tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post918338722992026051..comments2015-05-18T16:26:14.636-07:00Comments on Studies and Reflections on God's Glory in Christ: The Baptism of New Covenant ChildrenS. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15996549383149553694noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post-70490591053631795652012-07-31T12:00:34.955-07:002012-07-31T12:00:34.955-07:00Regarding the idea that practices die harder than ...Regarding the idea that practices die harder than theology, apart from the recent 500 years of Protestant developments, it would seem you would need to somehow qualify your premise. Now, you may be absolutely right about traditions and theologies, but I'm not sure that it necessarily follows that the one which lasts the longest ought to be believed, at least within reformed thought. If it were true that we ought to trust "that which dies hardest" it would seem the nuanced views of baptism that are nearly as numerous as there are communities within the Protestant tradition would die hard and fast, at least insofar as credibility is concerned, compared to the consistent testimony of the first 1500 years of Christianity. This is an area both East and West would agree on. Further, I'm not sure basing an essential element of the Gospel on those terms, at least as a protestant, is consistent with the view that the church is invisible and that it is ultimately subject to the interpretations of its respective members. Ultimately it doesn't appear that your belief in the nature of practices and theologies spanning the history of the Church ought to compel belief one way or the other for anyone other than yourself.<br /><br />Finally, you're to be commended for recognizing the need for historic continuity and catholicity in the early church as a way to distinguish your position from that of modern Restorationalists, and for good reason. However, in order to consistently draw from early church history, one must have an objective reason for choosing one point as authoritative and the other as heretical. Not that these distinctions do not exist, but the authority by which we draw our distinctions must be identified. Again, we all agree that Scripture is authoritative, but we must have an authoritative interpretation for it to mean anything at all. After all we could interpret it incorrectly and defect from the Gospel. <br /><br />I think you've got some really great points here as to why we ought to baptize our children, Tyler. I hope this comment and those to come will help you strengthen your argument and perhaps your position. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. <br /><br /><br />StevenAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985244795187065621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post-40431823559274191112012-07-31T11:59:31.066-07:002012-07-31T11:59:31.066-07:00Because baptismal regeneration was being taught ce...Because baptismal regeneration was being taught centuries before the New Testament canon had been compiled/discovered it would seem unfitting to solely "refute from the New Testament" the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Further, the argument that the Church had "gone off the deep end" regarding baptism seems to imply that the Church, or at least prominent leaders considered to be orthodox within the Church (ie: Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc) apostatized from the very beginning; defecting from the Gospel of sola fide. This effectively leaves the testimony of the ante-Nicene Fathers utterly untrustworthy at best, and borrowing your words, demonic at worst. After all, if their authority could falter on such a perspicuous doctrine such as this, what else could they destroy? This has very serious implications for Protestants because it leaves us incapable of determining, in any principled way, the orthodoxy of doctrine prior to the discovery and canonization of the NT, which interestingly enough, includes the discovery of the NT. Now, to be sure, Christendom has always believed, at least up until the Protestant Reformation, the teaching of the Ante-Nicene Church to be faithful to the Apostolic faith and in fact biblically sound even before the canon was discovered; scripture was infallible even before the Church knew it, and was of course written by church leaders in the first place. So, the question is not, "is baptismal regeneration defensible from scripture?", the question is, of course, "does this particular doctrine square with MY interpretation of scripture?". So, your argument would be much stronger if you were able to principally qualify your interpretation of scripture against those who were personally taught by the Apostles, those who God used to discover and compile the NT canon, and 1,500 years of Christianity. There must be a principle, because, make no mistake, there are Sola Scriptura communities whose Spirit guided interpretations of Scripture would place your interpretation outside an orthodox understanding of the Gospel; these communities would use this very same Sola Scriptural to describe your theology as apostate. There must be a principled interpretation of scripture. Now just to be clear, this does not mean that Reformed Peadobaptism MUST be unprincipled, it just means proposing the validity of your position and the demonic nature of the opposed position based on your own interpretation of scripture is, even within your own paradigm, unprincipled. Without a principle, your argument is no better than Mormonism's subjective position regarding the ancient Church. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985244795187065621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post-35553121986886634892012-07-31T00:34:14.008-07:002012-07-31T00:34:14.008-07:00S.T. sir,
Do you realize that those same "Ch...S.T. sir,<br /><br />Do you realize that those same "Church Fathers" (or better heretics) knew the Bible forward and backward, and presumably better than you do, and yet used the Scriptures to sing the tune of baptismal regeneration according to the "Romish" theology? <br /><br />Do you also relize that there was no break in interpretation for the whole Church east and west concerning baptismal regeneration until the Reformation? Of course there were instances of discussion like Tertullian - who later left the Church to join the heresy of Montanism - discussing whether it was wise to baptize infants because their chance of sinning after baptismal regeneration was so great and the Sacrament of penance was still in its infancy and being worked out, essentially Tertullian rejected any Sacrament of Reconciliation.<br /><br /> <br />It must be odd to think of Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine (of Hippo and Cantebury), Boethius, Anselm, et al. as heretics, or even C.S. Lewis, T.S. Elliot, John Paul II, PP BXVI, et al. as heretics.<br /><br />Do you believe that these heretics who were baptized by the Roman Church were "saved?" Or those more modern heretics who were baptized by the Church of England and the Church of Rome were saved?<br /><br />These questions are important primer questions to see exactly where you are on the issues of baptism and salvation.<br /><br />May Our Lord lead us ever nearer to the Truth.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />DanielT. D. Wordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09020363012628504691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post-16405680689649915692012-07-30T20:34:32.966-07:002012-07-30T20:34:32.966-07:00Steven,
Thanks for your comment, and good questio...Steven,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment, and good question.<br /><br />I would indeed like to know what caused the early fathers to go off the deep end so fast specifically with baptismal regeneration (which I think is far easier to refute from the New Testament than any error regarding the proper subjects of baptism).<br /><br />But the reason I am comfortable pointing to the early fathers' baptismal *practice* in support of the Reformed paedobaptist historical case while at the same time rejecting their proto-Romish baptismal *theology* is that compared to underlying ideologies, traditions of outward ritual practices die very hard and very slowly. Theology takes time to develop, yes, but nowhere near the time it takes to get a group of people to start doing things differently than they have always done them. We can see this principle at work in Western churches today almost just as much as more traditional churches in the East. If a church has always had an altar call after the sermon, good luck being alive long enough to witness anything different being practiced there. But you very well may live to witness the terminology surrounding it and the church leadership's view of its precise purpose shifting.S. T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15996549383149553694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post-82154913535291431902012-07-30T12:42:36.171-07:002012-07-30T12:42:36.171-07:00I'd be interested in knowing why the nearly un...I'd be interested in knowing why the nearly unanimous testimony of the Fathers regarding the PRACTICE of paedobaptism seems historically compelling but the same consistency among the Fathers, even, might I mention Augustine, regarding the THEOLOGY of baptismal regeneration is clearly in error? Wouldn't this be a case of reading history through Reformed lenses and finding only that which squares with the already assumed validity of the reformed tradition valid?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985244795187065621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post-37603707481649231062012-07-29T19:11:51.426-07:002012-07-29T19:11:51.426-07:00The point is to come to as full an understanding o...The point is to come to as full an understanding of the whole counsel of God as possible so as to be able to practice Christ's ordinances/sacraments in the church in a way that is in accordance with God's revealed will, to honor Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Either credobaptists or paedobaptists are sinning in the way they practice baptism, so we need to, as brothers united around the *essentials* of the gospel, continue to discuss and debate the issue to sharpen each other and aim at agreeing on the truth about baptism one day.S. T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15996549383149553694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post-78823255725496181392012-07-29T17:51:20.725-07:002012-07-29T17:51:20.725-07:00In other words, to baptismal regenerationists, it ...In other words, to baptismal regenerationists, it matters because they believe regeneration takes place in baptism, so if you don't do it right the regeneration no takes place. But for faith-onlyists it no matter whether you baptized are before you have faith or after, because baptism no have nothing to do with nothing. So if you even argue about it, you are doing it out of a spirit of controversy rather than a search for the truth or honest attempt to persuade anyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239928518581119461.post-59189408135834929472012-07-29T17:48:05.296-07:002012-07-29T17:48:05.296-07:00What's the point in debating the subject? If ...What's the point in debating the subject? If you believe in faith-onlyism, you might as well not even baptize at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com