Saturday, March 22, 2008

Federal Revision

I was talking with a friend I have who is hip to the Federal Vision. He recently told me that Trent's statements on justification were basically what (the book of) James, John Calvin, and the Westminster Confession of Faith had said (he didn't mention Paul, though). Okay, so after this I thought, "It's time to change their name to The Federal Revision."

In this conversation, he also told me that he'd rather go home to Rome than to be a Baptist, and thus have "pagan" children. I'm not a Baptist, but I'd rather be one any day of the week over being a Federal Revisionist, a Roman Catholic, or an Eastern Orthoduck. But for my friend, since he's Federal Revision, he doesn't think he's giving up that much if he were to go to Rome. After all, when it comes to the gospel of justification by faith alone, Rome says what James, Calvin, and the Westminster Confession of Faith all say. He'd rather be a tad bit off on justification (because Trent has a few minor problems, nothing to worry about, though) than a tad bit off on the subjects of baptism (oh, but he's a paedocommunionist too, so Rome still treats his children as part-way pagan!).

The interesting thing to me, though, is how many of these Federal Revision guys react to natural law and natural theology. Now, I'm not trying to get into a debate on those particular issues (for further study see: Stephen J. Grabill's Rediscovering The Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics, Erdmans, 2006; as well as Michael Sudduth's forthcoming The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology). They treat those things as close to heresy. My friend said that he'd have no problem going Roman Catholic (over credo baptist), because there wasn't that big of an issue on justification. But, when I told him about my recent forays into the above two subjects (in becoming more congenial towards natural law, at least fitting it into an overall broader ethic, and in agreeing with M. Sudduth on many of his thoughts regarding Natural Theology--who other presuppositionalists have seen a value in incorporating some of the NT arguments to function in various ways, e.g., defeater-defeaters, for one), he and some of his like-minded friends seem to think I'm close to spouting heresy (at least they act this way; but I am being hyperbolic, I don't think they really think I would be embracing heresy, per se). "Don't drink the kool-aid, Paul", one of them told me.

So, why is it that (many) Federal Revisionists will fight almost to the death with Rome on the issue of Natural Law and Natural Theology, but they'll happily join hands with them and claim that they are not that far-off on the issue of justification? Seems odd to me. I don't know of any Reformer who spilled his blood over a precise view on ethics, or arguments for God's existence . . .

41 comments:

  1. The one thing I find strange is that it has taken many in the Reformed world until very recently to see that the Federal Revision is nothing more than Roman Catholic in its ecclesiology and soteriology. And then I wonder why those who are FV don't get disciplined in their churches. Isn't a denial of the gospel grounds for discipline? I was even surprised when I asked Guy Waters at his lecture if he thought FV was a disciplinable offense. He told me that he would want to look at each situation (commendable), and he thought it might be different if it were, say, a single guy who kept quiet; but if it were a married guy leading his family, that would be problematic, according to Waters.

    What I guess I don't understand is this: Didn't the pre-Reformers, some Reformers, and some Puritans *spill their blood* over the gospel? I think we are mocking them when we let FV heretics go undisciplined in our churches. Sure, many of these people may be our friends, but heresy is still heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amen to all the above, and I'd like to add the New Perspective on Paul to the list of errors.

    BTW: How pervasive is the NPP is Presbyterian and Reformed churches?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Josh, what is your definition of heresy?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, I said the view of the Diet of Regensburg that "only living faith justifies" could be seen in Rome's rejection of "faith alone" since James defines the phrase as "dead faith". I mean come on. You have to admit that the only time the phrase "faith alone" occurs in scripture is in James 2. So, it is possible that Trent’s rejection of “Sola Fide” could be synonymous with James’ rejection of it.

    Anyway, this is why, for me, I would have less problems affirming Trent, than I would affirming at the local Baptist church that God's wrath rests upon my children until they have faith.

    Perhaps it is you say, that my willingness to go to Rome before a Baptist church is because the Roman position on justification isn’t all too different than mine. But it is equally true that your willingness to go Baptist is because their position on baptism isn’t all too different than yours. Do you differ on anything other than the proper subjects of baptism? I doubt it.

    Also, I don't think you are even close to spouting heresy (maybe you got the idea from Jeff), but I know that doesn't mean much to you coming from a heretic like me... :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, I said the view of the Diet of Regensburg that "only living faith justifies" could be seen in Rome's rejection of "faith alone" since James defines the phrase as "dead faith".

    1. The Diet of Regensburg is not the Protestant rule of faith.

    2. James is referring to faith that is alone, eg. faith that is a mere profession of it and shows no evidence. Faith alone justifies as an instrument, it is not alone. This is congruent with Paul and James, neither of which are antinomian.

    I mean come on. You have to admit that the only time the phrase "faith alone" occurs in scripture is in James 2.

    This would be a classic example of defining a concept by the presence of words. The term "Covenant of Grace" is not in Scripture at all, yet the WCF employs it and the FV claims it is congruent with the WCF.

    So, it is possible that Trent’s rejection of “Sola Fide” could be synonymous with James’ rejection of it.

    How naive are you? Trent's rejection of Sola Fide is predicated, among other things, on the treasury of merit and a theology of infused, imparted grace, not the imputation of the righteousness of Christ - so Trent's rejection of Sola Fide is rejection of Paul and James, or do you believe we can find the treasury of merit in Scripture?

    Anyway, this is why, for me, I would have less problems affirming Trent, than I would affirming at the local Baptist church that God's wrath rests upon my children until they have faith.

    This is hardly a uniquely Baptist principle. You're also rejecting Presbyterian principles and those of many other Protestants.

    Indeed, here's what both the WCF and LBCF2 say here:

    On the means of grace with respect to divine hardening:

    VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden,[21] from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts;[22] but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had,[23] and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin;[24] and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan,[25] whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.[26]

    These articles are identical.

    I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

    II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]

    III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them;[7] and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[10]

    IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

    V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16]

    Ditto.

    So,in presuming your children regenerate and thus elect, you're rejecting the Westminster Standards and calling the contrary view "Baptist" when it is not at all the case.

    Further, if you presume your child regenerate, due to his/her baptism , merely appealing to your concept of baptismal efficacy won't cut it. The only real way to assure you of this presumption is to affirm that baptism actually regenerates.

    And that will in turn commit you to (a) some sort of infusion theology, which even the Lutherans reject, and/or (b) a doctrine that will allow you to state your (grown) child is unregenerate if s/he gives such evidence later on. Eventually, you'll wind up committed to affirming some sort of soteriology that builds itself upon the visible, not invisible church. No wonder Federal Visionism leads you to Rome and into heresy.

    But it is equally true that your willingness to go Baptist is because their position on baptism isn’t all too different than yours.

    If that's what you think, it's doubtful you understand the Baptist view on baptism, which directly undermines you rejection of Baptistery, since it would presume that you understand it in order to reject it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, why is it that (many) Federal Revisionists will fight almost to the death with Rome on the issue of Natural Law and Natural Theology, but they'll happily join hands with them and claim that they are not that far-off on the issue of justification?

    Maybe Calvinism causes FVs to dislike natural law. There's a weird hypercalvinist guy (Andrew C Bain) who denies it, one can see why calvinism would tend there.

    Maybe Rome/FV are driven by different motives to attack justification and they just coincidentally stumbled on the same method (trying to narrow Paul's focus to where they say he's talking *only* about Judaizers when he says 'works' in Romans, Galatians, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gene said, "The Diet of Regensburg is not the Protestant rule of faith.

    Right you are. But the WCF is and they have similar affirmations with regard to the sort of faith that justifies. Regensberg said "living faith" and Westminster said, "no dead faith".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ron,

    First of all, please know that I consider you my friend.

    But I have been very concerned about you for a very long time. Yes I do think you are in heresy. As I mentioned, it is up to your session to discipline you, and I have no authority to declare you a heretic. What I think doesn't matter. What your session thinks does.

    Having said the above, I find that FV folk, including you my friend, constantly equivocate on terms. As Manata mentioned, you need to study your church history much more deeply. You are revising it. The Reformers of course never disagreed with James. But Rome's view of James is quite different than the Reformers' view of James. The *concept* of faith alone is mentioned all over Romans, and particularly Galatians. We of course would argue in many other places as well (Ephesians, etc.).

    To get around these obvious statements, the FV and the NPP have to assert that the "works" and "law" mentioned in various passages really only mean the "ceremonial" law. But this is nothing more than an assertion. You should have been at Guy Waters' lecture last week. He gave an excellent exegesis of Romans 10:4-8. His was not a mere assertion. It was an exegetical case.

    Indeed, one thing I have noticed about Rome and the FV is that they are very weak on exegesis, as well as theological argumentation. They are big on logical fallacies and conflating ecclesiology and soteriology. (Of course, because they conflate covenant and election as well.)

    Ron, it is the sin-sick soul, yes indeed after renewal as well, that *needs* Christ. Romans 7 is the normal Christian life. The paradox is, the more we grow in our sanctification, the more and more sinful we recognize ourselves to be.

    You are very concerned with "faithfulness" and place much stress on it. Try reading John Owen's The Mortification of Sin. Have you ever tried to really mortify sin in your own heart? Every time I hear the FV talk of faithfulness, I always wonder why they never really seem to deal with the sickness of what sin really is: at the core of our very being.

    May the Lord open our eyes to our own wretchedness so we will abandon all of ourselves and run to the only Righteousness that justifies: The LORD Our Righteousness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Someone said, "Maybe Calvinism causes FVs to dislike natural law."

    The FV does not "dislike natural law." We just acknowledge that natural law alone cannot provide any sort of ethic. Even in the Garden before the Fall, God gave His children special revelation so that they could understand natural revelation. Romans 1 is clear on this. Natural Law apart from special revelation leads to God's wrath.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Josh said, "Yes I do think you are in heresy. As I mentioned, it is up to your session to discipline you, and I have no authority to declare you a heretic."

    You will have to tell me what the difference is between telling someone they "are in heresy" and declaring them a heretic.

    With regard to Waters, he has lost all credibility with me. "The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology" has been aptly refuted as a gross misrepresentation of the FV by at least 4 FV proponents, and Waters has been challenged to a public debate on the matter and has declined.

    In fact, no one has been willing to debate publicly on the matter, except FV guys. They are all too willing to set the record straight.

    But since you mentioned the FV and NPP assertion "that the "works" and "law" mentioned in various passages really only mean the "ceremonial" law.", I give you Calvin:

    "From these words, the Apostle took occasion to institute a comparison between the Law and the Gospel, calling the one a doctrine of the letter, the other a doctrine of the spirit; describing the one as formed on tables of stone, the other on tables of the heart; the one the preaching of death, the other of life; the one of condemnation, the other of justification; the one made void, the other permanent, (2 Cor. 3: 5, 6.) The object of the Apostle being to explain the meaning of the Prophet, the worlds of the one furnish us with the means of ascertaining what was understood by both. And yet there is some difference between them. For the Apostle speaks of the Law more disparagingly than the Prophet. This he does not simply in respect of the Law itself, but because there were some false zealots of the Law who, by a perverse zeal for ceremonies, obscured the clearness of the Gospel, he treats of the nature of the Law with reference to their error and foolish affection. It will, therefore, be proper to attend to this peculiarity in Paul." ~ John Calvin; Institutes of Christian Religion, 2.11.7, emphasis mine

    I wonder if Waters properly "attend[ed]to this peculiarity in Paul." I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Actually, I said the view of the Diet of Regensburg that "only living faith justifies" could be seen in Rome's rejection of "faith alone" since James defines the phrase as "dead faith".

    Actually, what has been pointed out to you, is that Regensberg was extremely vague. You're being a nominalist, Solafidelity. You're focusing on *words* and not *meanings. For example, a Mormon says he believes in the "Trinity." I say that I do as well. When the *meaning* is poured into the terms, that's where the agreement ends and the disagreement begins. Any point you have is, is a cheap point.

    Rome rejected "faith alone" and incorporated faith+works as the ground of our justification. They did not distinguish santification and justification.

    "I mean come on. You have to admit that the only time the phrase "faith alone" occurs in scripture is in James 2.

    I mean come one. You're trying to set yourself up as in agreement with Calvin, and yet you make these claims. Let's let Calvin speak here in response to your statement:

    *************

    "The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 4:2). They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added. Is it so? What answer, then will they give to the words of Paul, when he contends that righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous? How can it be gratuitous, and yet by works? By what cavils, moreover, will they evade his declaration in another place, that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested? (Rom. 1:17). If righteousness is manifested in the Gospel, it is certainly not a partial or mutilated, but a full and perfect righteousness. The Law, therefore, has no part in its and their objection to the exclusive word alone is not only unfounded, but is obviously absurd. Does he not plainly enough attribute everything to faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, "The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;" "Being justified freely by his grace;" "Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?" (Rom. 3:21, 24, 28). Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most childish."

    ***************

    See how history repeats itself? This is why some have called your error "the old-new error."

    "Anyway, this is why, for me, I would have less problems affirming Trent, than I would affirming at the local Baptist church that God's wrath rests upon my children until they have faith."

    That's either because you're ignorant of Trent's statements on justification, or you're ignorant of the Bible's statements on justification.

    "Perhaps it is you say, that my willingness to go to Rome before a Baptist church is because the Roman position on justification isn’t all too different than mine."

    See above.

    "But it is equally true that your willingness to go Baptist is because their position on baptism isn’t all too different than yours. Do you differ on anything other than the proper subjects of baptism? I doubt it."

    But unfortunately a false gospel cannot save. One can be saved and have a wrong view on the subjects of baptism (whether that's the paedo or the credo). You're majoring on the minors. I differ on many other things with the baptist, not just the proper subjects considered all in isolation. I'd be willing to go to a Baptist churhc (or, as was our context, *become* a Baptist), because they don't have a faulty view of how one can stand right before God.

    "Also, I don't think you are even close to spouting heresy (maybe you got the idea from Jeff), but I know that doesn't mean much to you coming from a heretic like me... :)"

    I said so in the post. I said I was using hyperbole. The point is the same, though.

    ReplyDelete
  12. solafidelity.com said...
    Someone said, "Maybe Calvinism causes FVs to dislike natural law."

    The FV does not "dislike natural law." We just acknowledge that natural law alone cannot provide any sort of ethic. Even in the Garden before the Fall, God gave His children special revelation so that they could understand natural revelation. Romans 1 is clear on this. Natural Law apart from special revelation leads to God's wrath.

    3/22/2008 3:41 PM

    ***********

    And solafideltiy also will admit to you that he's never read any work by a NL guy, and really has no idea what the position is. So, his take on the matter is borne out of his admitted ignorance of the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To set the record straight, the canons of Trent that are being spoken of are:

    Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone..., let him be anathema.

    Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins,... let him be anathema.

    Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

    Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

    Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

    Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit an increase of grac and eternal life... let him be anathema.


    Trent clearly anathematizes anyone who believes that:
    a.) We are justified by double imputation.
    b.) We are justified by fiducia alone.
    c.) Justification cannot be *increased* through good works.
    d.) Good works are only the fruits and signs of justification.
    e.) Christ suffered our temporal punishments for sin as well as the guilt.
    f.) Good works do not accrue personal merit to the one who does them.
    g.) Good works help merit "eternal life".

    ReplyDelete
  14. "But since you mentioned the FV and NPP assertion "that the "works" and "law" mentioned in various passages really only mean the "ceremonial" law.", I give you Calvin:"

    Yes, that was the specific error of the Judaizers, but Paul goes on to say that *all* works, not just of ceremony, are excluded from the gospel.

    Also, Calvin makes it clear that the term "works of law" refers to the moral law as well (Institutes 3.11.20).

    ReplyDelete
  15. “Although, therefore, the apostle seems to reprove and correct those who were being persuaded to be circumcised, in such terms as to designate by the word "law" circumcision itself and other similar legal observances, which are now rejected as shadows of a future substance by Christians who yet hold what those shadows figuratively promised; he at the same time nevertheless would have it to be clearly understood that the law, by which he says no man is justified, lies not merely in those sacramental institutions which contained promissory figures, but also in those works by which whosoever has done them lives holily, and amongst which occurs this prohibition: "Thou shalt not covet."… And must the other nine commandments, which are rightly observed in their literal form, not be regarded as belonging to the law of works by which none is justified, but to the law of faith whereby the just man lives? Who can possibly entertain so absurd an opinion as to suppose that "the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones," is not said equally of all the ten commandments, but only of the solitary one touching the Sabbath-day?”
    -Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, ch.23 and 24

    It's funny how old this error actually is. Of course, Augustine held that Paul precluded all works that came *before baptism* from justification, but said that ones done after do accrue merit.

    That is just as easily defeated as the "works of law = ceremonial works" error refuted above.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Saint and Sinner said...
    "But since you mentioned the FV and NPP assertion "that the "works" and "law" mentioned in various passages really only mean the "ceremonial" law.", I give you Calvin:"

    Yes, that was the specific error of the Judaizers, but Paul goes on to say that *all* works, not just of ceremony, are excluded from the gospel.

    Also, Calvin makes it clear that the term "works of law" refers to the moral law as well (Institutes 3.11.20).

    3/22/2008 5:42 PM

    *************

    Right S&S. And in case "solafidelity" does not have the institutes, I' quote calvin rebutting him:

    "What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, "The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;" "Being justified freely by his grace;" "Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?" (Rom. 3:21, 24, 28). Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most childish. They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling, that they possess not even the first elements of logic. Do they think the Apostle was raving when he produced, in proof of his doctrine, these passages? "The man that does them shall live in them," (Gal. 3:12). "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them," (Gal. 3:10). Unless they are themselves raving, they will not say that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced only against the transgressors of them. If these passages are to be understood of the Moral Law, there cannot be a doubt that moral works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same effect are the arguments which he employs. "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20). "The law worketh wrath," (Rom. 4:15), and therefore not righteousness. "The law cannot pacify the conscience," and therefore cannot confer righteousness. "Faith is imputed for righteousness," and therefore righteousness is not the reward of works, but is given without being due. Because "we are justified by faith," boasting is excluded. "Had there been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe," (Gal. 3:21, 22). Let them maintain, if they dare, that these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very children will laugh at their effrontery. The true conclusion, therefore, is, that the whole Law is spoken of when the power of justifying is denied to it. - John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion; 3:11:19

    ReplyDelete
  17. One way to discern what Paul means in Galatians and what James means in his epistle when a phrase like "works" or "law" is used, for example, is to examine their applications of that teaching to individuals. We can also examine how individuals were justified elsewhere in scripture.

    Paul and James both use Abraham in Genesis 15:6 as an illustration. There's no explanation of such a use of that passage other than justification through faith alone, to the exclusion of every form of works. All that Abraham does in that passage is believe. That's not the sort of passage one chooses to illustrate justification through baptism, giving to the poor, or any other work. It's not as if only works of the Mosaic law are absent from the passage. If you were trying to illustrate the Roman Catholic gospel, would you go to Genesis 15? What happens in Genesis 15:6 is insufficient for justification in normative Roman Catholic theology. Catholics have to act as if the New Testament's use of Genesis 15 is consistent with their theology, because they want to appear to be consistent with scripture, but the fact is that Genesis 15:6 is a poor illustration of justification in Roman Catholicism. The reason why Paul and James cite the passage when discussing justification is because they didn't hold a Roman Catholic view of justification.

    Jesus repeatedly forgives people as soon as they believe, prior to baptism or any other work (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 17:19, 18:10-14), and that sort of justification at the time of faith is treated as normative elsewhere in the New Testament (Acts 15:7-11, 19:2, Galatians 3:2-9, Ephesians 1:13-14). Paul's question in Acts 19:2 assumes that it's normative to receive the Spirit at the time of faith, not at the time of baptism or at the time of anything else other than faith. Paul repeats that theme elsewhere, such as in Galatians 3:2-9. It would be implausible to dismiss all of these Biblical examples as exceptions to a rule, especially given that some of the passages in question are explicitly in a normative context. There are no Biblical examples of a person believing, yet remaining unjustified until the time that a work is added to his faith. Again, if Jesus and the apostles had some form of justification through works in mind, using somebody like the tax collector of Luke 18 or Abraham in Genesis 15 as an illustration doesn't make much sense.

    Even if we would conclude that justification is through some form of works, why believe that it's the Roman Catholic form? Over the years, Rome has often added works to the gospel, and sometimes subtracted works, of its own devising. A work that's required one year isn't required another year. The concept of mortal sin changes over time. One document issued centuries ago will refer to obedience to the Pope or membership in the Roman Catholic denomination as if it's essential for justification, while another document of more recent years will suggest that everybody from atheists to Buddhists to Muslims may be justified through good behavior. Does it not matter much if the wrong works are added to the gospel, as long as a denomination is correct about the alleged fact that works of some type are included? If you're going to accept the Roman Catholic system of works in particular, as opposed to some other system, don't you want to have an argument for the Roman Catholic system of authority? But there is no good argument for it. See, for example:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/was-papacy-established-by-christ-part.html

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/was-papacy-established-by-christ-part_24.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. But the WCF is and they have similar affirmations with regard to the sort of faith that justifies. Regensberg said "living faith" and Westminster said, "no dead faith".

    Wrong. The WCF is your confessional standard; it is NOT the Protestant rule of faith. The Protestant rule of faith is Sola Scriptura, not the Westminster Standards.

    And "living faith/no dead faith" are never, ever construed in the terms of Trent, which denies what the WCF asserts concerning justification. The issue isn't what Regensberg says for 3 reasons:

    1. The WCF is your confessional standard as a Presbyterian.
    2. Sola Scriptura is the Protestant rule of faith under which the WCF stands.
    3. The WCF, as well as Scripture, are at direct variance with Trent, and Trent supplies the RCC standard on justification.

    This must be quite the conundrum for you, since you're claiming Trent and the WCF are more alike than unlike.

    With regard to Waters, he has lost all credibility with me. "The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology" has been aptly refuted as a gross misrepresentation of the FV by at least 4 FV proponents, and Waters has been challenged to a public debate on the matter and has declined.

    Of course, what you don't go on to state is that there is more than one variety of Federal Visionism. When one version is addressed, its proponents cry foul, because it's not their own pet version that's addressed. It's hard to address a position when the proponents keep moving the goalposts.

    You will have to tell me what the difference is between telling someone they "are in heresy" and declaring them a heretic. We, following in the long tradition of Witsius and Turretin and others draw distinctions between kinds and types of error.

    Some are fundamental errors: denial of the Trinity, denial of justification by faith alone.

    Others are not: Paedobaptism vs. Credobaptism.

    If you truly deny justification by faith alone and you do not do so in ignorance, then your error is fundatmental. Moreover, if you do so knowingly and studiously you compound your error and lose the right to a credible profession of faith. We, like our forebears, draw a distinction between a credible profession and a saving profession. Romanists can't give us a credible profession; a saving profession is a different matter.

    See:

    http://blog.solagratia.org/2007/02/15/a-credible-profession-of-faith/

    ReplyDelete
  19. I highly recommend reading Calvin's commentary on Rom 3:21-22. It's got this:

    "the law is to be understood as meaning works; ... Some confine it to ceremonies; but this view I shall presently show to be unsound and frigid."

    Concerning this ("Augustine held that Paul precluded all works that came *before baptism* from justification") It's got this:

    "It is not unknown to me, that Augustine gives a different explanation; for he thinks that the righteousness of God is the grace of regeneration; ... But that the Apostle includes all works without exception, even those which the Lord produces in his own people, is evident from the context."

    And this:

    "They think that these two things well agree, — that man is justified by faith through the grace of Christ, — and that he is yet justified by the works, which proceed from spiritual regeneration; for God gratuitously renews us, and we also receive his gift by faith. But Paul takes up a very different principle, — that the consciences of men will never be tranquillized until they recumb on the mercy of God alone. Hence, in another place, after having taught us that God is in Christ justifying men, he expresses the manner, — “by not imputing to them their sins.” In like manner, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he puts the law in opposition to faith with regard to justification."

    There's no end to Calvin quotes that can be pulled out to explain, in all clarity, that Justification has zippo to do with works. No FV can even fight a Calvin-based quote war, except by leveraging one or two vague quotes against a mountain of clear ones

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I would have less problems affirming Trent, than I would affirming at the local Baptist church that God's wrath rests upon my children until they have faith."

    I guess then that you take exception to yesterday's Daily Confession that "We lived at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rube,
    Since the Holy Spirit is given in baptism (see Luther on this), I don't see how a covenant child is under God's wrath.

    The quote you cite refers to first generation believers, which is to whom the New Testament is mostly directed towards.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh, you mean first generation believers like all of the authors of Dordt?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dort is quoting a scripture that applies to first generation believers. You won't find David saying that he was by nature a child of wrath, like everyone else. He acknowledges his sinfulness from birth, but he also acknowledges his salvation from birth. "In sin I was conceived" (Psalm 51), and "You have been my God from the womb" (Psalm 22).

    ReplyDelete
  24. Since the Holy Spirit is given in baptism (see Luther on this), I don't see how a covenant child is under God's wrath.

    This is rich. Luther's view of baptism is not the Calvinist view of baptism.

    Obviously, you've not read Luther well. If you had, you would know he has more in common with Baptists than Presbyterians here. Again, this must be quite the conundrum for you, given you earlier statements about Baptists. Personally, I find that rather humorous.

    Luther affirmed that baptism is believer's baptism. Luther insisted on faith - the faith of the person actually baptized - fides propria. It permits "no one else to take its place." (Luther, A Treatise on the New Testament, in Luther's Works, 36:94). If you think that's at all like Reformed Paedobaptism, you either don't understand Luther, don't understand Reformed Paedobaptism, or both.

    Luther affirmed that "in baptism, the infants themselves believe and have their own faith." (Ibid, 51:185). In the Presbyterian tradition in which you stand and which you advocate, the congregation is speaking for the infant, not testifying to his actual faith but to a promise thereof- and one that may well not come to pass if God has chosen not to elect that child. Only time will tell.

    The difference between Luther and the Baptists on this particular point is that Luther affirms infant faith, we affirm adult or rather confessor faith (fides in usu) is necessary for baptism. In short, we just need to hear it from the mouth of the person being baptized. He also rejected fides in habitu (faith present but unexercised in infants), the latter of which is what you need to affirm to hold to your FV version of infant baptism. Please don't run to Luther for support, because you won't find it. Indeed, as a Baptist, I have more in common with Luther on baptism that you do, sir.

    You won't find David saying that he was by nature a child of wrath, like everyone else. He acknowledges his sinfulness from birth, but he also acknowledges his salvation from birth. "In sin I was conceived" (Psalm 51), and "You have been my God from the womb" (Psalm 22).

    One fails to see how appealing to David will help you here, since as a FVision Presbyterian you're trying to draw conclusions about regeneration and justification from baptism while making baptism and circumcision run parallel. Was David circumcised in the womb? Not only that, unless you're David, you and your children are "everyone else."

    David affirms two things:

    1. Original sin, which means he was a child of wrath before he was a child of righteousness.

    2. If we take the latter reference as a reference to him being regenerate before born, he would have been circumcised by the Spirit with respect to the heart, not his flesh.

    So, his circumcision in the flesh did not avail anything with respect to his justification, since he would have been justified prior to it, and not before.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Rube,
    Since the Holy Spirit is given in baptism (see Luther on this), I don't see how a covenant child is under God's wrath."

    The










































































    Rube,
    Since the Holy Spirit is given in baptism (see Luther on this), I don't see how a covenant child is under God's wrath.

    **************

    The benefits or promises of baptism are received by only those who have *faith.*

    It's not necessarily tied to the time of baptism, as your/our confession says:

    VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

    You're confusing the sign and the thing signified. You're evidencing sacramentalism.

    The Holy Spirit is received through *faith.*

    So, not all covenant members, head for head, have the Holy Spirit. Not all baptized persons, head for head, have the Spirit.

    If all do then you must believe something like:

    a) All covenant members (head for head) are regenerated.

    Or:

    b) People can receive the Holy Spirit without faith, and thus without regeneration.

    If (a) then since you would agree not all covenant members (head for head) will enter into heaven, then you deny the reformed ordo salutis and the perseverence of the saints. If (b) then you're a functional Arminian, and you'd have to have two different senses of "recieve the Holy Spirit," otherwise you'd have to deny perseverence

    ReplyDelete
  26. The benefits or promises of baptism are received by only those who have *faith.*
    I agree. But I would clarify this statement with the fact that the promises are directed to all covenant members, but that the fruit of those covenant promises can only be received by faith. (Psalm 103:17-18) This is how God’s promises work. Ezekiel 33 is a good example of this.

    Would you agree that every baptized Christian can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God's promises? I think that is what Luther meant in the quote I linked. Calvin said this too.

    ReplyDelete
  27. But I would clarify this statement with the fact that the promises are directed to all covenant members, but that the fruit of those covenant promises can only be received by faith.

    Now you're drawing distinctions that Luther does not make. Luther REJECTED the scholastic distinctions between fides in habitu (faith present but unexercised) and fides in usu (adult faith, consciously exercised), yet he stated plainly that the faith of the infant was truly their own and that the faith pledges of others did NOT obtain in their place. Once again, Luther does not support you. Thus, the reason that Luther can say that a Christian can look to his baptism is because in baptism he really and truly believed. Wake up! Presbyterians DENY this. Do you not understand your own doctrine of baptism?


    Would you agree that every baptized Christian can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God's promises? I think that is what Luther meant in the quote I linked. Calvin said this too.


    Luther and Calvin did not share the same view of baptism.

    You're a Presbyterian, so you must affirm that the membership of the New Covenant is mixed.

    If you index justification to baptism in any way, you're indexing regeneration to baptism. If you index regeneration to baptism, you're indexing election to baptism.

    Let's follow the bread crumbs now using your very own logic...

    1. Who does God elect? The members of the New Covenant.

    2. Are covenant children members of the New Covenant? Yes.

    3. Are those children considered children of wrath? No

    4. How are they made members of this covenant? By baptism

    Ergo, you're winding up with:

    a. baptismal regeneration.
    b. justification by sacrament
    c. You're making the members of the covenant regenerate either actually or presumptively. That's a Baptist argument - yet you deny the validity of the Baptist argument.

    Moreover, you're ultimately indexing election to membership in the New Covenant by way of baptism.

    And baptism in Presbyterianism is directly analogous to circumcision.

    And baptism is given to whom? With respect to infants, to those infants who have at least one believing parent,which,if you deny these children are under God's wrath, gets you to election by heredity.

    Why? Because God elects whom? The "circumcised," those who are children of the members of the visible church.

    Hmmm, let's see what Scripture says about that:

    I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,

    2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.

    3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

    4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,

    5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

    6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

    7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

    8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

    In case you can't follow the argument, that's a DENIAL of election by heredity, straight out of Romans 9.

    You're winding up on the opposite end, with God electing the children of the members of the visible covenant community - children not of promise but of heredity, and the sign is baptism which is analogous to circumcision. That's precisely the opposite of what Scripture says about both election and circumcision. Circumcision is of no avail - ever,and neither is baptism for the same reason .

    ReplyDelete
  28. solafidelity.com said...

    "The benefits or promises of baptism are received by only those who have *faith.*"

    I agree. But I would clarify this statement with the fact that the promises are directed to all covenant members, but that the fruit of those covenant promises can only be received by faith. (Psalm 103:17-18) This is how God’s promises work. Ezekiel 33 is a good example of this.


    ************

    But you said that, "the Holy Spirit is given in baptism . . . I don't see how a covenant child is under God's wrath." So, if you "agree" then you *can see* how "covenant child" (or, any covenant member, for that matter) can "be under God's wrath."

    The fact that we see instances where the entire congregation is addressed as if they had the thing signified is on the basis of the judgment of charity.

    At any rate, I fear you've committed a fallacy. That S is *addressed as* having X does not mean that S *has* X.

    So, if it is a fact that not all baptised people do *in fact* have X, then you *can see* how any one of them could be under God's wrath.

    Furthermore, many promises are for *anyone,* regardless of whether they are a "covenant member," or not. The promise of salvation, the Holy Spirit, et al are to *anyone* who believes.

    "Would you agree that every baptized Christian can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God's promises? I think that is what Luther meant in the quote I linked."

    Too simplistic. Assuraqnce is the result of *many* things working in concert in the life of the believer. There's also distinctions between backslidden believers and non-backslidding believers. The primary means of assurance is looking to Christ, and the work he did on your behalf. But, even Wilson, in Reformed Is Not Enough, said many things assured us, note his bullet points in that chapter: the believer is holding fast to Jesus Christ, has the gift of the Holy Spirit, loves his brothers, has a humble in mind, delights in the means of grace, understands spiritual things, is obedient, and is chastened for disobedience.

    Baptism is *a* means of assurance, but surely not the *only* and not even the *highest.*

    I'd actually side with teh Confession here over the FV:

    I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation[1] (which hope of theirs shall perish):[2] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[3] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.[4]

    II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]

    III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14]

    IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God's withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light:[15] yet are they never so utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived;[16] and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.[17]

    Same with my Reformed Baptist brothers,

    http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc18.html

    I'd also side with guy Waters' analysis of many FV proponents take on assurance (and perseverance and apostasy too). I think he's spot on. And, I don'tneed to go over it because I'm sure you've read him. Surely you didn't just dismiss him on the basis of hostile reviews of his book, right? Surely the guy who got a Ph.D. under E.P. Sanders, one of the key men in the NPP movement, has enough brain power, and understanding of some of the common themses that exist between FV and NPP (and there *are* some common themes), to offer some good critiques that you should take not of rather than going off hostile reviewers, right? Surely Sanders wouldn't let some hack, who doesn't understand the first thing about these concerns here, get away with a Ph.D under his name. His rep is on the line. So, I'm sure you've read Waters for yourself, and so I don't need to reherse him for you. Thus I'd also note that Waters' makes some very good points here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh, and one more thing, sir, THIS is why you're being labeled a heretic, for you're ultimately agreeing with 1st century Judaizers, and we have only to read Galatians to see what Paul says about that. Who, foolish man, has bewitched you? You are making Christ of no avail.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Paul said, "Too simplistic. Assuraqnce is the result of *many* things working in concert in the life of the believer."

    Of course. I did not ask if one could look *exclusively* to their baptism as if water was magic and saved them, but rather that a covenant member can and ought to look to their baptism in faith and believe the promises God made to them there. Further, those promises are concerning Christ and His redemptive work on behalf of the recipient of baptism. That is what the baptism signifies, the remission of sins.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gene said, "You're a Presbyterian, so you must affirm that the membership of the New Covenant is mixed."

    Yes I am and do. But that doesn't answer my question. I did not ask if everyone baptized is elect. I only asked if everyone baptized who looks to their baptism in faith can believe God's promises made at their baptism.

    If the answer is yes, as I assert that it is, this is not the same as saying that everyone who is baptized is elect. This is a common misconception. It is only saying that everyone who is baptized and receives the promises made at their baptism in faith is elect.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ron Smith said:
    Paul said, "Too simplistic. Assuraqnce is the result of *many* things working in concert in the life of the believer."

    Of course. I did not ask if one could look *exclusively* to their baptism as if water was magic and saved them, but rather that a covenant member can and ought to look to their baptism in faith and believe the promises God made to them there. Further, those promises are concerning Christ and His redemptive work on behalf of the recipient of baptism. That is what the baptism signifies, the remission of sins.

    3/23/2008 10:23 PM

    *************

    And of course I mentioned that it was too simplistic.

    And, the features I mentioned are denied by many FVers. Surely you've read their works. I also mention the *chief* means of assurance. Baptism ranks farely low on the list, I'd say.

    At any rate, I don't see the relevance of your comment. Of course, as almost all would profess, baptism is *an* assurance. If that's all you were saying . . ., um, sweet, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ron Smith said...
    Gene said, "You're a Presbyterian, so you must affirm that the membership of the New Covenant is mixed."

    Yes I am and do. But that doesn't answer my question. I did not ask if everyone baptized is elect. I only asked if everyone baptized who looks to their baptism in faith can believe God's promises made at their baptism.

    If the answer is yes, as I assert that it is, this is not the same as saying that everyone who is baptized is elect. This is a common misconception. It is only saying that everyone who is baptized and receives the promises made at their baptism in faith is elect.

    3/23/2008 10:32 PM


    Gene,

    Notice that Ron is running away from his original assertion that:

    "the Holy Spirit is given in baptism . . . I don't see how a covenant child is under God's wrath."

    See, the HS *is given* in baptism.

    I guess he means HIS is given to *all,* head for head.

    Otherwise he could "see" how a covenant child (or an adult who makes a false profession) could be under God's wrath.

    Now he wants to say that only those who *recieve* the promises by faith are elect. But if "all" get the HS, and if only the elect get the "HS," then all are elect.

    So, he's not keeping the context of his own arguments straight.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Paul, I already clarified what I believe Luther meant by the statement, namely, "that every baptized Christian can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God's promises".

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ron,

    So then you "can see" how a "covenant child" (or professing adult covenant member) can "be under God's wrath?" We're taking one thing at a time here.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ron Smith said...
    Paul, I already clarified what I believe Luther meant by the statement, namely, "that every baptized Christian can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God's promises".

    3/23/2008 11:30 PM

    *********

    And, I (we) already pointed out that that's not either the best way, or the most important. And, we have to make distinctions. Your claim is definitely false when it comes to a backslidden believers. Doubting believers too. We've covered the subject of assurance a number of tiomes here.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  38. John Lofton,

    Again, you offer an irrelevant comment and copy and paste a bunch of stuff that no one here is going to see since I'm deleting your comment. I've already warned you about this once before, apparently you don't have the integrity to honor my requests even though you are a *guest* here. My combox is not a forum for you to gout out your "talking points."

    ReplyDelete
  39. I did not ask if everyone baptized is elect. I only asked if everyone baptized who looks to their baptism in faith can believe God's promises made at their baptism.

    If those children are not, in your very own words, under God's wrath, Ron, then you are, in fact, presuming they are elect. That's standard to the Federal Vision - the presumption that covenant children are regenerate. You can't say that they aren't under God's wrath unless you either presume they are regenerate or adopt some sort of doctrine of eternal justification. EJ is a hyper-Calvinist doctrine.

    To appeal to God's promises in baptism doesn't cut it, for reasons we've already been over, and which you haven't addressed.

    In Scripture, the only way we are out from under God's wrath is if we are truly justified. At best, you must at least presume that your child is justified in order to be assured s/he is no longer an object of God's wrath.

    And that means you must presume them to be regenerate.

    That in turn commits you to presuming they are elect.

    Which, using your own logic with respect to *why* this presumption obtains ( their baptism) gets us to conditional election, not conditioned on faith (Arminianism) but on HEREDITY (2nd Temple JUDAISM/JUDAIZER HERESY!) Why? Because they are baptized due to the faith of their parent/s and the congregation speaking for them. So, ultimately, this presumption obtains due to their birth, their family, their heredity.

    Paul, I already clarified what I believe Luther meant by the statement, namely, "that every baptized Christian can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God's promises".

    Your appeal to Luther is equally specious, for Luther affirms that the person baptized actually believes. How many times do I have go over that for you to read it, Ron?

    That's more Baptist than Presbyterian. Yet you affirm Presbyterian baptism. In Presbyterian baptism, the believing parent/parents and congregation speak for the child. In Luther's view, NOBODY can speak for the child in that way - no other faith will do, not that of the parent/s not that of the congregation. The infant is said to really and actually believe. The Baptists do NOT have the corner on believers' baptism. Baptists affirm CONFESSOR baptism. Our contention with the Lutherans is not over the necessity of real and actual faith with respect to the baptismal candidate.

    And notice I don't have to argue for Baptist ecclesiology here in order to overturn your own position and show how it's at variance with your own confessional standards.

    Your position betrays either ignorance of the material or intellectual confusion. I'm merely following your own argument. The fact that you don't like where it goes tells us that either you've not thought it out well or deep down you realize now that you've erred.

    So now, I publicly enjoin you to repent of your error and return to the truth. Not to do so will result your loss of a credible profession of faith, and that emperils both you and your children's souls. I enjoin you in the name of Christ, for Him, for your soul, and for the souls of those you obviously love, to do this, Ron.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Wow, busy bees.

    I'm glad I'm not the one taking the heat here. I feel for you Ron. It's hard to be the only one taking a side against a bunch of others and handle the pounding. I remember my first days to blogging over at RubeRad's defending Theonomy. Oy Vay!

    Anyway, sorry to Ron that I can't be of much help to you here. Don't take this personally...

    I must respond to Paul's mentioning of me in this post. I want to make a few things very clear:

    1. When I mentioned the Kool Aid, it was first and foremost an attempt at humor

    2. It was aimed at Paul's movement away from theonomic ethics towards Natural Law theory. I'm sad to see Paul doubting his very own arguments that he stood by so strongly only a little over a year ago.

    3. I am NOT an FV subscriber

    4. And for Ron, I spend a lot of time with Ron, I love him closer than a brother, and in our discussions about Christ and our salvation, I have no doubt that he has a true and justifying faith in Christ. He is our brother guys, and this is more of an intellectual battle to be had with him.

    5. I mentioned in that post in response to Paul and Rube, etc. that given the choice of moving to a town with only a Baptist church or a Roman Catholic church, that I would choose the third option: start a church plant. :) However, I grew up Catholic. I was catechized Catholic. I received my first communion and confirmation. I was also a Baptist for most of my Protestant life. Starting out as an Arminian Charismatic growing into Reformed Baptist, and now Presbyterian. With my experience, I would NEVER EVER want to go back to Rome, nor would I suggest to anybody that option as a possibility. I have mentioned to Ron their doctrine of penance and purgatory. I am sure we'll have more discussion on the subject.

    Ron:

    You know that I am conservative in my criticism of Rome. But still, I really think that you aren't really familiar with their true doctrine. If you were, I don't think you'd be saying some of the things you are saying regarding them. I know how you think and what you believe. I also know what Rome teaches. You and Rome are NOT the same. I don't even think that you're close. I'm not sure what you've been reading that makes you think you're close (on the doctrine of justification), but trust me bro, you're not.

    Anyway, that my two cents. Praise God for Presbyterianism!

    kazoo

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jeff, I didn't mention your name since I wasn't trying to attack you (and since you have said you are not FV I didn't want to associate your good name with their bad theology!). I just used your humorous (but nevertheless analogously true, to you) statement to make a point. I even pointed out in my post that this was a hyperbolic apprach I was taking to interpreting your guys' claims. My basic point still stands, though.

    ReplyDelete