<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3757314713231228019', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

4.06.2012

Anger a paedo-baptist, talk about regeneration

Just listened to three or four paedo-baptists justifying their position:

http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc223/

It sounded like Roman Catholics trying to justify the various points of the Tridentine creed. I.e. like people with no biblical warrant trying to lawyer up a defense for their pet doctrine being biblical.

What is the main thing that they avoid like the plague? Regeneration. In fact, they will get angry and 'clear the room' if anybody talks of regeneration. They don't realize that only the unregenerate get pissed off when anybody mentions regeneration.

Paedo baptists *despise* the fact that regeneration is monergistic and solely effected by the word and the Spirit and not by man and ritual. They will 'give' God His sovereignty in creation and providence, but they will 'withhold' from God His sovereignty in grace.

These are unregenerate fools. Notice the academic rhetoric, the academic fear of man, the academic juvenile intellectualism and vanity. Only self-styled elites and elitist environments can maintain such falsehood and stupidity. Put a street Calvinist in their midst and they become mocking hipsters suddenly with something 'better' to go off to. These are not broken, Bible-believing Christians. These are fools who never left the shadow of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they want a shock to their system (they don't and will avoid this suggestion) read Calvin's 40th sermon on Ephesians. He echoes early Zwingli in basically saying baptism is for 'stupid people' who need the visual parable. He speaks of dumb priests who think 'water' is effectual, etc. This is Calvin at the end of his life, obviously no longer worried about the contingencies of war and playing to a dumb, recently formerly Roman Catholic population.

Regeneration is the *main thing*, pilgrims. The proud unregenerate not only want to play ritual forever, but they are front and center in the movement to corrupt the living word of God. They *know* what regenerates. Just as the Roman Catholic Church knew what regenerates, back in the very dark days of their power.

The Roman Catholic Church called people to come and be baptized all day and all night, but, upon penalty of torture and death, they kept the living word of God away from those very same people.

That is called a clue, paedo-baptists.

14 Comments:

Anonymous David R. said...

Funny, I somehow don't think you really mean all those terrible things you say about paedobaptists. You're too appreciative of classic covenant theology, and also of Kline to mean those things. And speaking of Kline, I'm surprised his arguments in Kingdom Prologue and especially in By Oath Consigned didn't persuade you. It really doesn't come down to not taking regeneration seriously. Take it from a former credo-baptist....

April 17, 2012 at 11:07 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Missed your comment. If you're still reading this listen to this broadcast of the ReformedForum:

http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc100/

It's episode 100. About 40 minutes in (it could also be an hour in, I forget) one of the participants, the only credo-baptist in the discussion, takes on all the rest and puts them to silence. And he references Kline throughout.

Classical Covenant - Federal - Theology is not the servant of infant baptism.

April 23, 2012 at 9:23 PM  
Anonymous David R. said...

Oops, didn't see your response until now. I listened to the episode. I think the credo-baptist is right to make the typological/eschatological distinction, and I think you're right to underline regeneration. But there's more to the story....

As you know, Kline views the Abrahamic covenant as unfolding in two phases, a temporary typological phase and an eternal eschatological phase. (The baptist in the show is right about this.) But of course the eschatological reality is already present during the typological epoch as a "bottom layer," as salvation has always been by grace through faith. (I realize credo-baptists hold to this too, but I think inconsistently.)

In Romans 4, Paul says that Abraham's circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised," in other words, circumcision is a sign and seal of an eschatological (not typological) reality, and yet we know that Abe was commanded to circumcise all his progeny, some of whom (e.g., Ishmael and Esau) would never experience that eschatological reality.

In the latter half Romans 11, Paul views the NT people of God as the outer, ingrafted, branches of an Israelite tree. The tree is "holy," Paul says (v. 16), even though some of the branches are broken off. The holiness that Paul is speaking of here is not the holiness of election and/or regeneration that he had spoken of in Romans 9:6ff. Here he says that the branches are holy by virtue of the root (Abraham), but there he had said, "nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants," which appears at first blush to contradict his later assertion.

Natural branches are broken off in the case of unbelief, and the ingrafted branches are also liable to being broken off for the same reason. (Why doesn't he say that the broken branches had not really been part of the tree?) The same warnings obtain for the NT people of God as for the OT people of God.

There are two kinds of holiness, structural and directional. The covenant people throughout the ages are (structurally) holy by virtue of God's ordination. But only the elect/regenerate will ever be (directionally) holy by virtue of the sanctification of the Spirit.

Every grafted-in Gentile becomes like another Abraham. He is grafted in by virtue of a credible profession of faith. He is "holy" by virtue of being a member of the covenant people. His progeny share in that holiness, just as Abraham's seed shared in his, though they may not all be elect.

Covenant theology may not be the servant of infant baptist, but consistent covenant theology will grant to covenant children the holiness ordained by God, while not neglecting to hope and pray that they will also possess that holiness whereby they will see the Lord.

BTW, I find your blog quite entertaining and I agree with much of what you say. You seem to understand Kline very well—for the most part! ;)

May 26, 2012 at 12:07 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Thanks for the compliments. I have to say, though, that your defense of paedo-baptism has the same quality that I find in other defenses. I.e. if it could be depicted visually it would be a Rube Goldberg contraption.

Two types of holiness? Really? This sounds like Federal Vision.

The problem with the Romanist leftover of infant baptism is it downgrades the reality and necessity of regeneration and from that downgrades valuation for the word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. It also leaves a Christian in a petulant stance demanding that God not be sovereign in grace. Infant baptism, whether it is through the front door, or through the back door, or through the back door in the dead of night, defaults to the unbiblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

It is of God's providence where children are born and who they are born to. Children born to true Bible-believing parents will receive influence due to that fact without having to be 'holy' in some ad hoc doctrinal way.

Regeneration is the main thing, and it is effected, when it is effected, by the word and the Spirit, not by ritual and clerics.

I see the indefensible position of infant baptists regarding biblical manuscripts and critical text theory as going hand-in-hand with the false doctrine of infant baptism. Being so unconsciously in favor of downgrading your doctrine of Scripture is telling of people who unconsciously are denying God His sovereignty in grace.

God is sovereign in creation providence, *and grace.*

May 28, 2012 at 4:31 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

There's power, Power, POWER! in Reformed Theology, and infant baptism vitiates that power foundationally.

May 28, 2012 at 4:35 AM  
Anonymous David R. said...

That's a funny image, but really, what I've said is not so complex. It all comes down to this: Scripture teaches that the basic covenantal unit is the family, not the individual. What's so hard about that? And how does that diminish the crucial necessity of regeneration one iota?

You didn't engage with what I said. If the old covenant is merely typological, then why does circumcision have eschatological significance according to Paul in Romans 4? And how is it that the olive tree of Romans 11 is "holy" yet it is not coextensive with election? And while I'm at it, forgive my ignorance, but what do credo-baptists do with 1 Corinthians 7:14?

I fully agree with your sentence that begins "Regeneration is the main thing ...." I have no idea what you're talking about in your paragraph linking infant baptism to a downgraded view of Scripture. I do fully affirm that God is sovereign in grace (you'll notice I've said nothing that contradicts this proposition).

May 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>Scripture teaches that the basic covenantal unit is the family, not the individual.

The stench of death comes off that statement. And the further fact that you will accuse me of being anti-family adds to the Satanic nature of the statement.

Your wife and children are not a church. The 'covenant' of marriage is not a controlling metaphor in the word of God. God deals with individuals. He sends the Holy Spirit into *individuals.* It is individuals that receive a new heart, not families.

Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

May 30, 2012 at 12:08 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

You downgrade Scripture when you deny regeneration by the word and the Spirit. What need for the word, when you have clerics and ritual? Hence the absolute Satanic situation where you have a priesthood of atheist scholars telling what is and what isn't the word of God, changing with the wind, and you eat everything they put in your mouth.

May 30, 2012 at 12:16 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>And while I'm at it, forgive my ignorance, but what do credo-baptists do with 1 Corinthians 7:14?

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord"

Paul is speaking in a practical aside to those who are married (after he has made it clear marriage is not a standard).

It's always the most basic practicalities of context that undermines paedo-baptist arguments. Rube Goldberg.

God is sovereign in creation, providence, and grace. Paedo-baptists hate it that God is sovereign in grace. Paedo-baptists hate it that regeneration is monergistic and not effected by man and ritual. Until paedo-baptists humble themselves to the pure and whole word of God they will never be in the environment where regeneration happens, if it happens.

May 30, 2012 at 12:23 AM  
Anonymous David R. said...

Okay, I can see you're not particularly into this conversation, except to shout "Get thee behind me, Paedobaptist!" ;)

I'll just say though, that to this paedobaptist, your protestations are strongly reminiscent of Arminians who assert that Calvinists hate free agency, or Hypercalvinists who complain that the free offer of the gospel entails a rejection of the doctrines of grace. The problem at work in both cases (and in your case too I believe) is a failure to embrace the whole counsel of God. It's not just human agency; it's also divine sovereignty. It's not just TULIP; it's also the general gospel call. And in your case, it's not just the substance of the covenant; its also its administration.

And the further fact that you will accuse me of being anti-family adds to the Satanic nature of the statement.

I do not accuse you being anti-family. That thought is the furthest thing from my mind.

God deals with individuals. He sends the Holy Spirit into *individuals.* It is individuals that receive a new heart, not families.

I fully agree with this, and nothing I said contradicts it. You are failing to distinguish things that differ. God does deal with individuals and regeneration is indeed the "main thing." But when God deals with you as an individual by way the substance of the covenant (i.e., regeneration), He also deals with your progeny by way of the administration of the covenant. Substance/administration are not to be conflated, do not contradict each other, and should both be affirmed.

So in your (commendable) zeal for the doctrine of regeneration, you unfortunately go overboard and deny what God has revealed concerning covenant administration and entailed in this rejection is the tendency to conflate God's knowledge with yours (i.e., presuming you can discern who is and who isn't regenerate), and this age with the age to come.

I imagine you'll view this as just so much more satanically inspired, regeneration-hating folly....

June 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

You start out by accusing me of denying God's sovereignty when that is of course my main argument against you paedo-baptists. It it a "I know you are, but what are we" response.

>But when God deals with you as an individual by way the substance of the covenant (i.e., regeneration), He also deals with your progeny by way of the administration of the covenant. Substance/administration are not to be conflated, do not contradict each other, and should both be affirmed.

Whether you have children or not has nothing to do with salvation. And notice you have to posit a father as being a 'year zero' phenomenon while his children are part of the administration of what the father began. That is asinine on the face of it. No, all individuals need regeneration by the word and the Spirit, equally, the same experience, monergistic.

>So in your (commendable) zeal for the doctrine of regeneration, you unfortunately go overboard and deny what God has revealed concerning covenant administration and entailed in this rejection is the tendency to conflate God's knowledge with yours (i.e., presuming you can discern who is and who isn't regenerate), and this age with the age to come.

There is nothing I have stated that requires me to know who is and who isn't regenerate. This is a tired, canard by paedo-baptists giving evidence of your lack of Scriptural warrant for your pet unbilbical doctrine of infant baptism.

Obviously since we have this long-running phenomenon called the Roman Catholic Church we will always have self-identified Christians who demand unbiblical doctrine such as infant baptism, and demand it for the same reasons deriving from their fallen nature.

Always remember: Romanists called people to be baptised all day and all night (especially babies!), but they kept the living word of God away from those same people on penalty of torture and death. The Devil knows what regenerates, and it isn't clerics and ritual. It is the word and the Spirit.

June 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM  
Anonymous David R. said...

I nowhere accused you of denying God's sovereignty. Perhaps you misread (or I miscommunicated) my first paragraph. Read it again and see if you still think I accused of that. The fact of the matter is I actually think you're rock-solid on God's sovereignty.

Whether you have children or not has nothing to do with salvation.

Of course it doesn't. But if you have children, then by God's ordination, the administration of the covenant (though not necessarily its substance) reaches to them.

I'm not sure I understand you're "year zero" reference. But as I've indicated, I think Abraham and his sons/grandsons provide a useful paradigm. The administration, though not the substance, of the covenant of grace reached to Ishmael and Esau, didn't it? How is this asinine?

No, all individuals need regeneration by the word and the Spirit, equally, the same experience, monergistic.

Again, I totally, completely, am in 100% full agreement with you on this.

There is nothing I have stated that requires me to know who is and who isn't regenerate.

What I'm saying is that you tend to speak as though you know. Like when you say in your post proper (regarding the Reformed Forum panel): "These are unregenerate fools. Notice the academic rhetoric, the academic fear of man, the academic juvenile intellectualism and vanity." That's the kind of thing I was referencing.

The Devil knows what regenerates, and it isn't clerics and ritual. It is the word and the Spirit.

Completely 100% agree.

June 3, 2012 at 10:07 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Paedo-baptists also pervert the church experience by making it 'family time'. Jesus and Paul would be suspect in paedo-baptist churches. Or you'd try to get them married and if they resisted you'd accuse them of abnormality.

That is a different Christianity. One that exalts man and ritual over the word and the Spirit.

In fairness credo-baptists do the same 'family time' thing with church. It's a feature of fallen man, to turn everything into worldliness.

June 4, 2012 at 3:10 PM  
Anonymous monax said...

i enjoyed reading this exchange

June 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home