) issues on the table. [1] How are we thinking about salvation issues here? Are the benefits of Christ something we receive once and then we're "saved"? Or, even if no one who truly believes ever falls away, is salvation nonetheless something in which we must persevere and grow until it is fully accomplished on the last day, the day of our salvation? [2] If salvation is something in which we must persevere, then questions of sequencing and timing between hearing the word, believing, baptism, etc., are somewhat relativized (even if there is an ordinary order). I may, after all, go to church and hear the Gospel proclaimed afresh week by week and, upon the believing reception of that Gospel, the benefits of Christ held out to me in the Gospel are reappropriated and reconveyed unto my faith. That is one of the ways that God has appointed by which I persevere in and unto salvation. [3] What else then can we say about God conveys his salvation to us? Surely, by the sovereign work of his Spirit. But what means does that Spirit use? Or, to put it another way, we are saved only by faith in Christ as he is offered to us in the Gospel. But where is that Gospel to be found in order that faith might receive and rest upon Christ in it? The biblical answer, I think, is that Christ is to be found everywhere he has joined himself by promise: in the reading and preaching and teaching of the Word, in baptism, in the Lord's Supper, in prayer, in the communion of saints in their gifts and graces. It is in all those places that we meet Christ and receive him by faith. [4] Thus, whether one believes before, during, or after baptism does nothing to negate the view that baptism is surely one of the places where Christ is offered to us by the Spirit in the promises of the Gospel. And if Christ is rightly received in baptism by faith, then surely the Holy Spirit conveys him and his benefits to us in baptism. And not only in the event of baptism itself, but also in the remembrance of baptism as we seek to improve our baptisms, since baptism is a sign that stands over the whole of the Christian life. Thus, even those who only believe after their baptisms, nonetheless savingly benefit from that baptism if and when they finally come to faith. [5] Baptism, like repentance, new obedience, and diligent use of the other means of grace, is ordnarily indispensible to salvation, since it is by faith's use of all these means that faith is strengthened and nourished unto salvation. That's not to say that it is impossible to be saved apart from baptism, but in such cases we are countenancing the lack of opportunity rather than the contempt of the sacrament. Those who show contempt towards God's sacraments should not be assured of their salvation any more than others who continue in unrepentant sin. [6] Baptism is a rite that marks out the visible Christian community. Even if we can distinguish between the church in its visible and invisible aspects, it is in the visible church with her means of grace that God gathers and perfects his elect unto salvation. Apart from entrance into her, there can be no ordinary expectation of salvation since, to cut oneself off from the church visible, is to cut oneself off from the ways Christ has promised to make himself savingly present to our faith. [7] Entrance into the visible church is solemnly marked out by baptism. Whatever subjective operations of the Spirit may have been at work in a person's life before baptism, it is in baptism that a person publicly and officially enters into the faith. Thus it is the public and official mark and seal of all the benefits of redemption to be found in Christ. Moreover, if received rightly, those benefits are truly offered and received in baptism, even if that reception is a matter of reconveying and reappropriating benefits already enjoyed. [8] Thus, as far as the charitable judgment of the church visible is concerned, it is those who have entered her by baptism that we count as God's regenerate, justified, adopted people. Moreover, we can expect that God is at work in the lives of all those in the visible church which, as his kingdom and family, enjoys his blessing and protection and the offers of grace in the Gospel by which he brings us to salvation. Thus, we can have hope that even those who entered hypocritically will be brought to saving knowledge of Christ. These means are, after all, the ways God has appointed to gather and save his people. [9] With regard to infants of believers, the question comes down to whether or not one believes that God's covenant promise entails that such children belong within these appointed means of salvation or whether they don't. If they do, then we have every reason to expect that God is already at work in our children by his Spirit and will honor his appointed means, including his baptism of such infant. In baptism he offers Christ to them for their salvation, marking them out as part of his visible people. Thus it is from within the sign of baptism and from within the church visible that Christian parents make use of all the means God has given to raise their children up into faith in the Christ who offers himself to them. That's my take on things, at least. by: garver (URL) on 2006-11-28 16:14:04 Post 78: Joel - do you mind if I elevate your post to a new post and then we can discuss that? Thanks bro. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-28 18:25:53 Post 79: Sure, though it was pretty hastily written. So feel free to correct any typos or egregious grammatical errors. by: garver (URL) on 2006-11-28 18:42:24 Post 80: The cleansing by Christ's blood is a bit of shorthand for Jn. 3:16. Obviously, Jesus did have to drink of the bitter cup and shed his blood to save us from the penalty of death for our sins. I believe that baptism is symbolic of our taking part in His death, burial, and resurrection. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-29 01:19:42 Post 81: Joel, I'm not sure that I would agree with your characterization of our spirited exercise in polemics but I do appreciate your expansive comment. I'll have to reread it a time or two or more. I do welcome your employing the words "visible" and "invisible" in reference to God's church. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-29 01:32:33 Post 82: Jon, I was just bouncing around the blogs and came across this. You ask when have I ever apologized for misquoting NTW about "performance not profession." Where did I ever make such a misquote? I have occasionally pointed out Wright's significant statement about "performance not possession" in his Romans 2:13 commentary. If I ever misquoted that it must have been a typo, though I am not aware of such an instance. Might it have been an audio tape where you heard me wrong? Regards, Rick Phillips by: Rick Phillips (URL) on 2006-11-29 13:09:20 Post 83: Since I've already posted here, I might point out that it is not merely that Guy Waters studied at Duke, but that his doctoral dissertation under Richard Hays dealing with the New Perspective was approved. This would suggest that Hays and others of note accepted Waters work as serious and worthy scholarship. Whether or not you agree with Waters' analysis of the NPP, your ad hominem critique ought at least to acknowledge this important fact. by: Rick Phillips (URL) on 2006-11-29 13:13:27 Post 84: Guy Prentiss Waters, "Rejoice, O Nations, with His People": Deuteronomy 27-30, 32 in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul" (PhD Dissertation, Duke University 2002). by: from WorldCat dissertations and theses (URL) on 2006-11-29 14:18:33 Post 85: Rick, is there a link to Waters' dissertation? As you may well know, the Auburn Ave. controversy is working itself through the PCA courts. A theological showdown seems inevitable. by: j (URL) on 2006-11-29 15:38:05 Post 86: j, I have sent Guy an email to see if he has one. Rick by: Rick (URL) on 2006-11-29 16:59:42 Post 87: If he does, would you mind forwarding it to me, Rick? Thanks! by: j (URL) on 2006-11-29 17:42:37 Post 88: Rick, which part of Jon's critique should be considered "ad hominem"? by: S Master (URL) on 2006-11-29 23:01:13 Post 89: Yes, I was wondering the same thing. The first part of Jon's argument has the following underlying form: [1] For any S, if S studied with teacher T (and T believes and teaches X and T approved of S's studies), then S must understand X (assumed premise, implied in the assertion being addressed). [2] W studied with T (factual premise). [3] Therefore, W must understand X (from 1 and 2). [4] But K also studied with X (factual premise). [5] Therefore, K must also understand X (fro 1 and 4). [6] But K and S disagree with regard to their understanding of X and disagree in a way that both K and S cannot be correct (factual premise). [5] Therefore, our original assumed premise (premise 1) must be false, so any S's having studied with T has no direct bearing upon whether or not S understands X aright. This doesn't prove or disprove whether or not Waters is a reliable authority on all aspects of the New Perspective on Paul, but it does undercut arguments for Waters's reliability that are based primarily upon his educational pedigree. Jon's "Response 1" provides one way in which it is possible for some S to study with T (who believes and teaches X and approves of S's studies) without necessarily understanding X - cases of mimesis. Jon didn't suggest that this is or is not in fact the case with regards to Waters, but simply cited a fairly standard example that would explain and substantiate the possibility of an S's not understanding X even if S studied with T. Given that "Response 1" gives a good reason to think that S's studying with T does not necessarily entail S's understanding X, "Response 2" provides a further reason for thinking that in this particular instance, not only is a deficient understanding possible, but it is also actual. As such, "Response 2" reinforces the rejection of premise 1. I guess I don't see how any of that constitutes an ad hominem form of argumentation. by: garver (URL) on 2006-11-29 23:41:47 Post 90: It was my typo - "performance not possession" - not that you had said "profession" instead of "possession" but that you continue to misrepresent what Wright means by that phrase. Sorry to have confused the issue by typing "profession" instead of "possession." by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-30 01:35:29 Post 91: My argument was certainly not ad hominem (as Joel has demonstrated in propositional form that far exceeds my own ability to defend myself). As for Hays's approving Waters's dissertation, I would simply view that as another claim that doesn't get the job done. The fact that Y approves X's dissertation doesn't really indicate that X's position on something as broad as the NPP or as specific as X's approach to one scholar (N.T. Wright) has been tacitly approved by Y. My dissertation advisor, for instance, is a charismatic anglican, but I would never make the claim that I know the charismatic faith from the inside. I've even written an entry in his forthcoming Encyclopedia of Religious Revivalism, but that doesn't mean I know that much about Revivalism as a whole. I know quite a bit about the temperance movement and its relationship to revivalism and that's why he asked me to write the article. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-30 01:42:34 Post 92: One minor correction, in [4] above, "X" should be "T". by: garver (URL) on 2006-11-30 01:54:10 Post 93: Lets say we accept the claim. Does that mean that Waters is completely unqualified to comment on the Federal Vision because he decidedly did not study under Jordan, Leithart or Wilson? You bet! by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-30 09:11:16 Post 94: Yes, it seems to me that Clark is offering an ad hominem defense against Water's critics. Critics (Garver, Gallant, Wilson, Leithart, etc) who have said that Waters has misunderstood or misrepresented Wright or the FV always (AFAIK) *specify* the places that Waters isn't getting or misunderstanding and they clarify how Waters misread them. Clark's response is not to respond to the specification of the misunderstandting, but to claim that it is unlikely Waters is misunderstanding the NPP because he's so smart he did a dissertation under one of them. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-30 09:17:18 Post 95: Good point, pduggie. Perhaps Phillips was saying that Barlow was critiquing Clark, et al, as giving an ad hominem defense of Waters's deficient analysis. If so, that's spot on, is a genuine problem with Clark's argument, and I withdraw my response as irrelevant to the point that Phillips was making (though I don't think his point was particularly clear). by: garver (URL) on 2006-11-30 10:52:24 Post 96: Guys, Wow, what a response. The whole point of Barlow's original post was to dispute Guy Waters' personal credentials to critique the New Perspective. It was not a critique of his reasoned arguments (not that such critiques have not been made, but this is not one). It was an argument against the man and his credentials. The whole point of the post is that it is okay to say he is unqualified. So when I said this was an ad homimen critique I didn't mean it as a nasty jab, but just as a statement of obvious fact. The post's two arguments were that 1) someone can study somewhere without understanding his mentors, and 2) lots of people agree with us (of course omitting reference to all positive reviews of Waters, no doubt because they are deemed "unscholarly"). The whole point of which was to launch an argument against the man and not against his argument. So here is the situation. NPP critics are constantly barraged with claims that we are not qualified, that we are uncharitable slanderers whenever we criticize anything, and that we are power-hungry, spiritually unfit, egotists who therefore should not be taken seriously (see Alistair's blog for the full list of charitable descriptions). So here we have a man who graduated at the top of his class at WTS and went to Duke for his doctoral work under E.P. Sanders and Richard Hays. So what is the response: the pro-NPP side cannot even bring itself to say, "Gee, we really appreciate the effort this guy has made to give serious study to this. Even if we disagree with him and even if we don't see how he says what he says, we are willing to give full credit and to admit that this warrants him some basis for giving him a hearing." If you did that, your stance might be characterized as, say, charitable. But as it is, your stance to Waters hardly encourages hope for meaningful discussion across the lines. Regards, Rick Phillips by: Rick (URL) on 2006-11-30 16:50:24 Post 97: I rather think NPP critics are constantly barraged with specific mistakes they make in interpreting the NPP and never agree that the mistakes they are making are mistakes. They don't engage the specific errors pointed out, but say focus on the fact that the critic usually ends his specification of the mistake with "I guess X misunderstood me, since that would explain this mistake in how he has characterized the NPPs views". I would have assumed the charcterization of the critic as having misunderstood is more charitable than the assumption person is derranged or evil. I'll grant Alastair's list is not in such a charitable vein, since it seeks to speculate on the defects and persoanlty issues that may result in the misunderstanding. by: pduggie (URL) on 2006-11-30 17:07:05 Post 98: Rev. Phillips, You have again mischaracterized my post. You wrote: "The whole point of Barlow's original post was to dispute Guy Waters' personal credentials to critique the New Perspective" This kind of mischaracterization is very frustrating. I never said Waters was unqualified, I basically did two things: 1. Showed how his studying under Hays isn't proof positive that he has a handle on things. 2. Showed that his actual results - his writings - (and not his person) have been judged to be deficient by academic reviewers. The only ad hominem comment in my post was positive - that he seems like a nice guy. I agree that he has the credentials to study the issue. Where I disagree is that his credentials have not so far resulted in a work product that other scholars have found persuasive or accurate. As for critics as a whole being egotistical, etc., I have no idea about that; I thought it was kind of weird for you to bring it up. What gives me little hope for dialogue is that we can't even agree on whether or not three short paragraphs contain an ad hominem attack on someone. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-30 17:25:54 Post 99: Paul, Thanks. In my experience in this debate, the "misunderstood" claim is usually made as "misrepresented" and is precisely made to disparage the motives of the critic. The real fact is that we have a straight up disagreement. People can disagree without malicious motives and without giving warrant to having their intelligence and ability brought into disrepute. Unfortunately, the constant maligning of motives and personal qualifications in this particular debate has done much to cloud the actual disagreements. Rick by: Rick (URL) on 2006-11-30 17:29:50 Post 100: Jonathan, Well, perhaps I read it the way I did because the issue at stake was the relevance of the man's training to his claim of understanding (a relationship that is usually granted at least some credit). But, pease, let's just let this drop. I really posted here because I wanted to know where I misquoted N. T. Wright. I wasn't trying to launch an accusation. Rick Phillips by: Rick (URL) on 2006-11-30 17:34:45 Post 101: Just for clarification, when I say someone "misrepresents" a claim, I simply mean that they are not accurately chacterizing someone's position; I don't intend to make a claim about motives or causes of the misrepresentation. by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-30 17:40:56 Post 102: Do you agree that you've misrepresented what Wright means by "performance not possession"? by: barlow (URL) on 2006-11-30 17:41:27 Post 103: I was about to say the same thing as Barlow. I don't take the term "misrepresent" or "misconstrue" to impute any sort of motive or even intention on the part of the person did the misrepresenting. All it means is that person A's account of person B's views don't accurately represent the content of those view. It's entirely neutral or why or how that happened. by: garver (URL) on 2006-11-30 17:54:36 Post 104: I was about to say the same thing as Barlow. I don't take the terms "misrepresent" or "misconstrue" to impute any sort of motive or even intention on the part of the person who did the misrepresenting or misconstruing. All it means is that person A's account of person B's views doesn't accurately represent the content of those views. It's entirely neutral on why or how that happened. by: garver (URL) on 2006-11-30 17:55:50 |