check out this anti catholic blog

[Reformed]

The water of Holy Baptism. The proclamation would be the whole counsel of God; which means preaching the Law and the Gospel.

Somewhat familiar. The New Perspectives are not directly related to Auburn Avenue theology or Catholic Calvinism. The latter would be the Federal Vision movement.

Okay, so you do not embrace the Federal Vision movement with Douglas Wilson, correct? I’m still not clear on your position on baptism. Do you mind helping me understand what you are sharing regarding water of Holy Baptism? I actually attended a Federal Vision church about 5 years ago with an extremely high view of the sacraments including padeo communion and padeo baptism (conversion?). I had no idea what they taught when I first went to that church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Except that the country gets bigger and more states are added, more governors are needed. You know, the mustard seed the grows into a large tree.

Yeah, indeed…the whole world. I don’t deny that the church succeeds the apostles in the ministry. I just don’t quantify it according to a rite or laying on of hands but rather, whether the church and its ministers continue to teach apostolic doctrine.

If a particular presbyter or bishop begins to teach false doctrine it frankly doesn’t matter anymore who ordained that person. They’re no longer successors to the apostolic ministry.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Okay, so you do not embrace the Federal Vision movement with Douglas Wilson, correct? I’m still not clear on your position on baptism. Do you mind helping me understand what you are sharing regarding water of Holy Baptism?

No. The Federal Vision movement is a theological school within Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist. While I agree with their belief in baptismal regeneration, they still share Calvinistic distinctives that I would not. Double predestination, symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper, etc.

If anything, they’re just realizing about Baptism what the orthodox church has taught about it for 2000 years.

 

[Reformed]

No. The Federal Vision movement is a theological school within Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist. While I agree with their belief in baptismal regeneration, they still share Calvinistic distinctives that I would not. Double predestination, symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper, etc.

If anything, they’re just realizing about Baptism what the orthodox church has taught about it for 2000 years.

I’m not sure if the Reformed church would agree with your assessment of the Federal Vision movement. I believe they reject the historic Reformed confessions, or wanted to change it. I was expose to it on the ground level, and have read responses to it by mainstream Reformed leaders. Therefore, do you believe in a form of baptismal regeneration. I don’t think Reformed believers have a simple symbolic view of the Lord’s supper;,most see this sacrament as a means of grace. Please help me undestand what you proclaim regarding baptism. There is a reason why Federal Vision has been given the name of Catholic Calvinism and hyper-Covenantalism. The Federal Vision movement has caused a refocus on justification by faith alone and imputation. I think that is a good thing. I personally believe if a Protestant rejects justification by faith alone and a forensic justification, and embrace a high view of the sacrament, you might as well join the Roman Catholic Church. After-all, they have more sacraments than your typical Protestant church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Okay, so you do not embrace the Federal Vision movement with Douglas Wilson, correct? I’m still not clear on your position on baptism. Do you mind helping me understand what you are sharing regarding water of Holy Baptism? I actually attended a Federal Vision church about 5 years ago with an extremely high view of the sacraments including padeo communion and padeo baptism (conversion?). I had no idea what they taught when I first went to that church.

I disagree with paedo-communion.

What is Baptism?–Answer.

Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

Which is that word of God?–Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

How can water do such great things?–Answer.

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer.

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?–Answer.

St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

[Reformed]

I disagree with paedo-communion.

What is Baptism?–Answer.

Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

Which is that word of God?–Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

How can water do such great things?–Answer.

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer.

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?–Answer.

St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

I think the main issue with water baptismal regeneration has to do with covenant children or the infants. I believe both Rome and Federal Vision embrace water baptism as a converting sacrament. Within adults, do you see a person being united to Christ through faith apart from the sacrament of water baptism? How do you see it?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Therefore, do you believe in a form of baptismal regeneration.

Yes.

I don’t think Reformed believers have a simple symbolic view of the Lord’s supper;,most see this sacrament as a means of grace.

I realize some Calvinists have a higher view of the Sacrament than others. Unfortunately, even though they may see it as a means of grace they divorce the means from Christ’s true body and blood. Instead the emphasis shifts to the believer’s faith and the subjectivity of that faith. “You’re only partaking of Christ’s body and blood if you believe really hard, otherwise, you receive nothing.” Like much of Calvinist thought, there is no objective way to know your spiritual state. It is faith in faith.

There is a reason why Federal Vision has been given the name of Catholic Calvinism and hyper-Covenantalism. The Federal Vision movement has caused a refocus on justification by faith alone and imputation. I think that is a good thing. I personally believe if a Protestant rejects justification by faith alone and a forensic justification, and embrace a high view of the sacrament, you might as well join the Roman Catholic Church. After-all, they have more sacraments than your typical Protestant church.

Inasmuch as the Federal Vision denies the chief article of justification by grace through faith, they will fall. Frankly, they would be better off joining the Catholic Church because at least they can claim to hold to articles of faith that Calvinism does not currently; and reject some of Calvinism’s errors. Such as double predestination and limited atonement.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think the main issue with water baptismal regeneration has to do with covenant children or the infants. I believe both Rome and Federal Vision embrace water baptism as a converting sacrament. Within adults, do you see a person being united to Christ through faith apart from the sacrament of water baptism? How do you see it?

God brings people to faith either through the preaching of the Word or Baptism. In the case of adults, generally, it is the former. They are already regenerate prior to Baptism. However, their Baptism seals the promises of God upon them, washes away their sins, and gives them the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If they refuse to be Baptized, then I would doubt they have saving faith and should not be considered members of the orthodox Church.

 

[Reformed]

Yes.

I realize some Calvinists have a higher view of the Sacrament than others. Unfortunately, even though they may see it as a means of grace they divorce the means from Christ’s true body and blood. Instead the emphasis shifts to the believer’s faith and the subjectivity of that faith. “You’re only partaking of Christ’s body and blood if you believe really hard, otherwise, you receive nothing.” Like much of Calvinist thought, there is no objective way to know your spiritual state. It is faith in faith.

Inasmuch as the Federal Vision denies the chief article of justification by grace through faith, they will fall. Frankly, they would be better off joining the Catholic Church because at least they can claim to hold to articles of faith that Calvinism does not currently; and reject some of Calvinism’s errors. Such as double predestination and limited atonement.

How close are you from becoming Roman Catholic? Again, I believe there are both Roman Catholics and Protestants that are united to Christ. I just enjoy discussing theology that grows us in affection for God. If you grow in love for God in a greater degree as a Roman Catholic, I can understand that.

 

[PerryJ]

I think you have a misunderstanding of the principle of sola scriptura. I read alot of extra-biblical sources, some good and edifying and some not so good.

Your quote: “Look to the Scriptures for light, and not extra-biblical sources”

Are you being consistent? Or should we just not read Catholic souces?

 

[Reformed]

Your quote: “Look to the Scriptures for light, and not extra-biblical sources”

Are you being consistent? Or should we just not read Catholic souces?

I still think you missing the point of sola scriptura.

 

[PerryJ]

I still think you missing the point of sola scriptura.

If you are enlightened then please explain it to me.

 

[PerryJ]

By that theory then, there should only be 12 bishops in the world, one for each apostle.

If a governor dies in office, he’s not replaced by 30 governors in 30 different states and so on and so forth until they’re are several hundred governors which succeed an original 12. However, they are all successors of the gubernatorial system…which is how I would define modern presbyters as being part of the Office of the Ministry, which began with the 12.

The story shows succession and Peters authority over succession.

I noticed you went from Reformed to almost Catholic. Did you convert since yesterday? Is there something you need to tell us?

 

[TriuneUnity]

How close are you from becoming Roman Catholic? Again, I believe there are both Roman Catholics and Protestants that are united to Christ. I just enjoy discussing theology that grows us in affection for God. If you grow in love for God in a greater degree as a Roman Catholic, I can understand that.

About as close as Scott Hahn is to becoming Lutheran.

Much of Roman Catholic teaching is true. Much of it is not. The same is true for other church bodies that I am not in confessional agreement with. Because I affirm that which Rome affirms, namely, baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence, does not mean I am in any way, shape, or form becoming Roman Catholic.

 

[adstrinity]

Do you understand baptismal regeneration is rejected by Protestants.

Shouldn’t there be a question mark at the end of that statement?

Anyway, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, Christian Reformed, Prezbyterians, and Methodists: Is this true?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The story shows succession and Peters authority over succession.

I noticed you went from Reformed to almost Catholic. Did you convert since yesterday? Is there something you need to tell us?

LOL! Yeah…I went from Geneva to the banks of the Tiber.

The story shows that Christ intentionally framed the apostles into a ministry of 12 and that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. There is nothing here about those outside of the 12 receiving any succession from them, beyond that of preaching the word, administering the sacraments, and exercising the keys.

Peter certainly wore the pants in the family of 12. His approval, though, for the office of the gospel ministry was not necessary. Paul was an apostle of Christ for years before ever meeting Peter and in the history of the church, many provinces ordained bishops without the approval of the bishop of Rome. Namely those of the East.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Shouldn’t there be a question mark at the end of that statement?

Anyway, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, Christian Reformed, Prezbyterians, and Methodists: Is this true?

I must have missed Reformed’s edit of that post (“Do you understand baptismal regeneration is rejected by Protestants.”)

It is? Lutherans and traditional Anglicans both affirm baptismal regeneration. The statement should read “Do you understand that baptismal regeneration is rejected by a minority of worldwide Reformed Protestantism?”

Even if all of Protestantism rejected baptismal regeneration, the Scriptures do not, and the history of the Church does not. Therefore, what “Protestantism” does, doesn’t concern me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

About as close as Scott Hahn is to becoming Lutheran.

Much of Roman Catholic teaching is true. Much of it is not. The same is true for other church bodies that I am not in confessional agreement with. Because I affirm that which Rome affirms, namely, baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence, does not mean I am in any way, shape, or form becoming Roman Catholic.

You sure didn’t last long as one of the “like minded” Christians Reformed depended on.

Ironic how quickly he turned on you, you know, proclaiming the Gospel of Christianity and all the way he is. All I can say is, WELCOME TO THE CLUB!

 

[TriuneUnity]

You sure didn’t last long as one of the “like minded” Christians Reformed depended on.

Ironic how quickly he turned on you, you know, proclaiming the Gospel of Christianity and all the way he is. All I can say is, WELCOME TO THE CLUB!

No worries. It’s part of being Lutheran. We just don’t agree with anyone else LOL.

Holy Baptism is the Gospel of Christianity. It is a pure gospel, in pure water, sanctified by the word and used to bring to life those who were dead in trespasses and sins.

“For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit. But let it be ever so much an external thing, here stand God’s Word and command which institute, establish, and confirm Baptism. But what God institutes and commands cannot be a vain, but must be a most precious thing, though in appearance it were of less value than a straw.” - Dr. Martin Luther, Large Catechism

 

[PerryJ]

LOL! Yeah…I went from Geneva to the banks of the Tiber.

The story shows that Christ intentionally framed the apostles into a ministry of 12 and that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. There is nothing here about those outside of the 12 receiving any succession from them, beyond that of preaching the word, administering the sacraments, and exercising the keys.

Peter certainly wore the pants in the family of 12. His approval, though, for the office of the gospel ministry was not necessary. Paul was an apostle of Christ for years before ever meeting Peter and in the history of the church, many provinces ordained bishops without the approval of the bishop of Rome. Namely those of the East.

Paul appears to pass his office to Timothy in 2 Tim 4 1:6.

Paul was not outside of Apostolic Succession though. Jesus tell Paul that he will be informed what to do in Acts. He went to see Peter for 15 days in Jerusalem to confirm his calling. Fourteen years later he was confirmed by Peter, James and John.

Note the Church is perpetual, infalliable and indefectible. Matt 16:18, John 14:26 and 16:18. Why would the early Church change structure after the death of the Apostles (Bishops)? After the founding father of the US died did we go back to being a monarchy? No, the church was built upon Peter and continued with apostolic succession.