Beza's Motto
1 day ago
Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]
Monday, May 31, 2010
Quote from Ashley Null on Cranmer
"...crying with a Loud Voice, 'This hand hath offended.' As soon as the fire got up, he was very soon dead, never stirring or crying all the while.His Catholic executioners surely thought Cranmer was making satisfaction to his Protestant God. Yet his doctrine of repentance would have taught him otherwise, for the God he served saved the unworthy.Having believed in his own justification by faith, Cranmer would have thought he could fall totally but not finally. As God's child, the burden of all the multitude of his sins was no cause for him to distrust or dispair of help at his Father's hand; for the incredible richness of God's merciful love for him would never have shone brighter than on that cloudy day, precisely because he, the chief promoter of the new faith, had fallen so far as to become a declared enemy of the Gospel. To Cranmer, his hand in the fire would have been an act of loving service of a heart turned back to God by the power and promise of His immeasurably loving grace. His final resolve would have been a joyous confirmation that he was indeed one of the elect in whom there would be no fault found in the end."
Cranmer's Doctrine of Repentance, by Ashley Null.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Another Review of Bruce Almighty: Pelagianism Rehashed
"..Only thing you can't do is override anyone's free will..... so he has another interview with God who explains that 'people don't need Us to intervene in their lives. They have the power to answer their needs and problems themselves. We just have to help them see how.'"
Let's see. We don't really need God? We can do it ourselves if we just figure out how??? God is a self help fellow up in heaven hoping people make themselves live forever, solve their own problems, and become their own little gods? (Psalm 82:6-7).
Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran church wrote an entire book called, The Bondage of the Will. He wrote against the views of the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus who believed in free will. In that book, Luther says:
Therefore, it is not irreligious, curious, or superfluous, but essentially wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know, whether or not the will does any thing in those things which pertain unto Salvation. Nay, let me tell you, this is the very hinge upon which our discussion turns. It is the very heart of our subject. For our object is this: to inquire what "Free-will" can do, in what it is passive, and how it stands with reference to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatever of Christian matters, and shall be far behind all People upon the earth. He that does not feel this, let him confess that he is no Christian. And he that despises and laughs at it, let him know that he is the Christian's greatest enemy. For, if I know not how much I can do myself, how far my ability extends, and what I can do God-wards; I shall be equally uncertain and ignorant how much God is to do, how far His ability is to extend, and what He is to do toward me: whereas it is "God that worketh all in all." (1 Corinthians 12:6.) But if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, give Him thanks, nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God. It is necessary, therefore, to hold the most certain distinction, between the power of God and our power, the working of God and our working, if we would live in His fear.
In another place in the book, Luther states without any ambiguity that the sovereignty of God overrides free will:
Sect. 9.—THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will," must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them.
The two movies, Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty, are so blasphemous that I do not know how any Christian could endorse either movie. I have not seen Evan Almighty but I did see Bruce Almighty on cable. The idea that we can become God is closer to Mormonism than to biblical Christianity. The incommunicable attributes of God can never be possessed by any sinful human being. Only Jesus possessed the incommunicable attributes of God and even He voluntarily submitted Himself to the Father's will by not exercising them except occasionally and for the purpose of authenticating the Gospel message.
Exactly what are the "incommunicable attributes" of God. They are the very essence of who and what God is by His very nature. God is eternally self-existent and has no beginning or end in linear time. We call this His aseity. God is omnipotent or all powerful. God is omniscient or all knowing. God is omnipresent or everywhere present. To call a mere man who is also a sinner Almighty is to commit blasphemy. The Athanasian Creed says that God is Almighty. The Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty and the Holy Spirit is Almighty but there are not three Almighties but only one Almighty. Anyone who has ever said the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday knows that calling any man Almighty other than Jesus Christ, who is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity is blasphemy.
"You shall have no other gods before me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:3-6 ESV)
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4 ESV)
Moreover, the idea that men have free will is a return to pelagianism. Pelagianism is the idea that men are not born sinful but only become sinners by following Adam's example of rebellion. But Scripture clearly says that men are corrupt from birth (Psalm 58:3; Psalm 51:3-5; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:23). The desire for man to have the incommunicable attributes of God--not merely magical powers which are transferrable--goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:4-5). Incommunicable means that God cannot communicate to a mere creature the nature, essence or attributes of an infinitely powerful and wise Deity. To do so would mean God is not really the ultimate Being after all. The entire premise of both movies would mean that God is not one God but two since there is God and there is Bruce Almighty. In the sequel we have yet another blasphemous god called Evan Almighty. In both cases the absurdity of it all renders the entire premise of both movies as being so ridiculous that no genuine Christian could possibly suspend their disbelief long enough to see the movie. While I did watch Bruce Almighty on cable, I thought the movie was so utterly ridiculous and so void of any entertainment value that I wondered how any Christian could endorse it?
In Christ,
Charlie
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Evan Almighty: Another Blasphemous Movie?
"But I think my greatest and overarching concern is this: this movie, like the one before it, makes light of our faith. When people walked out of Bruce Almighty I don't think they had a greater and deeper understanding of God. They did not have greater love for and respect for Him. The genre simply could not bring so serious and important and biblical a message. Amidst all of the laughs and vulgarity there would simply not have been opportunity to really help people understand God better, despite the filmmaker's attempts. And when people walk away from Evan Almighty they will not love God more. I don't think they will have a greater understanding of the Bible. In fact, I suspect they'll see the biblical story of the flood as being as fictional as this movie--a quaint plot but completely unrealistic and implausible. Mere fiction. This movie will not and cannot bring anyone closer to God. Rather, it will necessarily project a false image of God, a false understanding of Him. And we're being told to watch this, to enjoy this, and to bring our families to see it so they can laugh with us."
From a review of Evan Almighty at Challies.com
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
John Piper's Ambiguous Doctrine of Justification
I found this critique of John Piper's doctrine of justification by faith at the Contrast blog on Wordpress. You might find it interesting. Piper is quoted as saying:
Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.
The 39 Articles teach double predestination: Article 17
Article XVII
Of Predestination and Election
Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.
Obviously the Anglican Church was not Puritan in 1571 when the 39 Articles were adopted as its confession of faith. The Augustinian doctrine of double predestination was adopted by the Lutherans and the Calvinist Reformers because it was the doctrine of the Bible. Lutherans later rejected the predestination of the reprobate, although it is logical that if God chooses the elect then He most certainly chose to pass over the reprobate as well. In short, the decree to election implies the opposite as well: the decree to reprobation.
For God has not destined us (Christians in Thessalonica) for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Thessalonians 5:9 ESV)
and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (1 Peter 2:8 ESV)
"Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. (Acts 1:16 ESV)
[The Scriptures predicted that Judas would betray Christ and it happened exactly as predicted. Only God could providentially guide historical events that way. Coincidence, accident, or happenstance? Or is prophecy fulfilled because God decreed it that way?]
"For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.' (Acts 1:20 ESV)
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23 ESV)
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- (Romans 9:22-23 ESV)
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Arminianism: A Response to Sydney
Mark,
Anglo-Catholics have right behavior and they are headed for hell. I could include any number of false religions in that. Behavior is not what saves the Christian. It is doctrine. You can be very good and never offend your neighbor but if you have trusted in your own good works rather than Christ, then you are headed for hell.
The thief on the cross is proof enough that good works do not save. (Luke 23:40-43).
When the emphasis is not on the cross then you're claiming part of the glory for yourself rather than giving all the glory to God. In fact, even if you live what appears to be a moral and holy life your salvation is still based in Christ and not your own righteousness.
In fact, if you say that those teaching a false Gospel are saved, it betrays you as having more in common with the papists than with the Gospel.
It seems to me that I made the right decision in breaking with David Knox since his view is that Anglo-Catholics are "good Christian men." What they are is in fact false prophets like the Pharisees. They are leading people to hell instead of pointing them to Christ. It is His active and passive obedience which makes us righteous. It is a forensic declaration of imputation. Transformation is imperfect and cannot save anyone. If so, then the Muslim and Buddhist must be headed to heaven since they have good behavior and good ethics.
No, sanctification is what shows others we are Christians. It is imperfect and therefore can never be the basis for our justification in the judgment.
The passages dealing with man's accountability are law. Doing does not make us right with God (Romans 3:20). It is the duty of all men and even if all men lived as morally as Christians they would still be lost unless and until they accept Christ. Even one sin makes one guilty and deserving of hell. Couple active and willful sins with the original corruption and original sin of Adam and that makes us all doubly worthy of hell.
Only Christ can justify a sinner, not the sinner's inherent "righteousness" or "holiness." Even our best efforts fall short of the mark of absolute perfection.
But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Galatians 6:14 ESV)
I would suggest that you review Articles 9-18 again. Clearly other sects cannot lead anyone to heaven (Article 18). Good works are pleasing to God only after justification and even then they are of such an imperfect nature as to fall short of the mark of making us righteous or just. Only faith can justify anyone according to Scripture and this is upheld in Article 11.
Grace does not make sense to Pharisees and the self-righteous. John Newton realized that there was nothing he could do to make restitution for his sins, hence the hymn Amazing Grace.
If you say that papists who trust in their own good works and their "infused" righteousness are "Christians," then you are in fact denying the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Either we are justified by faith alone OR we are justified by faith plus works. Anyone approving of those teaching a false gospel is as guilty as those preaching self-righteousness and faith plus works as the means of justification before God. A papist is as a papist does.
Charlie
From: Mark D. Thompson
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 5:58 PM
To: Charlie J. Ray
Subject: Re: Arminianism: A form of the Pelagian heresy.
Charlie,
You have to take seriously all the Bible, not just part of it. Jesus railed against those who could say 'Lord, Lord' but whose lives showed nothing of the doctrine it appeared they professed. Paul's letters, even Galatians where justification by faith is so clearly and unambiguously taught, insist upon behavioural change. And then there is James!
Not everyone who makes call for repentance and godly living is denying justification by faith alone. They might be, if they were insisting that this is what will set you right with God or this is what guarantees your salvation. All our deeds, even the Christian side of our justification are compromised by lingering sin and imperfection. Nothing puts us into the right with God but the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to which we are now united by faith through the Spirit.
So you are entirely right when you say: 'Before justification good works count for nothing. After justification they please God but can never be the basis for our salvation since they are imperfect.'
However, you overstate the case when you say 'Doctrine is what makes a Christian, not behaviour.' It is not correct doctrine that makes a Christian (there will, I expect, be lots of shame-faced theologians on the last day, embarrassed by the mistakes they made and taught). Nor is it behaviour. Strictly speaking it is God's gift of faith in Christ that makes a Christian, and that faith will have us turn to the Scriptures to have our thinking and our behaviour transformed by the truth which God himself has revealed.
I hope this helps.
Mark
You have to take seriously all the Bible, not just part of it. Jesus railed against those who could say 'Lord, Lord' but whose lives showed nothing of the doctrine it appeared they professed. Paul's letters, even Galatians where justification by faith is so clearly and unambiguously taught, insist upon behavioural change. And then there is James!
Not everyone who makes call for repentance and godly living is denying justification by faith alone. They might be, if they were insisting that this is what will set you right with God or this is what guarantees your salvation. All our deeds, even the Christian side of our justification are compromised by lingering sin and imperfection. Nothing puts us into the right with God but the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to which we are now united by faith through the Spirit.
So you are entirely right when you say: 'Before justification good works count for nothing. After justification they please God but can never be the basis for our salvation since they are imperfect.'
However, you overstate the case when you say 'Doctrine is what makes a Christian, not behaviour.' It is not correct doctrine that makes a Christian (there will, I expect, be lots of shame-faced theologians on the last day, embarrassed by the mistakes they made and taught). Nor is it behaviour. Strictly speaking it is God's gift of faith in Christ that makes a Christian, and that faith will have us turn to the Scriptures to have our thinking and our behaviour transformed by the truth which God himself has revealed.
I hope this helps.
Mark
Re: Arminianism: A form of the Pelagian heresy.
Doctrine is what makes a Christian, not behavior. Behavior is ethics and morality. All religions have morality but only Christianity has the "faith once delivered to the saints." Jude 1:1-4.
Again you want to combine faith and works. It is either faith or works. It cannot be both.
Justification is the ground of our salvation. Sanctification is an imperfect evidence to other men that we are Christians. The first is absolutely necessary to salvation, sanctification follows naturally AFTER justification. Before justification good works count for nothing. After justification they please God but can never be the basis for our salvation since they are imperfect.
Article XII
Of Good Works
Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
Anglo-Catholics do not accept this doctrine. Instead they wish to believe that their good works contribute to their standing before God.
Article XV
Of Christ alone without Sin
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His spirit. He came to be the lamb without spot, Who by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world: and sin, as S. John saith, was not in Him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things: and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10 ESV)
Also, the 1662 confession of sin and the prayer of humble access back this up:
EARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us, in sundry places, to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying after me;
LMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.LMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins : He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.Morning Prayer
Notice the morning and evening prayers are said DAILY. If you do not sin daily, then why does the prayer book have the confession of sin done daily instead of occasionally? Also, repentance is a gift granted to us, not something we work up by our own efforts. We pray for God's particular grace to be given to enable us to choose the right path.
And the prayer of humble access:
Then shall the Priest, kneeling down at the Lord's Table, say in the name of all them that shall receive the Communion this Prayer following.
E do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.Again, salvation is by mercy alone and not by our own worth, merits, earnings, working or anything else. God owes us absolutely nothing no matter how "holy" we "think" we are. So, I have to disagree with you again, Bruce. Works do not prove a thing other than that you owe God more than you ever repay and even AFTER conversion your works fall short of the mark. This is why salvation is ALL of grace from beginning to end. Perhaps you should revisit that famous Anglican hymn written by John Newton? Amazing Grace!
Article XIV
Of Works of Supererogation
Voluntary works besides, over and above, God's commandments which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: Whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We be unprofitable servants.
"Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and recline at table'? 8 Will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink'? 9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'" (Luke 17:7-10 ESV)
If you were merely arguing that sanctification is the necessary proof of genuine faith that has already justified us by faith and faith alone, I could agree with you, Bruce. But we both know that is NOT what you are arguing here. What you are really saying is that Anglo-Catholics, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are saved because they do good works. But the English Reformers said that Scripture teaches that they cannot be saved unless they repent of self-righteousness, self-effort, and depending on their own works to justify them before God. Such sinful and false confidence is as antinomian as the worst sinner simply because they reject the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer as the ONLY basis for our justification now and in the judgment.
Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
(Romans 10:1-4 ESV)The moral law serves a guide to Christians in how they are to live. It is not the basis for their justification or salvation and never will be. I fail to see what you think is "cheap" about grace? Jesus Christ shed His precious blood to redeem us from our sins and to pay the eternal penalty of our sins. The grace of God cost Him the life of His Son who bore the curse of the law for us in our place.
knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19 ESV)
Salvation is not about "transformation". That is to confuse sanctification with justification. Salvation is the fact that God by His sheer mercy saves those who outright deserve hell. (Romans 9:14-18). All deserve hell, not just a few. (Romans 3:10-12, 23).
Sincerely yours in Christ,Charlie
From: Bruce Atkinson
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 12:22 PM
To: Charlie J. Ray
Subject: Re: Arminianism: A form of the Pelagian heresy.
Nice video. True as far it goes.
But a bit biased-- not entirely balanced scripturally or theologically.
Extreme Arminianism is indeed heretical when it denies the sovereignty and grace of God, denies predestination, or when it endorses the Pelagian heresy or salvation by works. Romans 8 and 9 are clear.
But balance is required is you truly believe in sola scriptura.
There is a continuum of belief, where walking the middle of road with Jesus Christ includes beliefs in the ultimate sovereignty of God, the impossibility of humans overcoming their own sin and its consequences without God's grace and spiritual power. But scriptural truth also endorses human accountability due to (howsoever limited and not entirely free) human choice and behavior. "Choose this day…" Scripture is clear that when it comes to this issue, it is not "either…or" but it is "both…and".
Just because grace must come first, and then faith, it does not eliminate the importance of love and obedience which must follow from all true faith. Jesus, in the Gospel of John, and Paul in 1 Cor 13 are clear about this point (not to mention James).
[ heresies of Pelagianism & works justification / /…mild Arminianism / the orthodox + middle / mild Calvinism ... / / heresies of cheap grace & Gnosticism]
So while I agree that Arminianism can easily cross that heresy line into denial of original sin and/or being proud of your own works, so also there is the opposite extreme that crosses the line into other forms of heresy: cheap grace, passivity, Gnosticism (intellectualism, worshipping the abstract concept of faith rather than the heart-reality), and a hard loveless judgmentalism that is repugnant to God. You cannot only be proud of your works, you can also be proud of your faith—which is perhaps more spiritually dangerous. You cannot only judge other people due to their behavior, you can also judge them due to their stated beliefs. Like it or not, such judgmental attitudes are not helpful. But if one were to judge accurately, one would examine what people do more than what they say. Which proves one's faith the most, what one says that he believes (which could be a lie or a self-deception) or how he lives his life? The latter is hard to fake.
True, I do not need to prove my faith; if it is real, God knows it because He put it there and sustains it. But we are to live as a testimony to our faith, and if I am a hypocrite whose behavior is the opposite of what I say I believe, then my witness is destroyed (and perhaps my faith is not real after all). Jesus said that we would know the tree by its fruit. Listen to the words, yes, but also look to see if I am following through by my loving obedience to God and my love toward neighbor.
What is the connection between faith and faithfulness? It is God, through Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit that transforms us; He changes our hearts, our minds, and eventually, our behavior as well.
- Bruce Atkinson
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Charlie J. Ray <cranmer1959@hotmail.com> wrote:
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Friday, May 28, 2010
The Heart of the Gospel: Cor Cordis Is Latin for "Heart"
It is, nevertheless, the very cor cordis of the Gospel that is here brought under fire. The one antithesis of all the ages is that between the rival formulae: Do this and Live, and, Live and do this; Do and be saved, and Be saved and do. And the one thing that determines whether we trust in God for salvation or would fain save ourselves is, how such formulae appeal to us. Do we, like the rich young ruler, feel that we must "do some good thing" in order to be saved? Then, assuredly, we are not yet prepared to trust our salvation to Christ alone — to sell all that we have and follow Him. Just in proportion as we are striving to supplement or to supplant His perfect work, just in that proportion is our hope of salvation resting on works, and not on faith. Ethicism and solafideanism — these are the eternal contraries, mutually exclusive. It must be faith or works; it can never be faith and works. And the fundamental exhortation which we must ever be giving our souls is clearly expressed in the words of the hymn, "Cast your deadly doing down." Only when that is completely done is it really Christ Only, Christ All in All, with us; only then, do we obey fully Paul's final exhortation: "Let your joy be in the Lord." Only then do we renounce utterly "our own righteousness, that out of law," and rest solely on "that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness of God on faith." (Benjamin B. Warfield, "The Alien Righteousness" [sermon on Phil 3:9], in Faith and Life, pp. 324-25)
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Question and Answer: Tongues and Healing: Is It Real?
New Kidonthblogg asked:
- Excellent article and discusson. For former pentecostals/charismatics, what was it like when you spoke in tongues? Did you fake it and can you or do you do it now? (Is it an authentic gift in any way?)How did it benefit you or did it benefit you? Nightline found no authentic healing in the Lakeland Revival. Do you know of any authentic healing?
I'm glad you asked, Newkidonthblogg. Do I believe that Charismatics and Pentecostals are "faking" it? That question could apply to just about everything they do and believe, including signs, wonders and miracles. That depends on how you define "faking" it. The short answer is I do not believe they are faking it. They are sincerely doing something but they are sincerely wrong.
Now, the obvious assumption is that this is something that is totally supernatural. But is it? No. And why do I say that? It is for the simple reason that Charismatics and Pentecostals have a "synergistic" theology of the gifts, miracles, tongues, prophesy, etc. In other words, the emphasis is not on God coming upon a person and literally taking control so that you're out of control of what is going on. No, it is a "cooperation" with the Spirit of God in their view. In other words, if you just "believe" it then "act" then the result is "supernatural" in their theology.
So for example, if you are believing God for a healing, you just claim it and then pray and then ACT as if you DID get the miracle. They call this "expecting" God to move. So it is a way of setting up people to be submissive to whatever the evangelist says. So to speak in tongues you simply "believe" you are going to speak in tongues and then you act on it by faith. It is similar to a child playing and pretending to speak in a foreign language. We've all done that at times as young children.
Pentecostals believe there are two basic "biblical" forms of tongues: 1. Xenolalia (speaking in a known human language that you personally don't know) 2. Glossolalia (speaking in unknown tongues of angels which are not a known human language).
In Acts 2 what happened was xenolalia since the miracle was that the apostles spoke in human languages they did not know themselves but those native speakers who did understand heard them praising God in their own language.
In 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 1 Corinthians 13:1 the "prayer language" is obviously an unknown language since what Paul refers to is known only to angels and is a "mystery" spoken to God. 1 Corinthians 14 is meant to correct the abuse of such super-spirituality rather than to endorse it as most Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars spin it.
An ecstatic experience is then closely akin to hypnotism. The authority figure plants a suggestion in front of a crowd. Like in the emperor's new clothes, no one is willing to go against the emperor's suggestion that he is wearing clothes when he is really naked. It's the same principle at work. The evangelist claims a miracle and it is so whether or not it is so or not. This principle applies to healings, miracles, tongues, interpretations of tongues, et. al.
In other words, all of these manifestations are simply people by "faith" trying to reproduce the miracles in the Bible. Unfortunately, most are not miracles at all but simply cheap imitations. Psychologically manipulating people into agreeing with a false claim does not make the miracle claim authentic or genuine. That can only be determined by documented results, which are few and far between.
Did I ever speak in tongues by faith? Yes I did. And I did as I was taught to do by others. And was it real languages? No. It was gibberish. Glossolalia and not xenolalia. If Charismatics and Pentecostals are honest they will admit that they are simply speaking gibberish by faith--nothing more and nothing less. In other words, no one wants to admit they have been duped by double-talk. It would be anathema for anyone to admit they doubt or to go against the authority figure in the pulpit. So to question the miracles or the tongues or even the prosperity preaching is to become an outcast and shunned by the "believers" in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches. Peer pressure is a big factor here. I think it is similar to brainwashing. I also compare it to spiritual abuse or even to tactics used by cults. This is why the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is so successful. It is militant and it uses extreme forms of mental coercion and enforced submission to the ruling authorities. It's very similar to what you see in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, Pentecostals base their doctrine of the initial physical evidence of tongues as the sign of being baptized by the Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost in Acts 2. But that is not glossalalia but xenolalia. So just based on that, the sign of tongues is not reproducing Acts 2:1-11 at all! They are by and large speaking in gibberish, not xenolalia or foreign human languages.
There have been stories of folks having received this gift of xenolalia but there are no documented and verifiable incidents. Mostly what you will get is anecdotal stories.
Can I speak in gibberish now? Of course. Do I do it? No. I do not believe that tongues speaking today is authentic or genuine. It is mainly something done by "faith" by those duped into placing the emphasis in the wrong place.
I hope this helps. I think I will post this on the main blog.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
Now, the obvious assumption is that this is something that is totally supernatural. But is it? No. And why do I say that? It is for the simple reason that Charismatics and Pentecostals have a "synergistic" theology of the gifts, miracles, tongues, prophesy, etc. In other words, the emphasis is not on God coming upon a person and literally taking control so that you're out of control of what is going on. No, it is a "cooperation" with the Spirit of God in their view. In other words, if you just "believe" it then "act" then the result is "supernatural" in their theology.
So for example, if you are believing God for a healing, you just claim it and then pray and then ACT as if you DID get the miracle. They call this "expecting" God to move. So it is a way of setting up people to be submissive to whatever the evangelist says. So to speak in tongues you simply "believe" you are going to speak in tongues and then you act on it by faith. It is similar to a child playing and pretending to speak in a foreign language. We've all done that at times as young children.
Pentecostals believe there are two basic "biblical" forms of tongues: 1. Xenolalia (speaking in a known human language that you personally don't know) 2. Glossolalia (speaking in unknown tongues of angels which are not a known human language).
In Acts 2 what happened was xenolalia since the miracle was that the apostles spoke in human languages they did not know themselves but those native speakers who did understand heard them praising God in their own language.
In 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 1 Corinthians 13:1 the "prayer language" is obviously an unknown language since what Paul refers to is known only to angels and is a "mystery" spoken to God. 1 Corinthians 14 is meant to correct the abuse of such super-spirituality rather than to endorse it as most Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars spin it.
An ecstatic experience is then closely akin to hypnotism. The authority figure plants a suggestion in front of a crowd. Like in the emperor's new clothes, no one is willing to go against the emperor's suggestion that he is wearing clothes when he is really naked. It's the same principle at work. The evangelist claims a miracle and it is so whether or not it is so or not. This principle applies to healings, miracles, tongues, interpretations of tongues, et. al.
In other words, all of these manifestations are simply people by "faith" trying to reproduce the miracles in the Bible. Unfortunately, most are not miracles at all but simply cheap imitations. Psychologically manipulating people into agreeing with a false claim does not make the miracle claim authentic or genuine. That can only be determined by documented results, which are few and far between.
Did I ever speak in tongues by faith? Yes I did. And I did as I was taught to do by others. And was it real languages? No. It was gibberish. Glossolalia and not xenolalia. If Charismatics and Pentecostals are honest they will admit that they are simply speaking gibberish by faith--nothing more and nothing less. In other words, no one wants to admit they have been duped by double-talk. It would be anathema for anyone to admit they doubt or to go against the authority figure in the pulpit. So to question the miracles or the tongues or even the prosperity preaching is to become an outcast and shunned by the "believers" in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches. Peer pressure is a big factor here. I think it is similar to brainwashing. I also compare it to spiritual abuse or even to tactics used by cults. This is why the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is so successful. It is militant and it uses extreme forms of mental coercion and enforced submission to the ruling authorities. It's very similar to what you see in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, Pentecostals base their doctrine of the initial physical evidence of tongues as the sign of being baptized by the Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost in Acts 2. But that is not glossalalia but xenolalia. So just based on that, the sign of tongues is not reproducing Acts 2:1-11 at all! They are by and large speaking in gibberish, not xenolalia or foreign human languages.
There have been stories of folks having received this gift of xenolalia but there are no documented and verifiable incidents. Mostly what you will get is anecdotal stories.
Can I speak in gibberish now? Of course. Do I do it? No. I do not believe that tongues speaking today is authentic or genuine. It is mainly something done by "faith" by those duped into placing the emphasis in the wrong place.
I hope this helps. I think I will post this on the main blog.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Zwingli: Baptism of Infants is Commanded in the Law of Christ
Few ceremonies have been left us by Christ—two or three, baptism, the eucharist and the laying on of hands. The first belongs in general to all who are of Christ's church. The second to those only who can interrogate themselves upon their certitude of faith. For the apostle says: Let a man prove himself. The third only to a few, those who superintend the ministry of the word. Now since these ceremonies have clear methods of performance they are improperly said to be done of love when they are done of precept, even though whatever God commands is most pleasing to you because of your piety. So when it is said: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is here the form of law as much as in "Let every male be circumcised." What the law orders cannot be ascribed to indulgence, but that is done of indulgence when at the celebration of the eucharist certain weak ones are spared, and would be so done if the habit of baptizing infants were being restored and certain weak ones were spared from being compelled to baptize infants after the custom and rite. This, I say, would be done of love. The eucharist therefore is not celebrated from love in this way, but it is stopped out of love by many. So it would be with baptism. I warn you here, dearest brethren, to weigh again and again my opinion, for some seem to wish to cover up with their astuteness of words the mouth of your simplicity.
The second necessary inference of the second pair. Whether the Catabaptists or others receive or not my opinion on election, predestination, calling and faith—which assuredly is not mine, but the apostle Paul’s, nay, that of God himself, if you estimate carefully the providence of God—still baptism is not at all to be denied infants on account of God’s election or reprobation, for neither to Esau or any other who was rejected was circumcision denied. So I regard the whole Catabaptist argument as now overturned, and it is demonstrated that election is above baptism, circumcision, faith and preaching.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Zwingli on Eternal Election as the Source of Our Salvation
The following is from the Selected Works of Zwingli. Everything in bold is my emphasis:
I am now compelled to treat of election or else forego my promise, but not so fully as the subject demands. For this is beyond my power and purpose. But I shall show election to be sure, i. e., free and not at all bound, and above baptism and circumcision; nay, above faith and preaching. But this briefly. When most of us read Paul's epistle to the Romans we ponder a little carelessly upon the cause of his mentioning election and the following predestination. He had shown that salvation rests on faith, and faith is not a matter of human power, but of divine spirit; who therefore has faith has at the same time the divine spirit. They who have this are sons of God, walk not after the flesh, but whatever they do is a help to them for good. Now arises the query, why then are they accursed or condemned who do not believe? Since he has fallen on this subject, willingly or not, he treats it worthily about in this order and manner: We are saved by faith, not by works. Faith is not by human power, but God's. He therefore gives it to those whom he has called, but he has called those whom he has destined for salvation, and he has destined this for those whom he has elected, but he has elected whom he willed, for this is free to him and open, as it is for a potter to make diverse vessels from the same lump. This briefly is the argument and sum of election as treated by Paul. He says therefore, Rom. viii. 28: We know that all things work together for good to them that love God. Now lest you should say: Who therefore love God, or to whom are all things for good? he anticipates and replies: To those who according to purpose are of the called. Do not understand this of a human purpose, but of God's, so that the sense is: Who are sanctified of God's purpose, for to be called is here for to be truly sanctified. As when it is said: He shall be called the Son of the Most High. Here shall be called is Hebrew idiom for shall truly be. I return to the argument. Purpose is for Paul that freest deliberation by which God is girded for electing, as in ix. 11 we see when he says: That the purpose of God according to election may stand. His purpose is therefore above election, i. e., first by nature. It may happen among men that something is elected, but there is a reason for its election, e. g., it is elected because it seems useful or right. This purpose or deliberation is not free, but depends on that which is elected. Since Paul wishes to show that God's election is born of his free purpose, and not from those whom he is about to elect, he says that the free purpose is the cause why all things work for good to those who love God. Nothing is ascribed to man's merit. For he adds: For whom he foreknew (pronunciavit) he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, etc. I have translated προέγνω by "pronunciavit," which word has the same force as if you should say predetermined or foreordained. This is then the apostle's meaning: I said that all will result in good for those who according to God's purpose are of the called. This I would have understood thus: God freely with himself settles upon, prejudges and foreordains (for by this word the word for "purposing" is expounded) whom he will, even before they are born. Whom he thus foreordains he marks out beforehand, i. e., destines them to be conformed to the image of his Son. As if he should say: No one can be conformed to Christ unless he has been destined for this. Paul proceeds: Whom he predestined he also called Here before calling we have predestination or marking out. Whom he called he also justified. But are we not justified by faith? Yes, but calling precedes faith. For Christ warns also that no one can come to him unless the Father have drawn him. To draw and to call are here equivalents. But whom he justified he also glorified, for they who believe are eternally honored with him in whom they have believed. Here then is the knot—How does faith bless or how justify? We see that the first thing is God's deliberation or purpose or election, second his predestination or marking out, third his calling, fourth justification. Since then all these are of God, and faith hardly holds the fourth place, how is it that we say that salvation comes of faith, since wherever faith is there also is justification, or rather, each person's salvation has before been so determined and foreordained with God that it is impossible that one so elected can be condemned? But by a light blow of synecdoche* what seems insoluble dissolves. For faith is used for the election of God, the predestination or calling, which all precede faith, but in the same order. So if you say: God's election, predestination or marking out, calling, beatifies, you will ever say right. Why? Because the harmonious order and connections of these are such that you may use one of these without the other and yet not exclude the others; especially is this the case when you take faith, which is inferior and posterior to election, predestination or calling. Since then the justification which is of faith closely follows calling, we see with no trouble that salvation is attributed to faith because they who have faith are called, elected and foreordained.
But why is salvation attributed to faith above the others? Why does Paul use this link out of the chain? I reply, because that is best known to us. For each one questions and examines conscience according to Peter's word. If it rightly replies, i. e., if with full assurance he thinks correctly of God, he has now the surest seal of eternal salvation. For who has faith is called, who is called is predestined, who is predestined is elected, who is elected is foreordained. But God's election remains firm. Therefore they who have faith are justified. For this is justification, piety, religion and service of the Most High God. So that no condemnation awaits them, for they are not of those who say: Let us sin that the glory of God may be the brighter, but of those who as often as they sin through weakness return to God and pray: Forgive us our sins. They are not of those who, when they have sinned, are so far from returning to a correct state of mind that they fall into impiety and assert that there is no God, but of those who grieve not so much because they have offended every creature as that they have offended God alone, their own heart and soul and mind, and then say: Against thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight. This, I say, is the justification of faith; to these all things are for good, but the contrary to the impious. Adultery and murder were for good to David, for he was righteous through faith. For he repented his deed and did not fall from hope. It was evil to him who was not as other men, because he had not faith, therefore he was not called or predestined or elected.
I think these arguments are brief, as I promised, but clear and sure. But for what purpose? That I may reply to the Catabaptists. For they argue against me in the tract in which they suppose they have refuted me: "How are the Hebrews' infants of the people, sons, and church of God? We believe the elect are of the people of God, like Jacob, by no means those thrust out or repudiated. For, according to Rom. ix. 11-13, when they were yet in their parents' womb and had done neither good nor evil, God said: Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated. How then could Esau be of God's people? It is then false what Zwingli asserts, that the Hebrews' infants were of the people and church of God." To which I think I may now the more advantageously answer, inasmuch as I have said these few things about election and predestination, in about the following manner: It is sure that with God no one is of his people or of his sons except he whom he has elected, and it is also sure that every one is his whom he has elected. But in this way, O Catabaptists, all your foundation has fallen away. For not only believers (as you would understand "believers" in actuality) are the sons of God, but those who are elect are sons even before they believe, just as you yourselves prove by the example of Jacob.
What then shall we do with the saying: Who believeth not shall be condemned? For infants do not believe, they will then be condemned. Again, the elect were chosen before they were conceived; they are at once then sons of God, even if they die before they believe or are called to faith. You see the chain and order! Faith is in that order the last thing beyond glorification, therefore what precedes it is no less certain than faith itself. For as it is true "he believes, therefore is saved," so it is not less true that "he is called, therefore is saved." (I am not speaking here of that calling of which Christ said: Many are called but few chosen. For there he means the external calling, by which many are invited by the preaching of the word. Now I mean that internal calling which Christ calls "drawing.") It is equally true: He is predestined, therefore saved, and he is elect, therefore saved. Do you not see that whatever is in this chain and precedes faith is equally with faith followed by salvation? For "Who is elect shall be saved" is as true as "Who hath believed shall be saved." On the other hand, equal inferences cannot be drawn by arguing from the prior matters to faith unless we accept faith otherwise than for that fact and certitude of mind which regards the invisible things, about which later. For it does not follow "He is elect, therefore believes." For Jacob was elect when he had not yet believed. Nor does this follow, "He does not believe, therefore is not elect." For the elect are ever elect, even before they believe. When therefore it is said: "Who believeth not shall be condemned," it must be that faith is used for that chain already spoken of, so that the meaning is: "Who is not elect shall not be saved." Or else for this, that it means "to be within the faithful people," or (as best approves itself to my reason) that it is said synecdochically of those alone who have reached that point that they can understand language—Who believeth not shall be condemned. For faith is not of all the elect, as now is clear of elect infants, but it is the fruit of election, predestination and calling, which is given in its fit time. Therefore as that saying: Who believeth shall be saved, does not exclude those who are elect, and who before they arrive at maturity of faith join the band of them that are elect, to damn them the more, so that saying: Who believeth not is condemned, does not include those who are elect but do not reach to maturity of faith, to save them the less. By the words, Who hath believed and Who hath not believed, it may therefore be inferred they are not included who by reason of age are not able to hear, nor those to whom the knowledge of the gospel has not come. It may also be inferred that those sayings, Who hath believed, etc., and Who hath not believed, have not the sense of precedence, as though faith necessarily preceded all, i. e., election, predestination and calling. For if this is true, then that antecedent determination or purpose or predestination of God would not be free, but election would follow then finally, when faith had rendered the man suitable for election. For only those could be elected who already believed, the contrary of which is clear. But the words have the "sense of consequence:" Be assured that he who believes has been elected by the Father and predestined and called. He believes therefore because he has been elected and predestined to eternal salvation, and he who believeth not has been repudiated by the free election of God. And here is disclosed to us the power of the keys, so far as they were given to the apostles. When one says that he believes, the apostle promises him: If thou believest from thy heart, be it sure to thee that thou art called, predestined and elected to eternal salvation. Therefore this man of ours is absolved and justified, about which we have spoken above. But when the apostle sees that there is no faith in those that hear, he is sure that they are rejected. They are then ordered to shake off the dust from their feet, that is, to go quickly from such, not as though now first these deserve to be shunned, but because the apostles are now first made sure of their rejection by their aversion to faith; on the other hand, when they see the faith they are sure of their election. So therefore such words were said as: By their fruits ye shall know them. A good tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit. Who believeth shall doubtless be saved, for faith is the fruit of election, so that, ye apostles, ye may have an indication of success. But who does not believe after arriving at years of maturity for receiving your teaching is not elect; he is an evil tree, so you may know among whom your labor is fruitless.
From all this we make two necessary inferences. First, that we are sure of the salvation of those who show faith when they reach that maturity that ought to show the fruit of election; if they do not show this we are contrariwise sure of their rejection. Behold how we recognize salvation or shipwreck by the faith alone of the elect or rejected who have reached that maturity when we may expect faith, the fruit of election. So that infants born to those who are in the covenant and people of God we may not measure by the norm and touch-stone of faith. Second, since those alone who have heard and afterward either believe or remain in their unfaith are subject to our judgment, we err gravely in judging the infant children both of the Gentiles and of Christians. Of the Gentiles, for no law condemns them, they do not fall under that saying: Who believeth not, etc. Then since the election of God is unrestrained, it is impious for us to exclude from that those of whom we cannot judge from the signs of faith and unfaith whether they are included or not. Of Christians, because we not only assail rashly the election of God, but we do not even believe his word, yet he by it has shown us their election. For when he includes us under Abraham's covenant this word makes us no less certain of their election than of the old Hebrews'. For the statement that they are in the covenant, testament and people of God assures us of their election until the Lord announces something different of some one. Therefore also that objection is stricken out: How then were we sure of Esau's election when the Lord says: Esau have I hated? For we follow the law throughout. But if the Lord does something out of the ordinary the law is not thereby abrogated. For privileges do not make the law common. Though indeed it is my opinion that all infants who are under the testament are doubtless of the elect by the laws of the testament. And when it is said: Where then do you put the infant Esau? Under the testament? But he was rejected. I respond two ways: (1) All judgment of ours about others is uncertain so far as we are concerned, but certain as regards God and his law. E. g., when it is said to an apostle: I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, the apostle thinks him who says this of the elect because of the certitude of the word. But they sometimes deceive who thus confess, as did Simon Magus and the false brethren who came in secretly to betray the liberty of the gospel. But God himself is not deceived, nor does the law deceive, for God knows the hearts and reins, i. e., the inmost parts, and the law, if all is just and right, does also not deceive, but is eternal. Therefore we ever judge according to the law, as has been said, and the law for the sake of one or many may not be considered the less universal. (2) The other reason is such as all may not receive, but to me it is sure. All of those infants who are within the elect, who die, are elect. And this is my reason, because when I find no unfaith in any one I have no reason to condemn him; contrariwise, since I have the indubitable word of promise: They shall come and sit down with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I shall be impious if I eject them from the company of the people of God. What then of Esau if he had died as an infant? Would your judgment place him among the elect? Yes. Then does election remain sure? It does. And rejection remains also. But listen. If Esau had died an infant he would doubtless have been of the elect. For if he had died then there would have been the seal of election, for the Lord would not have rejected him eternally. But since he lived and was of the non-elect, he so lived that we see in the fruit of his unfaith that he was rejected by the Lord. All our error arises from this, that while we hardly learn all even from the sequel we break in also upon providence. This disposes all, so that not only Esau, but not even a root in the sea, not a weed in the garden or a gnat in the air, lives or dies without it. But what kind of a vessel Esau was or why a gnat has so sharp a sting* we can hardly learn from what is done by them. Since then we learn from the dead mind of Esau that he was rejected of God, in vain do we say: Would that he had died an infant! He could not die whom divine Providence had created that he might live, and live wickedly. You see then, O man, that almost all our ignorance of Scripture arises from our ignorance of Providence. But I return to my subject. Manifest then from all that precedes are those two inferences. That those two sayings: Who believeth, etc., and Who believeth not, etc., are not a touch-stone by which we may measure the salvation of infants, and that we condemn impiously not only the true children of Christians, but those of Gentiles. They alone are subject to our judgment of whom we have the word according to which we can judge. I think I have also satisfied those who say: If by election we come to God Christ is in vain. For this is election, that whom the Lord has destined to eternal salvation before the world was, he equally predestinated, before the world was, to be saved through his Son, as Paul teaches in Eph. i. 4.
A second pair of inferences also follows. First, they teach incautiously who say that the baptism of infants can be tolerated through love, unless they mean that by love all things are done among Christians, and not by command and by force of law, just as Paul says: Owe no one aught, but to love one another. But if they receive love in the place of complaisance and indulgence, as when Paul through love sheared his hair and undertook a vow (for he did this by indulgence in which he spared the weak), now I think they err seriously who say that through love infants should be baptized. For what do they mean by this other than that now one may not omit for the sake of public peace what some time must be omitted when it is permitted? Let them therefore receive my opinion after considering the distinction of love which I premise. Few ceremonies have been left us by Christ—two or three, baptism, the eucharist and the laying on of hands. The first belongs in general to all who are of Christ's church. The second to those only who can interrogate themselves upon their certitude of faith. For the apostle says: Let a man prove himself. The third only to a few, those who superintend the ministry of the word. Now since these ceremonies have clear methods of performance they are improperly said to be done of love when they are done of precept, even though whatever God commands is most pleasing to you because of your piety. So when it is said: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is here the form of law as much as in "Let every male be circumcised." What the law orders cannot be ascribed to indulgence, but that is done of indulgence when at the celebration of the eucharist certain weak ones are spared, and would be so done if the habit of baptizing infants were being restored and certain weak ones were spared from being compelled to baptize infants after the custom and rite. This, I say, would be done of love. The eucharist therefore is not celebrated from love in this way, but it is stopped out of love by many. So it would be with baptism. I warn you here, dearest brethren, to weigh again and again my opinion, for some seem to wish to cover up with their astuteness of words the mouth of your simplicity.
The second necessary inference of the second pair. Whether the Catabaptists or others receive or not my opinion on election, predestination, calling and faith—which assuredly is not mine, but the apostle Paul's, nay, that of God himself, if you estimate carefully the providence of God—still baptism is not at all to be denied infants on account of God's election or reprobation, for neither to Esau or any other who was rejected was circumcision denied. So I regard the whole Catabaptist argument as now overturned, and it is demonstrated that election is above baptism, circumcision, faith and preaching.
[* ]This rhetorical figure wherein the part is put for the whole, or a whole for a part, is considered by Zwingli an unanswerable argument. Instances of it are frequent. E. g., the Athenians are often spoken of as if they comprised all the Greeks, and what they did the Greeks are said to have done.
[* ]"Tuba" means "trumpet;" can he mean the mosquito?
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
