Home » Posts tagged 'baptism'
Tag Archives: baptism
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part three)
Tucker Interview
After already publishing parts one and two in this series, Tucker Carlson teased an interview with Douglas Wilson. This is a boon for he and his brand. Immediately Wilson wrote a post to welcome the Tucker audience with links to his numerous ventures. This gives even greater importance to exposure of Wilson. The content of the Tucker trailer also dovetails closely with this series, because Wilson mentions the gospel.
Wilson surprised me with his representation of Christian nationalism (another still ongoing series here, here, and here). It differed from his norm (see my part three). He gave no hope for Christian nationalism in the United States, except through gospel preaching. In many expositions of Christian nationalism, I don’t remember his saying that. Maybe I missed it. Postmillennialists and theonomist-types like Wilson, who envision their bringing in a physical kingdom on earth, don’t usually convey utter hopelessness remedied only by hot gospel preaching.
Perhaps the whole interview (presently behind the Tucker paywall) will reveal more. Wilson sounded good about the gospel, but he left out infant sprinkling and child communion, something he mixes with the gospel. Shouldn’t he urge Tucker’s audience also to sprinkle its infants? It’s important in his vision of Christian nationalism.
Roman Catholicism
Not Sola Scriptura
Roman Catholicism passed down infant sprinkling among many other scriptural perversions. It condemned maybe as many people to Hell as any false doctrine. Protestants continued in a system of false interpretation and doctrine, albeit better than Roman Catholicism, yet still misleading.
Protestants point to the Latin, sola scriptura, scripture alone, as their heritage. Yet, tradition still guides much of Protestantism. Infant baptism isn’t scripture alone and this challenges the Protestant embrace of sola scriptura. Keeping significant aspects of Roman Catholicism, Protestants also point back to the Catholic fathers as theirs too. Wilson has pieced together a patchwork of belief and practice that required the beginning of a new denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). Jesse Nigro in The North American Anglican writes in his analysis of Wilson:
[H]is trajectory has led him into the broader pool of “Reformed Catholicism” that Anglicans occupy.
Catholic Church
Nigro was praising Wilson. Protestants fork off the Roman Catholic line or trajectory, not in the succession of New Testament Christianity or true churches, separate from the state church, since Christ. Roman Catholicism and its stepchild Protestantism resembles little the belief and practice of the church of the New Testament. Scott Aniol writes in his review of Wilson’s book, Mere Christendom::
I am aware that Wilson’s church recognizes Roman Catholic baptisms and welcomes them to the Lord’s Table, but this Baptist considers Roman Catholicism a false religion.
In his book, Reformed Is Not Enough, Wilson wrote (pp. 73-74):
The visible church is also Catholic in an earthly sense, meaning that it is no longer confined to one nation, as it was before under the law. The visible Church is composed of anyone in the world who professes (biblically) to believe in the Christian faith. When they make this profession by means of baptism their children are attached with them. The visible church is to be understood as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is the household of God, and outside of this Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Baptism and Salvation
Later in his section on sacerdotalism, he writes:
Baptism and salvation are not mechanically or magically linked. But in the ordinary course of life, they are linked, and we are to speak of them as though they are.
Furthermore, Wilson writes (p. 111):
By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect.
Paedocommunion
Wilson and Child Communion
In addition to the heretical practice of infant sprinkling, Wilson endorses and practices child communion, inviting the toddlers to the bread and the cup. Wilson writes:
At the very center of the strong family emphasis that you will find in our churches, you will also find our practice of communing our children at the Lord’s Table. This is unusual in Protestant churches, and in some places it is even controversial. . . . [I]n our churches, the Lord’s Table is not protected with a profession of faith; the Lord’s Table is regarded as a profession of faith.
What do Wilson and others imply by children partaking of the Lord’s Supper? They can partake worthily because they have repented, believed, and received forgiveness of sins. Children who cannot believe, do not have the capacity to do so, are said to make a profession of faith through the Lord’s Table. However, the Lord’s Table is a table of examination. A man examines himself and then eats the bread and drinks the cup.
The Wickedness of Child Communion
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 say:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
So much contradicts clear scripture and biblical teaching with participation of children in the Lord’s Table. Wilson argues that paedocommunion follows paedobaptism, when he writes:
[T]he apostle Paul compares the entire congregation to one loaf of bread (1 Cor. 10:17). And it is our conviction that all who are bread should get bread.
This is a typical turn-of-phrase or rhetorical flourish intended to persuade in some doctrinal or practical position. Wilson sounds interesting, but he’s false. His teaching confuses the gospel. It brings God’s judgment down on unworthy partakers of the table. Finally, it corrupts the true nature of the church. One can truly say that paedocommunion is false worship. It is not an act of faith in God, but man-ordained, human innovation.
More to Come
John the Baptist’s Diminishment of His Own Water Baptism in Matthew 3
Matthew 3 provides the New Testament introduction of the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist. While John preached in the wilderness of Judea, the Pharisees and Sadducees came out to him for the purpose of baptism in the Jordan River. Matthew 3:7-12 read:
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
The Desire of the Pharisees and Sadducees for John’s Baptism
“To his baptism” in verse 11 may sound like a dative of direction or destination. It isn’t. It is the Greek preposition, epi, with the accusative noun, baptisma. The BDAG lexicon says the following about this usage of epi:
11. marker of purpose, goal, result, to, for, w. acc. . . . . baptism=to have themselves baptized Mt 3:7
John’s reaction to the Pharisees and Sadducees shows that he knew they were coming out for baptism by him. How he uses the Greek word, echidna, translated “vipers,” indicates that he referred to the vipera ammodytes, the sand viper. Because of very dry conditions, brush fires will begin and spread in the Jordan River Valley, pushing these poisonous reptiles toward the water. This is the picture John paints of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This elucidates their purpose.
Sand vipers slither to the Jordan River to escape brush fires. The Pharisees and Sadducees came for the purpose of John’s baptism. They thought it might provide another possible escape from future judgment of God. These religious leaders were quite willing to try one more religious ritual as another fire insurance policy. John wouldn’t baptize them. His baptism would not deliver them.
The Preaching of Repentance
John preached repentance. He immersed only the repentant. The Pharisees and Sadducees were not repentant. Their lives did not show the fruit of repentance. Repentance was a change of heart, conversion of the soul. It was more than token ritual so favored by false religion.
Later in verse 11, John says to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.” “Into” translates the Greek preposition, eis, which indicates identification, such as when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:2, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” “Unto” is again the preposition eis. The children of Israel were not placed in Moses. Through their baptism in the Red Sea, they identified with Moses. John’s immersion in water identified the repentance of the recipients.
John the Baptist is saying, my baptism doesn’t save you. Baptism would not result in the salvation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It would just be another ritual for them. If they repented, God would save them, and then John would immerse them. He baptized only previously truly repentant people.
The Natural Quality of John’s Baptism
If someone thinks that baptism will deliver him from hell fire, like the sand vipers slithered to the Jordan River to deliver them from brush fires, he was wrong. John makes that clear in the following verses. Using other metaphors, John says that God would cast them into the fire without repentance. John baptized, but he diminishes it before his listeners as a means of salvation. This should give strong pause to those adding baptism as a salvation requirement. John the Baptist himself didn’t do that.
Further, John contrasts what he does with water baptism and what Jesus does with Spirit and fire baptism. John represents his baptism as solely natural. It’s water. Water doesn’t make any kind of supernatural or spiritual change. He characterizes baptism with water as inferior to baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Those are greater than the baptism John performed. Jesus Himself would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
The Supernatural Quality of Jesus’ Baptisms
Compared to John’s
The Holy Spirit and the eternal fire of Hell are both supernatural. The two media with which Jesus baptizes are superior in quality and character to the one medium of John’s baptism. John was just a man. He could water baptize, but he couldn’t baptize with the third person of the Trinity like Jesus could and did.
In Jesus’ day, slaves would carry the sandals or shoes of their Master or Lord. John was so low compared to Jesus, he says, that he was not worthy even to do that kind of slave work for Jesus. Sure, he could baptize with water. That was a baptism suitable for his doing. Only Jesus could do such supernatural baptisms as the Holy Spirit and fire.
Holy Spirit baptism corresponds in John’s preaching to gathering the wheat in his garner. The garner was heaven in John’s figure and the fire was Hell. Anyone in John the Baptist’s audience that day he invited to repent, so that Jesus would gather them into His granary. If they did not repent, therefore not being a good tree that could bring forth fruit, Jesus would axe them down and toss them into unquenchable fire.
Later in Matthew 3, Jesus then shows up in the wilderness, bringing an entirely different situation for John the Baptist. When the Pharisees and Sadducees showed up, he didn’t want to baptize them. They needed to repent and they hadn’t. When Jesus showed up, John the Baptist didn’t want to baptize him either. Why? He only baptized repentant people and Jesus had nothing for which to repent. Instead then, John asked Jesus to baptize him.
The Characterization of Jesus
If anyone should repent, next to Jesus, John was the one who needed repentance. Jesus should baptize him and not John baptize Jesus. John’s desire not to baptize Jesus diminished his baptism in comparison to the work of Jesus. Through Jesus, you could receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. John’s baptism just identified its recipients with what mattered most, their repentance. Mere identification is lesser than the much greater transformation of a life through Christ’s redemption and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The Lord Jesus could and would also judge in the end with fire. The fan, the winnowing shovel, was in His hand. In the end judgment, He would divide the truly saved from those who are not. That is way above John the Baptist’s pay grade. John’s baptism was not salvific. It was not supernatural. John was just a man. He wasn’t God like Jesus was.
John was baptizing. When he compared himself with Jesus in John 3 to persuade his followers to follow Jesus instead, John argued (verse 36):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
If you believed in Jesus Christ, you received everlasting life. If you didn’t, you received the wrath of God. Nothing John could do would provide everlasting life or the wrath of God. Belief brought everlasting life, not baptism.
Thought Experiment
The Pharisees and Sadducees came to John for baptism. They saw it as a fire escape, another ritual that would put more weight on the side of their own righteousness. It might ameliorate themselves against future judgment as an impressive deed.
As a thought experiment, let’s say John welcomed their desire for baptism, praised them for it. Their trek out to the Jordan River manifested their expression of need. They were admitting trouble for themselves, perhaps some need for cleansing. So John instead said, “Well done. In light of your recognition of deprivation, let me baptize you!”
Baptizing the Pharisees and Sadducees would play right into their hands. It would give them the wrong impression and false sense of security that baptism would save. John sent the message that baptism did not save. It was a symbol. It didn’t do anything like repentance and then Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit.
John’s unwillingness to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees because they did not show fruit unto repentance teaches against any saving effect of baptism. It is not a washing of regeneration. It is mere outward identification. Jesus later says it is also a righteous act of obedience. It wouldn’t save anyone, including the Pharisees and Sadducees. John was clear on this.
The Theology of John Wesley and Its Impact on the Methodist and Wesleyan Churches
In my thirty-three years of church planting and then pastoring in the San Francisco Bay Area, I never met a converted or saved Methodist. It was just the opposite. They were some of the most liberal, unsaved people I ever met.
I’m not Methodist. Even when I look at the history, I ask from where do the Methodists get their authority. If I ask about the Methodists, then I definitely ask the same of the Wesleyans. They can’t trace their lineage to a true church. They functioned in and from the state church, taking on some of the characteristics of the apostate denomination from which they came.
The Wesleys and Whitefield
The Wesleys arose within the Church of England. They knew something was amiss there. They changed. When I read Wesley, as have others, I see a heap of contradictions though. They never understood nor broke from the corrupt root from which they sprang.
George Whitefield and John Wesley had their break-up. Whitefield studied and went an orthodox biblical direction. He preached a true gospel the basis of the Great Awakening in the American colonies. Wesley took the Methodists a different direction with a different theology than the true salvation preaching of Whitefield. Every way that Wesley countered Whitefield, he headed the wrong way compared to Whitefield.
Now I look at the fruit of what Wesley taught. Mostly today, Methodism went liberal. Whatever errors John Wesley believed, the Methodists took a trajectory then away and then further away from the truth. The perversion in Wesleyan doctrine interrelates in several points of biblical doctrine. Wesley’s unbiblical errors, even though they leave quite a bit of truth in Wesleyan and Methodist belief, they spoil the whole pot or body.
Wesleyan and Methodist Fruit
While I write on Wesleyan and Methodist error today, I’m working in the Midwest United States in Indiana. With their wrong doctrines, they still associate themselves with Christianity. This dominates my present county and surrounding counties where I serve the Lord. It blinds the population. It produces false doctrine and practice.
I tend to think right away that Wesleyans and Methodists are wrong. However, when I listen to some of them, I hear enough truth that it becomes difficult to sort out where they divert from the truth. There are many subtle errors that massed together they become very significant.
John Wesley and Sin
John Wesley taught a convoluted, unscriptural view of sin. In the Works of John Wesley, Volume 12, p. 394, we read that Wesley wrote:
Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore, every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly.
When you read that first sentence, it might sound good. The next one becomes problematic, especially his saying, “and nothing else, if we speak properly.” Sin is more than just a breach of the law of love. He also says, “voluntary breach,” so that a person must give assent, activate his will, for sin to occur. This definition sets Wesley and his followers up for greater problems.
Perfectionism
If sin is this breach of the law of love, it is easy then to see how that a different view of atonement and salvation occurs. By limiting or twisting the definition of sin, according to John Wesley someone could live without sinning, a theology called “perfectionism.” I might call it, “dumbing down sin.” 1 John 3:8 says:
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Wesley wrote concerning this in Explanatory Notes on the NT (1818) on p. 661:
Whosoever abideth in communion with him, by loving faith, sinneth not – While he so abideth. Whosoever sinneth certainly seeth him not – The loving eye of his soul is not then fixed upon God; neither doth he then experimentally know him – Whatever he did in time past.
Participatory Atonement
Even though Wesley talks an acceptance of substitutionary atonement, he mixes in other various views of atonement that created a doctrinal quagmire. It’s why you hear so much differing and contradictory doctrine from Wesleyans and Methodists. It’s also why they can easily move into theological liberalism. For instance, Wesley communicates what is called “participatory atonement.”
John Wesley did not have a settled theology or doctrine of salvation before he became the head of a major Christian denomination. He was still working it out. He knew something was wrong in the Christianity he observed. Wesley never pinpointed what was wrong with the Church of England to the extent that he provided a separate correction of Anglican soteriology.
This view, participatory atonement, itself blends together various views of atonement. The cross of Christ is the means by which human beings can die with Christ and be reborn in Him. They experience the crucifixion of Christ with him in a mystical way. Many of the Wesley hymns make reference to this view.
The Place of Moral Example
Participatory atonement has strong parallels with the moral example theory of atonement, where Christ’s death on the cross was a kind of exclamation point of a life of love. By dying, Jesus provided a moral example, that if lived, atonement is received. With the Wesleyan participatory atonement, someone by faith subjects himself to the crucifixion that Christ suffered, fulfilling the law of love. God creates new life in the individual who enters solidarity with Christ in the love of His suffering and death.
The idea of dying with Christ sounds right even to someone who believes in penal substitution. However, this participatory atonement is something different than the historical interpretation of Galatians 2:20 (“I am crucified with Christ”). Concerning the defeat of the works of Satan through His death, Wesley wrote: “It is by thus manifesting himself in our hearts that he effectually ‘destroys the works of the devil’.” This mirrors the participatory atonement view. The Wesleys make more reference than other verse in the hymns of their hymnal than they do Galatians 2:20.
Wesley expressed opposition to the view of penal substitution. He saw the imputation of righteousness as a pass for unholy living. Everything is finished, so someone would just rest in that. Wesley had a great concern for the activation of holiness in a person’s life. He expressed a view of atonement that would yield that moral result.
Baptism and the Lord’s Table
Baptism and the Lord’s Table for Wesley become a means of grace by which men experience participatory atonement. In Wesley’s explanation of Romans 6:3, he writes:
In baptism we, through faith, are ingrafted into Christ; and we draw new spiritual life from this new root, through his Spirit, who fashions us like unto him, and particularly with regard to his death and resurrection.
Concerning the Lord’s Table, Charles Wesley wrote this hymn:
O the depth of love divine,
the unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine
God into us conveys!
How the bread his flesh imparts,
how the wine transmits his blood,
fills his faithful people’s hearts
with all the life of God!
The Wesleys believed that the real presence of Christ was found in the elements imparting saving grace. Charles Wesley also wrote this:
With solemn faith we offer up,
And spread before thy glorious eyes
That only ground of all our hope,
That all-sufficient sacrifice,
Which brings thy grace on sinners down,
And perfects all our souls in one.
I’m very sure that most of you reading do not sing these Wesley hymns in your services or for worship. Charles wrote them and others like them though.
More To Come
Mark 7:4 and the Baptism of Tables–Video
Mark 7:4 reads:
And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptidzo], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismos] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
This passage is the best attempt in Scripture if one wishes to argue against dipping or immersion for baptism. “Surely the Jews did not immerse their tables in water!” many pro-pouring or pro-sprinkling Protestants and Catholics have argued.
This issue was discussed in the past on the blog; see part 1 here and part 2 here.
People have also attacked the King James Version for rendering the Greek word baptidzo as “baptize” instead of as “immerse.” Is that a valid criticism? Did King James or the KJV translators have an evil motive, and were they trying to hide the fact that baptism is immersion?
If you would like to watch a video that answers these questions, please check the discussion in my first year Greek class #23 here on YouTube, or see the same video on Rumble, or go to 5:23 into the video embedded below:
The discussion of baptidzo continues through 22:55 on the video.
This passage does not prove sprinkling or pouring for baptism because the evidence is actually clear that the Jews did indeed immerse their dining couches or tables. Also, there was no conspiracy to hide the fact that baptism is properly by immersion, as King James himself was immersed (as an infant), as were the English monarchs before him. A strong anti-immersion push actually developed only several decades later at the Westminster Assembly, where requiring immersion for baptism lost by the narrowest of margins–one vote.
–TDR
When “One” Doesn’t Mean “One”: The Church, One Body
Institutions declare, “One team.” Whole nations announce to themselves and to other nations, “We are one.” You’ve got, “one office,” to promote productivity for the work place. To express the unity of a city, there’s “One Atlanta.” Not surprisingly, you see “One Philadelphia” too.A single team isn’t saying, “We’re numerically one team.” No. The people on the team or the leadership of the team attribute unity or oneness to it. Speaking of the nations of the world at the World Cup, “We are one,” means a desired unity of all the nations. Even an office wants unity, because a unified office gets more work done together. It’s normal for cities to say they are one through all the racial, ethnic, religious, etc. diversity. I could find almost every major American city to possess some initiative toward “One Miami” and the like.When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, we say, “One nation, under God, indivisible.” The Pledge of Allegiance recognizes at least a desire for unity in a nation. That pledge isn’t saying that other nations aren’t nations except the United States. It also isn’t saying there is one mystical nation, maybe even a single invisible nation to which everyone in the world belongs.
Scriptural “One” For Unity
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 13:11, “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” Philippians 1:27, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” Philippians 2:2, “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” 1 Peter 3:8, “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous.”
Acts 19:34, “But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”
One Body
Romans 12:4-5, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office. So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” 1 Corinthians 10:17, “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:20, “But now are they many members, yet but one body.” Ephesians 2:16, “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Ephesians 4:4, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Colossians 3:15, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”
Recent Comments