The Reformed Oasis

LUTHER'S HEIDELBERG DISPUTATON

2009-07-15T11:12:00.000-07:00

Luther's Heidelberg Disputation is quite another refreshing study for those wearied by the Law of God. The link below includes proofs. The second section, which has to do with philosophy, is more connected to what was happening historically in the field of philosophy. The first section is wonderful and refreshing, and wise for many of us Calvinists to consider.

www.catchpenny.org/heidel.html#E028

10 WAYS TO CELEBRATE JOHN CALVIN'S BIRTHDAY TODAY

2009-07-10T00:10:00.000-07:00

In honor of the fact that it is John Calvin's 500th birthday today (he must be getting pretty old by now), I thought it only fitting that all my fellow Calvinists celebrate who they are, in honor of the great French theologian. Here are 10 suggested ways to "enjoy your Christian liberty" on Calvin Day:

10. Try and find a French beer.

9. OK, then try a French wine.

8. Try some French cuisine . . . preferably some without the word "rat" somewhere in the name of the food.

7. Try a good French cigar.

6. OK, then try any kind of cigar.

5. Grow your beard like ZZ Top. It helps to do this by watching ZZ Top videos and cropping pictures of Calvin's face on top of the band members. You have only one day, so you'd better be pretty manly.

4. Learn Latin--fast--and then read Calvin's Institutes in Latin.

3. Go and play thumb wars with an Arminian. Tell them you're doing it of your own "free-will."

2. After you win in thumb wars with your Arminian friends, tell them it was predestined to happen anyways.

And, the #1 way you can celebrate John Calvin's birthday today is . . .

1. Limit your beer drinking and cigar smoking to the elect alone! Have fun figuring that one out. But, since we don't know who the elect are, we may as well make a universal offer to the party!!! :)

Cheers!!!

THE THEOLOGY OF GLORY VS. THE THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS--CHART

2009-07-05T15:36:00.000-07:00

I found a helpful chart that I am linking below that helps us see some examples of what Luther meant by the theology of glory vs. the theology of the cross. It also helped me continually to see why I oppose all theologies of glory, whether they be evangelicalism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, modern-day Calvinism (as opposed to traditional Calvinism which I espouse), or any other religion that tries to ascend to God.

www.confessingevangelical.com/?p=1086

IS THE BAPTIST VIEW CLEAR IN SCRIPTURE? part 2

2009-06-13T11:00:00.000-07:00

More from me on the Baptist view and whether the credobaptist view is clearly found in Scripture. --Josh Brisby
_____________________________________

First, I want to address brother -----'s request of showing him an infant in Scripture that was baptized. We want our reasoning to be good reasoning, and I have to confess that this was one of the reasons I left the credobaptist view. (I don't mean that in any derogatory way.) I could respond to this request by demonstrating its fallaciousness in several ways:

(1) Brother -----, please show me just one example of a female President of the United States. I don't see any. Therefore, only males should be President of the United States.

(2) Brother -----, please show me just one example of a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper. Most seem to agree, after all, that they did not partake of the Levitical Passover (especially the unclean ones on their period).

(3) Brother -----, please show me one example in Scripture of a child professing faith first, and then being baptized. After all, Baptists believe that children can be baptized if they profess faith. So can you show me just one example of a child professing faith and then being baptized in Scripture? This would be the perfect way to demonstrate your view.

(4) What if I were to define "sleeping" by pointing to an example of a horse sleeping? I would surely conclude that the definition of sleeping included the posture of standing up.

I could give more to demonstrate why this kind of reasoning is not sound. It is quite clear to me that the credo view commits the "descriptive equals prescriptive fallacy": namely, taking examples of baptisms (description) and saying that this must be the command of *how* and *who* (prescription). You cannot take an example of something and make it the command or prescription for the definition of something. Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that sleeping includes standing up from our sleeping horse example.

Both sides use inference. I *do* believe I can point to examples of infants being baptized. The problem is, brother ----- won't accept those examples because they are not clear to him. It is likewise not clear to me that *only* believers should be baptized, even on -----'s own grounds.

Both sides use inference. The question is, which side uses "good and necessary" inference, to quote the WCF? It is clear to me that the Baptist side does not.

Blessings in our Savior!

IS THE BAPTIST VIEW CLEAR IN SCRIPTURE?

2009-06-11T21:29:00.001-07:00

As my Reformed Oasis readers know, I was a Reformed Baptist for nine years, and I became a paedobaptist (believer in infant baptism) just last year. Recently, a Baptist brother asked me to share with him a text "clearly" demonstrating an infant being baptized. I wanted to share my response, and I invite readers to comment. -- Josh Brisby
_______________________________

Brother ---------,

I would like to keep this short, since ---------'s Facebook account is not the proper place to dialogue/debate about this. I would love to dialogue with you about this by e-mail, if you wish. You may e-mail me at solaschristos@yahoo.com. I will be happy to respond and dialogue in a brotherly and cordial fashion.

Since you asked a question publicly, I will answer publicly, but then I hope you will e-mail me so we can continue. You asked if I could show you one verse showing an infant baptized.

Respectfully, I don't think that's a helpful question to ask. I could ask you to show me one verse showing me that *only* (key word "only") professors should be baptized. Neither side is clear in an explicit sort of way. Both sides use inference. For example, the credo side looks at the texts which speak of people believing and being baptized, and they assume that we can draw an inference from that that *only* believers should be baptized. (I will digress at this point to say why I believe that is fallacious reasoning.) These brothers look at the household passages and believe that in every case (or every except perhaps one case), people believed first. They also look at the various texts which speak of God's view of our children, and they consider those texts as not proof for the paedo side, or they interpret them differently.

The paedo, on the other hand, looks at the various texts which show God's view of our children, both in the OT and NT, the meaning of both baptism and circumcision, etc., and then takes that model and is not surprised when he/she sees household passages, Jesus' blessing of babies, Paul's calling of our children as holy as opposed to unclean, etc.

So, both sides use inference. I am convinced that it is simply not true that the Baptist side is so clear, b/c there is not one text that says that *only* believers should be baptized; nor is there even one example of someone being born into a Christian home, growing up, professing faith, and then being baptized.

So, perhaps we can continue from there by e-mail. My e-mail is solaschristos@yahoo.com.

I wish you every blessing in our Savior!

THE GIFT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER

2009-05-25T16:30:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine brought up the question on his blog about whether the Lord's Supper is a gift from God to us, or if it is something that we do. I wish to share my response.
___________________________________

Keith Mathison’s book revolutionized the way I think about the Table years ago. It’s an excellent read. I highly recommend it. It’s called Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

For Calvin (and I believe the biblical view as well), the Table was not just a memorial, but it was the gift of Christ’s actual Body and Blood. As Mathison rightly notes, throughout Christian history, there were disputes over the *nature* of the Lord’s presence in the Table, but that presence was never denied until Zwingli in the Reformation.

The apostle calls the Table a “participation in the Body and Blood of Christ”. He also argues that we are to be in unity with one another as we partake. I see the Table as very much connected to the Word, in the same way that, when a husband and wife take their marriage vows (analogous to the Word), their vows are sealed and renewed every time they join in physical union in the act of making love (analogous to the Lord’s Table).

The Table, therefore, Calvin rightly saw as very much connected to our union with Christ. It strengthens our union with Christ, and, since we are the Body of Christ, with each other as fellow believers. It would hardly make sense to partake of the Table with someone we are at odds with, even as it would hardly make sense to partake of the act of making love with our spouse if we were at odds with him/her.

So, to neglect this great and mysterious sacrament is also to neglect one’s soul. Imagine if a husband and a wife hung out all the time, talked, enjoyed one another’s company, but only made love once a year. Or once a quarter. Or once every 2 months. Or even once a month. They are missing out on a great blessing…the blessing of a stronger and closer union and unity with one another.

Although Calvin believed that the elements remain bread and wine, he also truly believed that we receive the real and proper and natural Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Belgic Confession of Faith, I believe, does well in wording this mysterious truth as well. It is also found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (although not as developed), as well as the London Baptist Confession of Faith, as well as the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

So, Calvin’s view of the real and spiritual presence of Christ in the Table won the day at the Reformation. Luther’s view differed from his, but it would be wrong to think that Calvin was closer to Zwingli than to Luther. Calvin, along with Luther, condemned Zwingli’s view. He was much closer to Luther than to Zwingli. It is not quite correct to say that Calvin was a “middle road” between Luther and Zwingli. ***In fact, Calvin and the other Reformers believed that Zwingli was no different than Rome, in that, for Zwingli, the Table was something that *we did* to “remind” ourselves of what Christ had done to obey God, just like in Rome it is something the people do for God.*** But both Luther and Calvin rightly saw the Table as a gift–as something that *God* does for us in Christ.

And all of the above is only a quick glimpse into the riches of Calvin’s view! I am convinced that Calvin’s view was the biblical view as well. I highly suggest Mathison’s book, and Robert Letham’s quick book as well called The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread.

Thanks for bringing this excellent discussion up! I hope you are blessed as you see the gift of the Lord’s Supper for what it is.

A DEFENSE OF OPEN COMMUNION--Robert Murray M'Cheyne

2009-04-28T14:42:00.000-07:00

I thought the following from a famous adherent of the Westminster Confession was very helpful. Table fellowship is Christian fellowship. --Josh Brisby
_____________________________________

I believe it to be the mind of Christ, that all who are vitally united to Him, should love one another, exhort one another daily, communicate freely of their substance to one another when poor, pray with and for one another, and sit down together at the Lord’s Table. Each of these positions may be proved by the Word of God. It is quite true that we may be frequently deceived in deciding upon the real godliness of those with whom we are brought into contact. The apostles themselves were deceived, and we must not expect to do the work of the ministry with fewer difficulties than they had to encounter. Still I have no doubt from Scripture that, where we have good reason for regarding a man as a child of God, we are permitted and commanded to treat him as a brother; and, as the most sacred pledge of heavenly friendship, to sit down freely at the table of our common Lord, to eat bread and drink wine together in remembrance of Christ.

The reason of this rule is plain. If we have solid ground to believe that a fellow sinner has been, by the Holy Spirit, grafted into the true vine, then we have ground to believe that we are vitally united to one another for eternity. The same blood has washed us, the same Spirit has quickened us, we lean upon the same pierced breast, we love the same law, we are guided by the same sleepless eye, we are to stand at the right hand of the same throne, we shall blend our voices eternally in singing the same song: “Worthy is the Lamb!” Is it not reasonable, then, that we should own one another on earth as fellow travelers to our Father’s house, and fellow heirs of the incorruptible crown? Upon this I have always acted, both in sitting down at the Lord’s Table and in admitting others to that blessed privilege.

I was once permitted to unite in celebrating the Lord’s Supper in an upper room in Jerusalem. There were fourteen present, the most of whom, I had good reason to believe, knew and loved the Lord Jesus Christ. Several were godly Episcopalians, two were converted Jews, and one a Christian from Nazareth, converted under the American missionaries. The bread and wine were dispensed in the Episcopal manner, and most were kneeling as they received them. Perhaps your correspondents would have shrunk back with horror, and called this the confusion of Babel. We felt it to be sweet fellowship with Christ and with the brethren; and as we left the upper room, and looked out upon the Mount of Olives, we remembered with calm joy the prayer of our Lord that ascended from one of its shady ravines, after the first Lord’s Supper: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word, that they all may be ONE.”

The Table of Christ is a family table spread in this wilderness, and none of the true children should be absent from it, or be separated while sitting at it. We are told of Rowland Hill that, upon one occasion, when he had preached in a chapel where none but baptized adults were admitted to the sacrament, he wished to have communicated with them, but was told respectfully,“ You cannot sit down at our table.” He only calmly replied, “I thought it was the Lord’s Table.”

The early Reformers held the same view. Calvin wrote to Cranmer that he would cross ten seas to bring it about. Baxter, Owen, and Howe, in a later generation, pleaded for it; and the Westminster Divines laid down the same principle in few but solemn words: “Saints, by profession, are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God—which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.” These words, embodied in our standards, show clearly that the views maintained above are the very principles of the Church of Scotland.

TRUE ASSURANCE

2009-02-03T07:15:00.000-08:00

Oh that I could have read something like this during the past 12 years while I struggled with assurance of salvation:

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/can-i-have-assurance/

SOME LUTHERAN BALANCE FOR CALVINISTS

2009-01-22T16:51:00.001-08:00

I thought the following thoughts from Martin Luther, as mentioned by my friend Jamey Bennett, are very useful and helpful to us Calvinists. As Calvinists, we have a tendency to *focus* on predestination. We say that we believe Christ is more important, but I'm afraid that our reactions against Arminianism may have inadvertently caused us to focus on and start with what should have come later.

The doctrine of predestination is biblical. But the doctrine of Christ and His gospel is more important. Consider, as taken from my friend's website:

"[Martin Luther] spoke of predestination and said that when a man begins to dispute about it, it is like a fire that cannot be extinguished, and the more he disputes the more he despairs. Our Lord God is so hostile to such disputation that he instituted Baptism, the Word, and the Sacrament as signs to counteract it. We should rely on these and say: 'I have been baptized. I believe in Jesus Christ. I have received the Sacrament. What do I care if I have been predestined or not?' In Christ, God has furnished us with a foundation on which to stand and from which we can go up to heaven. He is the only way and the only gate which leads to the Father. If we despise this foundation and in the devil's name start building at the roof, we shall surely fall. If only we are able to believe that the promises have been spoken by God and see behind them the one who has spoken them, we shall magnify that Word. But because we hear it as it comes to us through the lips of a man, we are apt to pay as little attention to it as to the mooing of a cow."

LUTHER'S THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS

2009-01-09T12:25:00.000-08:00

The following article is from the Lutheran radio show Issues, Etc. I am sick of the Theology of Glory. I can't get enough of Luther's Theology of the Cross.
___________________________________________

A Theology of Glory and a Theology of the Cross

Everyday in every way we are getting better and better. Really?

by Don Matzat

Theology is systematic. All the pieces are supposed to fit together. Within Protestantism there are two very distinct systems of theology. One is a Theology of Glory and the other is a Theology of the Cross.

I believe that it is very important that we understand the differences between these two ways of thinking. In so doing, I believe we will arrive at the conclusion that these two systems cannot be mixed.

The Place of the Gospel

The Protestant theology of glory begins with a one-time trip to the Cross of Jesus Christ. The preaching of human sin and divine grace is only directed at the unbeliever in order to "get him saved." The person who gets saved can sing, "At the Cross, at the Cross where I first saw the light and the burden of my sin rolled away . . . and now I am happy all the day."

Very often, when discussing on Issues, Etc. the place of the Gospel in preaching and teaching, someone will call-in and say, "I’ve already been to the Cross. I’ve heard the Gospel. I’m saved." In other words, in the thinking of that person, the preaching of the Gospel is directed at unbelievers. Once unbelievers are saved the Gospel in no longer relevant.

The theology of the Cross is quite different. The preaching of sin and grace or Law and Gospel is not only intended to convert the unbelieving sinner but is intended to produce sanctification in the Christian. The preaching of the Law continues to convict the Christian of sin, leading to contrition, and the Gospel continues to produce faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

The Definition of Repentance

A theology of glory defines repentance as a sinner being sorry for his sins and determining not to sin anymore. Repentance is the determination of the sinner to live a better life. Before being saved, the sinner is required to repent of all known sins. Incomplete repentance will cause a person to doubt whether or not they have really been saved.

Alternatively, the theology of the Cross defines repentance as contrition and faith rather than contrition and human determination. While the preaching of the Law will lead to contrition or sorrow over sin, the preaching of the Gospel will produce faith in the redemptive work of Christ Jesus.

Repentance is therefore not a singular act that precedes "getting saved" but defines the totality of the Christian life. The preaching of Law and Gospel produces repentance – sorrow over sin and faith in Christ Jesus.

Sanctification

A theology of glory separates the Christian life from the Gospel. Once you are saved you are given a list of do’s and don’ts. More often than not, these are "evangelical house rules." If you continue to break the rules or backslide, the solution is the rededication of your life to God or, in some cases, the emotional determination to keep your promises. You wouldn’t go back to the Cross again because you already did that when you got saved. Rather, you rededicate your life, because "once saved, is always saved."

The theology of the Cross never gets you past the Cross. The preaching of the Law is not intended to provide you with a list of do’s and don’ts. Rather the preaching of the Law is intended to drive you back to the Cross through the hearing of the Gospel. As a result of the Gospel, your faith is strengthened. Out of faith, the good works defining the Christian life are produced.

Those who mix the theology of glory with the theology of the Cross may initially preach Law and Gospel but will end the sermon with Law, principles, or house rules. This is usually introduced with "May we" or "Let us." Such a sermon will cause you to go home, not rejoicing in forgiveness, but determined to live a better life.

Holiness

A theology of glory produces people who think they are better than other people. "Getting saved" moves you to a higher level. You are now a better person, a step above those who are not saved. You can think of yourself as a part of the "moral majority" as opposed to the "immoral minority." You share your testimony so that other people will get saved and be a good person just like you are.

The notion of getting saved as taking a higher step on the ladder of holiness begets other steps. Some teach that getting saved is merely the first experience, now you have to get sanctified. This is the "second work of grace." This second work removes your old sinful nature so that you are no longer a sinner.You now add to your testimony your experience of perfect sanctification. You not only witness to unbelievers, but you tell other Christians who still refer to themselves as "sinners saved by grace" that you are no longer a sinner. You have taken the next step. They should do the same.

The Pentecostals (and Charismatics) add another step on the ladder of holiness. They promote a baptism in the Spirit with speaking in tongues which gives you spiritual power that you didn’t have before. Former Southern Baptist pastor Charles Simpson said, "Before I got baptized in the Spirit I almost wore out my rededicator." In other words, now that he has received power, unlike other Baptists, he no longer has to rededicate his life. There may be many more steps and experiences for you to take. The popular Charismatic showman Benny Hinn speaks of four or five different anointings awaiting you as you climb the ladder of holiness. The so-called revivals that have broken out in Toronto and Pensacola offer a wide variety of experiences from being "slain in the Spirit," to being "drunk in the Spirit," to simply standing in one spot and shaking your head back and forth. According to testimonies, these experiences will produce in you higher levels of spirituality and holiness as you move on to glory.

Your testimony will now focus on trying to convince other Christians that they should come to where you are and get baptized in the Spirit, speak in tongues, and seek these other experiences. Even though you don’t say it, everyone knows that you think you are a better Christian, because you have taken the next step.

Living in a theology of the Cross never makes you any "better" than anyone else. Every day in every way you are not getting better and better. In fact, the preaching of Law and Gospel will not lead you to an awareness of your holiness, but rather to greater awareness of the depth of your sin. As a result, you will develop an ever-increasing faith in and appreciation for the redeeming work of Jesus Christ.

Your witness will focus upon the work of the Cross, not upon your experience of getting saved, sanctified, or becoming more spiritual. You have taken no step toward God or arrived at any higher level of holiness. You don’t talk about your spirituality. You talk about the grace of God in Christ Jesus.

When dealing with these issues on the radio, I often encounter opposition. People will fight to defend their theology of glory. I often challenge them to share their testimony without ever talking about themselves. I have developed the pet phrase, "This thing called Christianity – it’s not about you!"

Martin Luther accurately defined sin as man turning in on himself. While a theology of glory continues to turn you to yourself as you measure your growth in holiness against a plethora of spiritual experiences, the theology of the Cross turns you away from yourself. As a result of the conviction of the Law, you forsake your own good works and spiritual experiences and cling to the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Which is Correct?

Any reading of the New Testament will demonstrate that the systematic theology of the Apostle Paul was a theology of the Cross. His focus was not upon his spirituality but upon the Cross of Christ. He boasted of his weaknesses. He referred to himself as the "chief of sinners" and a "wretched man." As far as he was concerned, his holiness and goodness was manure compared to the righteousness of Christ. For the Apostle, the dynamic of both justification and sanctification was "not I, but Christ."

The Reformation theology that characterizes both Lutheranism and traditional Calvinism is a theology of the Cross. There is no doubt that the theology of glory appeals to natural man. It is a theology of Adam. It is self-focused. It defines "popular Christianity." The reality is, it is not biblical Christianity.

THE PROPER DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL NECESSARY FOR LIFE

2008-12-22T14:20:00.000-08:00

Evangelicalism and most Reformed churches nowadays give law to their sheep who need gospel, and gospel to their sheep who need law.

The following statements I thought were excellent, from A Summary of Christian Doctrine, by Edward W.A. Koehler:
_________________

"The Law is to be preached to all people but especially to unrepentant sinners."

"The Gospel is to be preached to sinners who are troubled in their minds because of their sins."

"The reason why both the Law and the Gospel are to be used in the life of Christians is that believers have a double nature. They are at the same time justified and a sinner. They have the old Adam who is under the Law and the new man who is under the Gospel. The difficulty in using both Law and Gospel properly lies in the fact that in actual life it is difficult to determine to what extent a given behavior of a Christian is the expression of the old Adam or of the new man. Yet the proper distinction between Law and Gospel is of utmost importance. The confusion or mixing of the two will make it impossible for anyone to become a Christian or to remain in the faith."
______________

All three statements above I think are some of the wisest words I have ever read. How ironic especially the last one, having struggled with assurance of salvation for 12 years.

Praise God for Luther's theology of the cross.

MY PASTOR'S BOOK ON OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

2008-11-26T08:46:00.000-08:00

Hello Readers,

I wanted to plug my pastor's excellent book on Christology. I highly recommend it!

Reformation Heritage Books is selling the book, God With Us: Knowing the Mystery of Who Jesus Is, for the rest of this week (until Friday 5pm) for only $5.00. This is 65% off the retail price of $14.00.

Here are the back cover quotes and the link to purchase the book is below:

"Why the God-Man?" Anselm’s' question frames the entire complex of Christian faith, piety, worship, and practice. With devotional warmth and doctrinal clarity, Pastor Hyde makes an excellent tour guide through the treasures that lie at the heart of history—indeed, at the heart of God himself. Whatever the stage in the Christian pilgrimage, God With Us will lead readers from meditation to doxology.
Michael Horton, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California

Danny Hyde has provided the church with an outstanding study explaining the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is clear, biblically faithful, and impressively comprehensive given its concise length. This book is guaranteed to provide all sorts of people in the church and outside the church with a better understanding of the Savior and of why understanding who he is so important. I highly recommend it.
David VanDrunen, Robert B. Strimple Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics, Westminster Seminary California

http://www.heritagebooks.org/bookstore/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=7930

NEVER??

2008-11-21T11:50:00.000-08:00

We will *never* send our kids to public schools.

We will *never* teach at a public school.

We will *never* abandon Van Tillianism.

We will *never* have our children baptized before they profess faith.

We will *never* use birth control.

We will most certainly *never* get a vasectomy.

We will *never* embrace two kingdoms theology.

We will *never* see a psychiatrist.

We will *never* use psychology.

We will *never* abandon postmillennialism.

We will *never* embrace the law/gospel dichotomy hermeneutic.

We will *never* tell our children that God loves them until they profess faith (after 357 times and only after their profession is satisfactory to us).

We will *never*, no never, do any or all of these things.

NO. NOT US. NOT EVER.

NEVER??

WHY I AM ANGRY WITH THE GAY MARRIAGE AGENDA

2008-11-11T11:26:00.000-08:00

Thankfully, Proposition 8 passed, as you readers know. Not surprisingly, three lawsuits have been filed, one by the liberal ACLU, one by a lesbian couple, and one from city councils.

I don't understand the "arguments" of those who voted no on Prop 8.

"It's discrimination!" they say. Well, then I guess we should let an incestuous brother and sister marry. After all, to not let them do so would be to "discriminate" against them and it wouldn't protect their "rights" as "minorities." We could apply this equally to polygamists, someone who wishes to marry a consenting 12-year-old, etc., etc.

Some would say "no, you committed the slippery slope fallacy!" First of all, to respond to this, the slippery slope *can* be a fallacy; but there are some slippery slopes which are valid. I think the burden of proof is on those who advocate gay marriage to prove that it is not a slippery slope. What I did above was I took the criteria of their argumentation and applied it equally, and I think I showed how it is valid. Gay marriage advocates need to demonstrate why the slippery slope argument against them is *not* valid.

Furthermore, since the California State Supreme Court approved the ballot measure for Proposition 8, they need to be consistent and not overturn it now. Twice now the people have voted, and Californians still oppose gay marriage.

Homosexuals *know* that what they do is wrong. They know that homosexuality is wrong. The reason why it angers me so much is because they don't rest at allowing others to live their lives--they really want to push this on us. They want to justify their evil so they wish to look for acceptance of it.

Furthermore, homosexuals refuse to admit their evil. Recently, the gospel singer Ray Boltz came out of the closet. Even though this hurt his family and caused a divorce, he refuses to admit his evil against his wife and children.

Many homosexuals just "give in" and say that they must have been born that way or that they are normal. I think they give up trying to battle it. Well, many married men struggle with lusting after other women, but many married men battle this lust.

Imagine if I just got tired of battling lust one day and said "Well I must have been born to want to pursue many women, so this is who I am"?! (Don't you dare discriminate against me!)

And what angers me even more is, many homosexuals refuse to take responsibility for those they hurt because of their evil. It's like talking to a wall.

Romans 1 and 2.

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY!!!

2008-10-31T08:38:00.001-07:00

Readers,

Happy Reformation Day!

Today, on October 31st, 1517 (491 years ago today), our brother Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the castle church door in Wittenberg. This was not an uncommon thing; people did this all the time as a bulletin board or for academic debates. Dr. Luther had no idea what was about to happen.

The whole Western world would be changed.

The Pope commissioned John Tetzel to go around selling indulgences (which, although not as common, are still part of Roman Catholicism today). Indulgences were a way to pay to bring one's relative out of purgatory, or to buy time out of purgatory. It was said, "When money in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs."

The Pope needed the money to build St. Peter's Cathedral, so he made a special "plenary indulgence," one which said that one could completely skip purgatory and enter straight into heaven if they paid an indulgence.

Luther responded to this in his 95 Theses by saying, "If the Pope can empty purgatory, why wouldn't he just do it out of love, and not for money?".

Luther also stated in his 95 Theses, "the treasure of the church is not indulgences, but the holy gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I almost tear up as I type this. Praise God for such a brother as Martin Luther! Praise God that someone stood up against the tyrrany of the Roman Catholic Church, that apostate whore of Babylon.

God in His providence had also ordained that the printing press would have been invented; before he knew it, copies of his 95 Theses had been formulated and circulated all over Germany.

And this is not even half of the wonderful history. God used Luther to translate the Bible into German. Now people could read the Bible for themselves and see how off the mark Rome's interpretations are.

And most of all, Luther (and Calvin) read their Bibles and saw that the good news of the gospel is that God justifies the wicked!

Today, this Reformation Day, may God be pleased to cause us to meditate on the riches of Christ Jesus our Savior.

In Jesus' precious Name. Amen.

HAVE YOU SEEN CHRIST?

2008-10-08T08:33:00.000-07:00

The Lord Jesus Christ is on every page of Holy Scripture. But the gospel is so foreign to our law-oriented thinking, that it takes a miracle of sovereign grace to reveal the beauty of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Have you seen Jesus Christ? Have you seen Him with the eye of faith? Have you seen your own sinfulness with the eye of faith? Have you come to the point where you *know* that nothing within you, even with the help of God, can lead you to attain eternal salvation?

Have you come to the point where you know that God is holy and His standard is complete perfection? Have you seen that God cannot be holy if He were to grade on a curve?

Have you seen, with the eye of faith, that God has provided His perfect righteousness as a covering at the cross of Jesus Christ? Have you seen that it is God Who is *for* us if Christ is revealed to us?

Have you seen the friendly heart of Christ? Have you seen the Father revealed to us in the perfection of His Son?

O Christ, You are the perfect Lamb of God. You are the only One Who can save me. I confess that You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. You are the only Way to the Father. Apart from You, I am nothing. I praise You, Lord Jesus, for Your perfect work. I praise You for Your perfect fulfillment of the Law. I praise You for taking my penalty on the cross. I praise You for suffering the wrath of the Father, for me. I praise You that Your perfect work was accepted by the Father, and that He proved that by raising You from the dead. I praise You that You reign and will return for me. I praise You for keeping me. I praise You for loving me, the chief of sinners.

Lord Jesus, You are beautiful beyond comparison. Forgive me for my sinfulness and my sins. Let me serve You, O Lord, forever.

Make me more and more Your slave.

In Your precious Name, Jesus, my Messiah, Savior, Defender, Redeemer, Lord, and Friend.

Amen.

GOOD DEFENSE OF LIMITED ATONEMENT

2008-09-29T07:47:00.000-07:00

I found this online:

www.luthersstein.blogspot.com/2006/11/limited-atonement-for-whom-was-christ.html

Especially notice Piper's quote, which I think was helpful, and the blogger's defense of a Calvinist reading of Romans 5:17-19.

Great stuff!

THE BEAUTIFUL SIMPLICITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

2008-09-26T08:28:00.000-07:00

This morning, I am thankful for the simplicity that is in Christ.

Gracious Lord, thank You for revealing Who the Father is to us in Christ Your Son. Thank You that He has fulfilled all the righteous and terrifying demands of the Law. Thank You for the simplicity of the gospel. Thank You, Lord Jesus, Son of God, friend of sinners, for taking away my sins and completing the Law for me. Thank You for giving me Your Body and Blood in Your precious Table. Thank You for coming to me in Your Word preached. Thank You for bringing me into union with You by Your precious Holy Spirit. Thank You for granting us a church body that knows and loves You and Your people. Thank You for providing all my needs, especially my need of atonement and redemption. Thank You, Father, for adopting me, justifying me, regenerating me, sanctifying me, keeping me, and ultimately in advance I thank You for preserving me in the most holy faith by Your Holy Spirit.

Most Holy God, may Christ be displayed more and more in my life. Use me, O Lord, to bring the good news of the gospel to my fellow sinners.

In Christ's Name, and all the glory is Yours. Amen.

ISAIAH CALVIN'S COVENANT BAPTISM: MOVED TO SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2008

2008-09-18T10:18:00.000-07:00

Readers,

Please note that our fifth covenant child's baptism has been moved to September 28th, one week ahead of the original date.

The baptism will be taking place at the Oceanside United Reformed Church http://www.oceansideurc.org/ at the 11 AM service.

All are invited.

V-DAY MOVED

2008-09-09T08:49:00.000-07:00

Hello friends and family. Well we have moved V-day to September 19th because of some concerns in our family situation. At first I wanted the "no scalpel" one which was only available in October; but we decided it would be better to bear it out.

So, this is the time for the "last chances" as it were to give any counsel. I think the burden of proof is on those who would assert that birth control is sin because the Bible does not condemn it. I am open to any arguments any brothers or sisters on the other side have.

On all sides we would appreciate prayer.

Thank you brothers and sisters.

IT'S COMING . . .

2008-09-03T16:15:00.000-07:00

V-day. October 24th, 2008. 4 PM.

Obviously, our views on a lot of things have changed. Included in this is our views on birth control. (You probably realize by now that "V-day" means "vasectomy day.") We now believe that birth control (as long as there is not an abortion involved of course) is a matter of Christian liberty. I haven't heard any good arguments that it is *not* a Christian liberty; I *have* heard good arguments that it *is* a matter of Christian liberty.

However, I wanted to place this up on my blog and seek final counsel. Most of our friends so far have said "your quiver is full." Most have said that wisdom is involved.

As far as our family situation, we believe that this may be the wisest course of action. We wish to home school our children, and pregnancies are very difficult on my wife. So, we realize that, if we truly wish to homeschool our children, we can't "have our cake and eat it too," so to speak. So, either we *don't* homeschool our children and put them in a full-time charter school (and that is difficult because there is a waiting list), and perhaps consider having more children, or we *do* homeschool our children, but we would have to be done having children. Angela wouldn't be able to homeschool while her hip is almost out of joint and she is constantly throwing up in the toilet. The morning sickness hits her really bad.

As far as methods, we are not comfortable with hormonal methods (it messes with the body and may lead to future miscarriages; there is a slim chance of a spontaneous abortion). The only methods we are comfortable with are barrier methods--but do we really want to do that for years and years? We are scared to get pregnant any time in the near, and even late, future, because of our situation.

Finally, we wanted this public so we wouldn't have any regrets. We want to exhaust all counsel, from all sides, on this issue, because we recognize that there is no turning back should we decide to go through with it.

We appreciate any counsel and prayers.

I would like to open up the comments section of this post for any and all comments and counsel our readers and friends and family have.

AN OPEN INVITATION TO ISAIAH CALVIN'S COVENANT BAPTISM

2008-09-01T19:41:00.000-07:00

Readers,

You are all hereby invited to Isaiah Calvin's covenant baptism, which will be taking place at the Oceanside United Reformed Church (www.oceansideurc.org) on Sunday, the 21st of September, 2008.

Service is at 11 AM.

Celebration lunch at our house to follow.

ANNOUNCING THE BIRTH OF BABY ISAIAH CALVIN BRISBY!

2008-08-29T12:24:00.000-07:00

Please join us in welcoming into the world and into God's gracious covenant our fifth covenant child, Isaiah Calvin Brisby, born last Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, at 7:09 PM, and weighing in at 7 lbs. 15 ozs.!

He is sooooo adorable! The Lord is good!

We will let you all know when the baptism will be. Probably in the next couple of weeks.

THINGS I STILL BELIEVE

2008-08-11T12:52:00.000-07:00

Hello again readers. Sorry it's been a while--been busy.

As many of you know, in the past year(s) or so we have gone through several theological changes/transitions. As I reflect on these, I am thankful that the Lord has kept us.

In light of these, I look back on the past 12 years I have been in the Reformed faith. By God's grace, there are several things which I have remained unwavering in my commitment to. Yet, it is not I that has kept me here--it is God and His power and His sovereign Word. I wanted to discuss why I remain unswerving in my commitment to the following.
________________________
THINGS I STILL BELIEVE
______________________

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. In the past 12 years, the Lord has continued to show me my own sinfulness. It is by His grace that He has shown me the darkness of my heart. He has revealed to me Christ, hanging there, bleeding for me (yes, even me) on the cross. I know that my works can contribute nothing but sin to my salvation. Galatians is clear that the Law is not based on faith. I still vehemently oppose the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives on Paul as contrary to the gospel message. I am beginning to understand more and more the importance of the *dichotomy* between Law and Gospel, and the importance of recognizing whether a text is Law or Gospel. I have even lost friends over this glorious gospel.

I don't like losing friends, but here is where we *must* take our stand. We *must* draw lines in the sand here. Indeed, I still believe, and by God's grace always will believe, that justification by faith alone is indeed the article on which the church stands or falls. It is the door which swings open to the church and shuts out of the church. Anyone who denies this gospel I do not count as my brother. Anyone who would add to this gospel and say "justification by faith alone? Yes, but..." I do not count as my brother. Their souls are in danger of putrid self-righteousness adding to the finished work of Christ. There is just not good news (Greek euangellion--gospel) in Rome, Constantinople, Salt Lake City, or in other similar places. I *need* the gospel. I *need* good news.

May the Lord be pleased to keep me in this glorious gospel.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY. I am completely convinced that man is *dead* in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1-10), and that he *cannot* even lift a finger toward God's grace (John 6:44ff). Man is not able to "cooperate" with God in regeneration. Indeed, God is the One Who makes born again--the flesh profits nothing. Indeed, apart from grace, all man can do is sin (Romans 8:7-8). Furthermore, I know this to be true by experience, because even after one has been born again, he still sins constantly. Indeed, it is not in the nature of the lion to eat vegetables. The lion will never choose the veggies. The lion needs to be turned into a lamb to eat the vegetables.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION. I remain convinced that God has chosen a multitude no man can number based completely upon His sovereign good pleasure. This was not because God looked down the corridor of time to see who would "choose" Him--no one would! I continue to remain convinced as well that God has decreed all things (Lam. 3:37-38; Eph 1:11), and that He has even a purpose in ordaining the wicked's destruction (double predestination--Pr 16:4, etc.). I take comfort knowing that the Great Governor has chosen to pardon some, as we are all on death row and already condemned, but the chosen ones receive mercy.

LIMITED ATONEMENT. I have trouble understanding how people can say that Christ "died for" in the same sense as "atoned for" all of the sins of all mankind. In fact, it is once again terrible news to me if Christ died for the sins of all who have ever lived, including those already in hell at the time of His death on the cross. This smacks of works-righteousness to me and makes a mockery out of the death of Christ. An atonement is exactly that: an atonement, a taking away of sin (expiation) and a turning aside of wrath (propitiation).

Once when I was at Taco Bell, I got a sticker that said "REDEEM for one free taco." So, I went to the counter up front to "redeem" it. What do you think I expected to get back? Nothing? A burrito? A Meximelt? Do you think I expected the workers up front to tell me "actually this is only good to be redeemed *if* you believe we'll give it to you" or "if you give us just a penny, then we'll give you the taco." Of course not. A redemption is exactly that: an actual redemption.

Furthermore, if Jesus died for the sins of Peter *in the same way* that He died for the sins of Judas, then we are all in trouble. What guarantee would we have that Jesus will intercede for us, pray for us, and keep us until the end by His Holy Spirit? Is He Judas' priest too? No. I take comfort in the fact that Jesus died for Peter, and He did NOT die for Judas. This means He is committed to His elect.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. When God has appointed the time for His elect to come to Him, then they will most willingly come. I certainly don't see any "free will" in the case of Paul's conversion (see Acts 9). Instead, I see God saving by His power. I see Him giving a new nature. We were by nature children of wrath, but in the day of His power, He looked at the dry bones and said "Live!". Hallelujah!

PERSEVERANCE/PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS. Here is an area where I can say I am extremely comforted. I take joy knowing that God will keep all those who are His. How do I know I am one of His? If I have come to Jesus. He promises He will not cast me out. Have I come to Jesus? What is it to come to Him? "Come to Me, all you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." Our Lord tells us what it is to come to Him. It is to *rest* in Him, to rest in His works, His keeping of the Law, His righteousness. I believe that, by His grace, because He caused me to, because He revealed Himself to me, I indeed have come to Him. And I take comfort to know that He will preserve me in the faith forever.

Yes, this is one reason why I am not attracted to Lutheranism. Although I appreciate Lutheranism in its emphasis on keeping Law and Gospel distinct, I find it amazing that our Lutheran brothers and sisters have no problem saying that a truly born again believer can fall away from grace and lose their salvation. This flies in the face of Scripture which says that "you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable." And "those born of God cannot go on sinning, for the seed of God remains in them."

Indeed, there is just not enough of the gospel present in Lutheranism. But the above five points are all gospel to me. I understand completely why Charles Spurgeon would say "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
__________________________

So that, my friends, is what I still believe, and what I have believed. I believe in the good news of the gospel, and I believe in the good news of sovereign grace. May the Lord open all our eyes more and more to these glorious truths!

REMINDER: OPEN INVITATION TO OUR CHILDREN'S COVENANT BAPTISMS

2008-07-25T07:30:00.000-07:00

Readers,

Just a final reminder that all are invited to our children's covenant baptisms, taking place this Lord's Day at the Oceanside United Reformed Church ( www.oceansideurc.org ). Our four children, Gabriel, Aaron, Emmie, and Owen, will all be receiving the sign of God's gracious covenant in only two days! We are so excited!

Also, come and celebrate with us afterwards at our house. Directions and info will be in the church bulletin this Lord's Day.

Praises to our gracious Lord of the covenant!

"THE DARK KNIGHT": EXTREMELY DISTURBING

2008-07-21T17:21:00.000-07:00

I am convinced the role of The Joker killed Heath Ledger.

I just saw "The Dark Knight" with my friend last Saturday. All I can say is, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen.

And I will never watch it again.

Friends and readers, "The Dark Knight" is also one of the most, if not the most, disturbing films I have ever seen. Why is this?

The movie gives us a direct peek into the sin nature. The Joker is a sadistic mass-murderer, and one who revels in it.

Besides the gore (and especially the disgusting gore of even looking at the face of the character "Two-Face"), what disturbed me the most about the movie was that the utter sinfulness of the sin nature cannot be put into words.

I literally lost sleep over this movie. I can't express how intensely disturbing the film was.

Would I recommend my readers to see this movie? That, of course, is up to you. I will not allow my wife to see it. This movie is not for the faint of heart.

The sin nature is so vile that we don't even understand it. The scary thing to me is that we are all Jokers.

Lord, save me from myself.

AN OPEN INVITATION TO OUR CHILDRENS' BAPTISMS

2008-07-09T20:47:00.000-07:00

Readers,

Praise to the God of covenant mercies! Angela and I wish to cordially invite you all to our covenant childrens' baptisms taking place at the Oceanside United Reformed Church (www.oceansideurc.org) on Sunday, July 27th, 2008.

On that day, not only will Angela and I become members of the United Reformed Church, but our pastor will be giving our children the sign of God's covenant. God's covenant sign will be given to:

Gabriel, age 4 (age 5 on August 2nd!)
Aaron, age 3
Rebekah Emerald, age 2
Owen, age 1

There will be a potluck to celebrate at our house afterwards. All are cordially invited to that as well.

Praise God for His covenant promises!

O covenant-keeping God of the promise, I praise You for Your mercies in Christ. I praise You, O Jehovah, that You make covenant with those who trust in You, and with their children. Thank You for giving us this visible token of Your promise, the sacrament of baptism. I pray, O Lord, that by Your grace, Angela and I would instruct our children in the faith and that they would grow up in their baptisms, never knowing a day in which they did not know You. Thank You, Lord, that You call them Your own. Thank You that You regard them as clean and holy. Thank You, O Lord, for granting them the kingdom. May the Name of Christ be praised. Receive all the praise and all the glory at this covenant ceremony to come. In the Name of Christ our Savior I pray. Amen.

ROOM FOR RENT

2008-06-22T21:05:00.000-07:00

We are making available a room for rent in our house. The room is good size, fully furnished with bed, shelf space for books, office desks, and a window and closet. The renter will have free utilities and will have their own bathroom designated for them. They will also have their own shelf space in our refrigerator and pantry. They will furthermore have full access to our washer and dryer.

The renter must be a Christian in good standing with their local church. Reformed Christian is preferred.

Please let anyone interested know about this as well.

Any interested parties may contact me at jbrisby@classicalacademy.com .

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SIMPLICITY IN LIFE?

2008-06-12T19:39:00.000-07:00

Do you remember when you were a kid? When you had no worries about bills, budgets, finances, weight loss, which church to join, etc., etc., etc.?

I have been very stressed out lately thinking about our financial situation and our church situation. By God's grace, we are looking into membership at the Oceanside United Reformed Church. (We need weekly Table. We tried otherwise but just couldn't.) However, today I realized that our former church is having their annual family camp even as I type this. If we were still Baptists, chances are we would be there right there with them, fellowshipping and enjoying each other.

I know that we will grow in our new church. But it's because of our theological transition on the proper subjects of baptism that I have to be saddened by this.

Today, also, I did a budget and I realized that I am not making near enough at my current job to pay the bills. But I know I love my job there. I know the Lord will provide somehow. I have thought of looking into a second job. I don't want to change jobs. I love working at my job. I wouldn't trade it for the world.

I remembered today when I was a kid and didn't have to worry about all this stuff. I wanted to go back. But I know I can't go back. I'm 31 and a father of five children and a wife who all need me.

But then I realized something that made me tear up happily. My children are happy. They have not a care in the world. And it's because I have cares and budgets and finances and decisions to make, and they don't, that they are so happy.

And it hit me further. The reason I had not a care in the world when I was a kid was because my dad took those cares on himself. He had those cares so I didn't have to.

As long as my children are happy and have not a care in the world, I am happy.

Where did all the simplicity in life go?

It passed on to my kids.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

LAW AND GOSPEL

2008-06-06T08:57:00.000-07:00

Readers and Friends of The Reformed Oasis:

The following article by Michael Horton is probably the best article I have read for a good introduction to Law and Gospel. I hope you are encouraged as you read it!
__________________________

The Law & The Gospel

by Michael S. Horton© 1996 The White Horse Inn

In order to recover the sufficiency of Scripture we must once again learn to distinguish the Law and the Gospel as the "two words" of Scripture. For the Reformers, it was not enough to believe in inerrancy. Since Rome also had a high view of Scripture in theory, the Reformers were not criticizing the church for denying its divine character. Rather, they argued that Rome subverted its high view of Scripture by the addition of other words and by failing to read and proclaim Scripture according to its most obvious sense.

At the heart of the reformation's hermeneutics was the distinction between "Law" and "Gospel." For the Reformers, this was not equivalent to "Old Testament" and "New Testament;" rather, it meant, in the words of Theodore Beza, "We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings." The Law "is written by nature in our hearts," while "What we call the Gospel (Good News) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Mt. 16:17; John 1:13)." The Law leads us to Christ in the Gospel by condemning us and causing us to despair of our own "righteousness." "Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel," Beza wrote, "is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity."1

Luther made this hermeneutic central, but both traditions of the Protestant Reformation jointly affirm this key distinction. In much of medieval preaching, the Law and Gospel were so confused that the "Good News" seemed to be that Jesus was a "kinder, gentler Moses," who softened the Law into easier exhortations, such as loving God and neighbor from the heart. The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that the Gospel was simply an easier "law" than that of the Old Testament. Instead of following a lot of rules, God expects only love and heartfelt surrender. Calvin replied, "As if we could think of anything more difficult than to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our strength! Compared with this law, everything could be considered easy...[For] the law cannot do anything else than to accuse and blame all to a man, to convict, and, as it were, apprehend them; in fine, to condemn them in God's judgment: that God alone may justify, that all flesh may keep silence before him."2 Thus, Calvin observes, Rome could only see the Gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is "a compensation for their lack," not realizing that the Law requires perfection, not approximation.3

Of course, no one claims to have arrived at perfection, and yet, Calvin says many do claim "to have yielded completely to God, [claiming that] they have kept the law in part and are, in respect to this part, righteous."4 Only the terror of the Law can shake us of this self-confidence. Thus, the Law condemns and drives us to Christ, so that the Gospel can comfort without any threats or exhortations that might lead to doubt. In one of his earliest writings, Calvin defended this evangelical distinction between Law and Gospel:All this will readily be understood by describing the Law and describing the Gospel and then comparing them. Therefore, the Gospel is the message, the salvation-bringing proclamation concerning Christ that he was sent by God the Father...to procure eternal life. The Law is contained in precepts, it threatens, it burdens, it promises no goodwill. The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. Let whoever therefore is desirous of having a plain and honest understanding of the Gospel, test everything by the above descriptions of the Law and the Gospel. Those who do not follow this method of treatment will never be adequately versed in the Philosophy of Christ.5

While the Law continues to guide the believer in the Christian life, Calvin insists that it can never be confused with the Good News. Even after conversion, the believer is in desperate need of the Gospel because he reads the commands, exhortations, threats, and warnings of the Law and often wavers in his certain confidence because he does not see in himself this righteousness that is required. Am I really surrendered? Have I truly yielded in every area of my life? What if I have not experienced the same things that other Christians regard as normative? Do I really possess the Holy Spirit? What if I fall into serious sin? These are questions that we all face in our own lives. What will restore our peace and hope in the face of such questions? The Reformers, with the prophets and apostles, were convinced that only the Gospel could bring such comfort to the struggling Christian.

Without this constant emphasis in preaching, one can never truly worship or serve God in liberty, for his gaze will always be fastened on himself--either in despair or self-righteousness--rather than on Christ. Law and Gospel must both ever be preached, both for conviction and instruction, but the conscience will never rest, Calvin says, so long as Gospel is mixed with Law. "Consequently, this Gospel does not impose any commands, but rather reveals God's goodness, his mercy and his benefits."6 This distinction, Calvin says with Luther and the other Reformers, marks the difference between Christianity and paganism: "All who deny this turn the whole of the Gospel upside down; they utterly bury Christ, and destroy all true worship of God."7

Ursinus, primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said that the Law-Gospel distinction has "comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures," are "the chief and general divisions of the holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein."8 To confuse them is to corrupt the Faith at its core.9 While the Law must be preached as divine instruction for the Christian life, it must never be used to shake believers from the confidence that Christ is their "righteousness, holiness and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). The believer goes to the Law and loves that Law for its divine wisdom, for it reveals the will of the One to whom we are now reconciled by the Gospel. But the believer cannot find pardon, mercy, victory, or even the power to obey it, by going to the Law itself any more after his conversion than before. It is still always the Law that commands and the Gospel that gives. This is why every sermon must be carefully crafted on this foundational distinction.

As he watched the Baptist Church in England give way to moralism in the so-called "Down-grade Controversy," Charles Spurgeon declared, "There is no point on which men make greater mistakes than on the relation which exists between the law and the gospel. Some men put the law instead of the gospel; others put gospel instead of the law. A certain class maintains that the law and the gospel are mixed...These men understand not the truth and are false teachers."10

In our day, these categories are once again confused in even the most conservative churches. Even where the categories of psychology, marketing and politics do not replace those of Law and Gospel, much of evangelical preaching today softens the Law and confuses the Gospel with exhortations, often leaving people with the impression that God does not expect the perfect righteousness prescribed in the Law, but a generally good heart and attitude and avoidance of major sins. A gentle moralism prevails in much of evangelical preaching today and one rarely hears the Law preached as God's condemnation and wrath, but as helpful suggestions for a more fulfilled life. In the place of God's Law, helpful tips for practical living are often offered. (In one large conservative church in which I preached recently, the sermon was identified in the program as "Lifestyle Perspectives." Only occasionally was one reminded that it was a church service and not a Rotary meeting.) The piety and faith of the biblical characters are often preached as examples to imitate, along with Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. As in Protestant liberalism, such preaching often fails to hold Christ forth as the divine savior of sinners, but instead as the coach whose play-book will show us how to achieve victory.

Sometimes it is due less to conviction than to a lack of precision. For instance, we often hear calls to "live the Gospel," and yet, nowhere in Scripture are we called to "live the Gospel." Instead, we are told to believe the Gospel and obey the Law, receiving God's favor from the one and God's guidance from the other. The Gospel--or Good News--is not that God will help us achieve his favor with his help, but that someone else lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. Others confuse the Law and Gospel by replacing the demands of the Law with the simple command to "surrender all" or "make Jesus Lord and Savior," as if this one little work secured eternal life. Earlier this century, J. Gresham Machen declared, "According to modern liberalism, faith is essentially the same as 'making Christ master' of one's life...But that simply means that salvation is thought to be obtained by our obedience to the commands of Christ. Such teaching is just a sublimated form of legalism."11 In another work, Machen added, What good does it do to me to tell me that the type of religion presented in the Bible is a very fine type of religion and that the thing for me to do is just to start practicing that type of religion now?...I will tell you, my friend. It does me not one tiniest little bit of good...What I need first of all is not exhortation, but a gospel, not directions for saving myself but knowledge of how God has saved me. Have you any good news? That is the question that I ask of you. I know your exhortations will not help me. But if anything has been done to save me, will you not tell me the facts?12

Does that mean that the Word of God does not command our obedience or that such obedience is optional? Certainly not! But it does mean that obedience must not be confused with the Gospel. Our best obedience is corrupted, so how could that be good news? The Gospel is that Christ was crucified for our sins and was raised for our justification. The Gospel produces new life, new experiences, and a new obedience, but too often we confuse the fruit or effects with the Gospel itself. Nothing that happens within us is, properly speaking, "Gospel," but it is the Gospel's effect. Paul instructs us, "Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ..." (Phil. 1:27). While the Gospel contains no commands or threats, the Law indeed does and the Christian is still obligated to both "words" he hears from the mouth of God. Like the Godhead or the two natures of Christ, we must neither divorce nor confuse Law and Gospel.

When the Law is softened into gentle promises and the Gospel is hardened into conditions and exhortations, the believer often finds himself in a deplorable state. For those who know their own hearts, preaching that tries to tone down the Law by assuring them that God looks on the heart comes as bad news, not good news: "The heart is deceitful above all things..." (Jer. 17:9). Many Christians have experienced the confusion of Law and Gospel in their diet, where the Gospel was free and unconditional when they became believers, but is now pushed into the background to make room for an almost exclusive emphasis on exhortations. Again, it is not that exhortations do not have their place, but they must never be confused with the Gospel and that Gospel of divine forgiveness is as important for sinful believers to hear as it is for unbelievers. Nor can we assume that believers ever progress beyond the stage where they need to hear the Gospel, as if the Good News ended at conversion. For, as Calvin said, "We are all partly unbelievers throughout our lives." We must constantly hear God's promise in order to counter the doubts and fears that are natural to us.

But there are many, especially in our narcissistic age, whose ignorance of the Law leads them into a carnal security. Thus, people often conclude that they are "safe and secure from all alarm" because they walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, or signed a card, even though they have never had to give up their own fig leaves in order to be clothed with the righteousness of the Lamb of God. Or perhaps, although they have not perfectly loved God and neighbor, they conclude that they are at least "yielded," "surrendered," or "letting the Spirit have his way"; that they are "living in victory over all known sin" and enjoying the "higher life." Deluding themselves and others, they need to be stripped of their fig leaves in order to be clothed with the skins of the Lamb of God. Thus, Machen writes,A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts--these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands. And they are undertaken because of a lax view of what those commands are. So it always is: a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace.13

We must, therefore, recover Law and Gospel, and with such preaching, the Christocentric message of Scripture, or no good will come of our work, regardless of how committed we are to inerrancy. We cannot say that we are preaching the Word of God unless we are distinctly and clearly proclaiming both God's judgment and his justification as the regular diet in our congregations. To recover Scripture's sufficiency we must therefore, like the Reformers, recover the distinctions between Law and Gospel.

NOTES:1 Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 40-1. Published first at Geneva in 1558 as the Confession de foi du chretien.2 Calvin, 2.7.5 -1536 Institutes, trans. by F. L. Battles (Eerdmans, 1975), 30-1; cf. 1559 Institutes 2.11.10.3 Calvin, 1559 Institutes, 3.14.13.4 Ibid.5 Battles edition of 1536 edition, op. cit., 365. Delivered by Nicolas Cop on his assumption of the rectorship of the University of Paris; there is a wide consensus among Calvin scholars that Calvin was the author.6 Ibid., p. 366.7 Ibid., p. 369.8 Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Presbyterian and Reformed, from Second American Edition, 1852), p. 2.9 Ibid, p. 2.10 Charles Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit, vol.1 (Pilgrim Publications, 1975), p. 285.11 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism (Erdmans, 1923), p. 143. 12 J. Gresham Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World (Macmillan, 1936), p. 57. 13 J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? (Macmillan, 1925), pp. 137, 139, 152.

THE LORD'S SUPPER: HOW OFTEN?

2008-05-30T00:57:00.000-07:00

Since the Lord's Table, or Eucharist, is a means of grace, and since we receive the true body and blood of Christ spiritually (see Calvin on this in his Institutes), I am surprised, even stunned, as to why most Reformed churches have the sacrament monthly.

I am not so surprised that the Zwinglians have it monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, or yearly. (Why not once a lifetime?) But nature determines frequency. I am even more stunned at those Reformed churches who agree with Calvin's view that the Eucharist is a real means of grace and that we receive the true body and blood of Christ spiritually, but yet they have it monthly. I have even heard some try to justify this by saying "since it's such a deep means of grace we shouldn't do it often." Again, this too is stunning to me.

We cannot argue against the established fact that the early church celebrated the sacrament weekly. Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 11 all indicate that the early church gathered for the purpose of enjoying the sacrament. The Reformers saw Word and Sacrament as interconnected. They saw the Sacrament as bare without the Word; and they saw the Word as bare without the sacrament. They saw the Sacrament as the visible Word of God. They saw it as the seal of the preached Word.

However, I agree that, just because the early church did something one way, it does not mean we have to do so. (We aren't necessarily supposed to greet one another with a holy kiss or have a community of goods today.)

But, having said that, since the Table is a means of grace, and since we receive the natural body and blood spiritually (as the Three Forms of Unity state), then why would someone not want the Body and Blood weekly?

The Church is the nurturing Mother of salvation. When we understand that she is the home and oasis of weak and weary pilgrims, weekly Lord's Table is a must.

It seems to me that churches that administer the sacrament less than weekly still indeed are like the nurturing mother of salvation, but is like a mother that gives her baby formula instead of breast milk. To her credit, she wants to take care of her baby, so she feeds the baby formula. But, she does not recognize the wonderful and sweet benefits of giving her baby breast milk.

It is no wonder Luther retained weekly Eucharist. I love Luther's emphasis on Law/Gospel. I love his emphasis on the theology of the cross, and that the Church is the home of weak and weary pilgrims. Is it any wonder, then, that Lutherans today have weekly Lord's Supper across the board? They correctly see the sacrament as a strengthening means of grace, as a gift from God to us. It is truly given for us.

We Reformed should learn from our Lutheran brothers.

A FORMER KUYPERIAN TESTIMONY

2008-05-27T17:00:00.000-07:00

I wrote this to a friend:
________________

As far as transforming the culture, I agree with what you said: gospel first. However, I think Kuyper's emphasis on transforming the culture very quickly can turn into a kind of Pharisaism. I am a testimony to this fact. And I think many evangelicals and Reformed folks are as well.

On the surface, Kuyper's idea of "there is not one single square inch of creation where the Lord Jesus does not say 'it is Mine'" sounds good. But the way it comes off I think is incorrect. It sees the natural order or the civil kingdom as essentially redemptive, instead of ruled by common grace/natural law. Natural law is quite akin to the covenant of works, so I think it is no surprise that many who deny the two kingdoms view end up with a social gospel and a kind of moralism. They conflate the covenants of works and grace, and they conflate justification by faith alone with justification by faithfulNESS alone.

I am truly beaten down by the Law. Indeed, we are told to strive, but this is the standard. The Law is a guide for sanctification, but only a guide. Only the gospel can truly sanctify. The Law will only rouse sin.

I found myself confessing sins to God and to Angela only so I could feel better about myself, and not because "against You and You only have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight." It was not a true love of neighbor, and it was not a true love of God. I was a Pharisee (and of course we all are in many ways).

I think the normal Christian life is one that keeps our sinfulness always at the forefront. The normal Christian life is Romans 7. Paul calls it the law of sin, and he says that when he wants to do good, evil is right there with him. A law is a norm. In Romans 8, he discusses our sufferings with Christ, which in context are our struggles with sin. And he dares to say that if you struggle with sin, ***that's because you are saved!*** Hallelujah!

This glorious gospel is foolishness to the world. You mean we are completely passive in our justification? You mean we do nothing? It is sovereign, free grace? Free? Amen! Yes, and Amen!

Kuyperianism, I think, is dangerous because it leads to a works-righteousness and does not see just how sinful we really are.

I am worn out by the Law. Give me the gospel! Give me more of Christ!

TRANSFORM THE CULTURE???

2008-05-24T08:02:00.000-07:00

The following is something I wrote to a friend of mine which gives a brief sketch as to why I am disallusioned with Kuyper's "transform the culture" approach. (I think even Kuyper recognized the error in this approach before he died.)
________________________________

I am disallusioned with "transform the culture" b/c I think it has led to numerous errors; although one cannot say "such-and-such leads to such-and-such," I have seen some of my friends who dabbled in theonomy end up in the Federal Vision camp; I have seen some of them embrace Eastern Orthodoxy; one of them has embraced Anglicanism and last I heard he was dabbling in Eastern Orthodoxy; I have gone to some of these guys' conferences and came away under the impression that all that was taking place was the social gospel, and I could go on.

To bring it to the point, the "transform the culture" approach seems to me to never deal with the heart. So we strive to make Christ Lord over every area of life and thought--but do we bind the consciences of unbelievers when we tell them to do this? God is interested in conquering people's hearts, not just their heads. If, by implementing biblical law, or whatever, someone changes a pagan homosexual to a pagan heterosexual, that may be good for society, but all we've done is just created another Pharisee. He may be hetero now, but he's still an unbeliever.

I've seen the "church" talk about outreach by building houses for orphans in Mexico; but that's all they did--they never preached them the gospel or anything. Now we have some comfortable, unbelieving orphans.

What is the greatest problem people have? It is that their hearts need to be changed. I think that the church today is not doing its job of being the church.What is the job of the church? To be the home of weary Christian pilgrims, and to strengthen them and protect them through Word, Sacrament, and prayer and preaching. The Church is like a nurturing mother, or should be. When we go to church, we should come away feeling refreshed, and not come away learning who to vote for or how to come down on the next moral issue in politics. The Church is other-worldly, not this-worldly.

It seems to me that, when one takes a "transform the culture" type approach, it will always inevitably lead to a kind of moralism. I don't think it's a surprise at all that evangelicalism is moralistic to the core. It's rare to find the gospel preached in evangelicalism. Most of the time it becomes a list of do's and don'ts that Scripture never prescribes. It becomes man-made rules.

Likewise, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Reformed folks who have dabbled in theonomy and Kuyperianism started getting away from the simplicity of the gospel and started getting into the social gospel. For example, I was at a conference a couple of years ago at one of Bahnsen's flagships. In this conference, it talked about showing movies from a Christian perspective to "take back the culture." It showed a brief clip of a movie by Tony Campolo (yes, Tonly Campolo of all people) in which the plot was that a young Christian threw a birthday party for a prostitute. Then they prayed for her at the end. After the movie, the audience and speakers discussed the movie and they called what the young man did for the prostitute "the gospel." They said he was practicing "the gospel"! One of my friends raised his hand and challenged this and he got his head chewed off. Afterwards, I came away from that conference feeling like I had just attended an evangelical (not a Reformed) conference. Furthermore, my friend's wife made an excellent point. If what that Christian young man did was "the gospel", how is that not any different than Angelina Jolee and Brad Pitt adopting orphans? Are Jolee and Pitt practicing "the gospel"?? Well, they may be practicing the social gospel, but not the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

That, in a nutshell, is why I am so disallusioned with Kuyperianism. It is not the Church's job to transform the culture. Furthermore, this seems to have a low view of common grace. In fact, R.J. Rushdoony said that common grace needed to be abandoned as a "bastard system." I don't think that's a coincidence either. His "transform the culture by biblical law" approach made him a moralist. He had no appreciation for common grace.

In the real world, we live with unbelievers all around us. This is why I appreciate the two kingdoms approach (although I'm still studying it), which says that God rules the kingdom of the left hand, or the civil kingdom, through natural law, and He rules the kingdom of the right hand, or the Church, through Word, Sacrament, and discipline. I find this approach to be Scriptural for numerous reasons, at least prima facie. I plan on doing a post or posts on this in the future.

Sorry to ramble on, but that is a sketch of where I am.

PRAY FOR STEVEN CURTIS CHAPMAN

2008-05-22T07:39:00.000-07:00

Please pray for CCM singer Steven Curtis Chapman. I just found out that his 5-year-old adopted daughter from China, named Maria, was struck by a motor vehicle. One of Chapman's sons was the driver. It happened in their driveway, and some of the family even saw the accident.

I can't imagine what it would be like to witness my own daughter getting run over by my own son. I also can't imagine what it would be like to live my life knowing that, even though it was an accident, I was the one responsible for a family member's death.

This hits home for me. Steven Curtis Chapman, although more evangelical than my taste would like, was very influential during my evangelical years. We would listen to his music on mission trips and in youth group.

It must be a terrible time for the Chapman's right now. Please lift them up in your prayers. Pray that they would rest in the comfort of Christ and in knowing that God ordained this for their good, and that they would know that their Heavenly Father loves them and cares for them.

Heavenly Father, Triune God, Majestic King of the Universe, I lift up the Chapman family to You right now. O Lord, truly You are the Sovereign Lord, the One Who ordains all things. In Your wise providence, O God, You have ordained this terrible event to happen. But we know O Lord that all things work for the good of those who love You, who have been called according to Your purpose. I pray, gracious Lord, that You would keep the Chapman family during this time. I pray that they would grow much closer to You in Your grace, that they would know that You love them, and that You care for them. Please be their very present help in this, their time of need; please be their comfort and their joy. Please cause them to see the beauty of Christ, Who is familiar with all their sufferings. May they grow in understanding the deep, deep love of Jesus. Surround them with Your love O God, so they would know how much they are kept by the power of Your grace. Preserve them, O Lord. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the Great and Undivided Trinity, I lift this prayer to You. Amen.

EATING CROW AGAIN: A THEOLOGICAL MAKEOVER

2008-05-19T12:49:00.000-07:00

Hello readers. As many of you know, very recently we have had to "eat crow" and admit we were (we think) wrong on the doctrine of baptism. We embraced covenantal infant baptism, and of course it has been very practical for us.

But the Lord has a sense of humor. Lately, I have had to rethink a lot of where I have been on Reformed issues. By God's grace, He will keep me in the Reformed faith. However, lately I have had a kind of makeover of my Reformed theology.

Not the least of which below is what I have had to take a look at (again) and restudy all over again:

*The covenant of grace. I am not so sure the John Murray view is in line with Scripture; although Murray was a wonderful man of God, and he did uphold the imputation of active obedience, his denial of the covenant of works opened the doorway to the Federal Vision heresies. I am looking into a Meredith Kline approach.

*Two Kingdoms and Natural Law. The above has also paved way for me to become disallusioned with a Kuyperian "transform the culture" type approach which is so prevalent in Reformed thought. I am considering two kingdoms and natural law as I rethink my ethic.

*Is Postmillennialism True? The above had me relook as well at my eschatology and reconsider whether postmil is true or not. I think I had been interpreting various prophecies in a wooden-literal fashion, almost like dispensationalism. This caused me (along with my disallusionment of "transform the culture") to reconsider amillennialism.

*The Regulative Principle. I just ordered R.C. Sproul's book on worship, as well as D.G. Hart's. Where do we find the idea of the RPW in the NT? It seems to me that we find descriptive aspects of the church, but not prescriptive. More on this later.

*Liturgy. I am reading D.G. Hart's book Recovering Mother Kirk: The Case for Liturgy in Reformed Worship and I find it very beneficial. Many consider liturgy "dead orthodoxy," but is it really that? More on this later as well.

I have to go now, but I just wanted to ask you readers to pray for our spiritual journeys. Most of all, may Christ be exalted in all our studies.

A DOSE OF MY OWN MEDICINE

2008-04-24T14:28:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I saw rage in my own heart.

My family and I were at my children's karate class. As the kids were waiting in line to practice some kicking moves, my son Gabriel, who is autistic, was showing the girl in front of him what it's like for a duck to quack. The girl's father mistook that as Gabriel spitting on her. He said to my wife in a rude way, "You wanna keep your son in check? He's spittin' on my daughter! That's rude!". My wife spoke with Gabriel. I didn't hear the rest of the conversation, but she apologized to the man, mentioning that Gabriel is autistic and he doesn't know any better. "Apparently not!", the man said.

I had Gabriel go and apologize to the little girl, and the man said "Look he's doing it again!". My wife and the man's wife told him correctly that Gabe was just apologizing. "Oh," the man said.

I was already upset with the guy. But on our way home, my wife was in tears. This made me want to literally beat the guy to a bloody pulp.

But, praise be to God, the God of all mercy, that I spoke with one of my brothers in the Lord on the phone about this today. This brother, before the Lord saved him, used to get in fights a lot and even did underground fights.

"I don't fight anymore," my friend told me.

"But when is it OK to fight as Christians?", I asked. "When someone is physically attacking you or your family," my friend replied.

"But he verbally abused my wife!", I mentioned. But my friend quickly and rightly responded that I was idolizing my wife. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Lord Jesus was reviled and despised of men. He was called names, and even spat upon.

Our Lord never retaliated. He turned the other cheek.

That man will be there probably during the next time my kids have karate. Nothing needs to be done or said. What do I do if he speaks rudely again? I tell him that we are adults, and that being rude is not becoming of us.

If he wants to fight, I tell him that we are not in high school, and that I don't fight.

A DOSE OF MY OWN MEDICINE

You see, I had been spending all this time mortifying only a few sins in my life, putting all my energy in killing them particularly. But my friend gave me a good analogy. What would happen if a military at war spent all their power with their front flank only? They would get attacked from the rear. That is why they have rear guard as well. They protect themselves on all sides.

This is how we must mortify sin. If we only battle a few sins, the flesh and the enemy will attack us in other sins.

Indeed, we must kill all sins. We are at war.

Yesterday, I saw rage in my heart that I thought was never there. I got a dose of my own medicine.

All praises to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

THE FUNNY "UNITY" OF THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCHES

2008-04-20T17:06:00.000-07:00

I thought this post would just speak for itself:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351883,00.html

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 9: READER Q & A

2008-04-11T13:28:00.000-07:00

Thanks again to Jay Dyer for a good debate.

We now open the floor to you, our blog readers, to direct questions to me (Protestant) or to Jay (Orthodox).

While the questions are being asked, please help us out by *not* interacting with other readers, but by keeping the questions directed to me or to Jay.

When the questions have subsided after a while, then the Q & A will close.

We now turn the floor to you, our readers, to direct questions to either me or Jay.

MY DIET: ALL DONE!!!

2008-04-10T07:02:00.000-07:00

The Lord has been good to me. The most I ever weighed in my life was 278. My wife used to be so worried about me. Something clicked. I said to myself, "No more, Josh."

After my 5-month liquid diet, I now weigh 200 even!

The lowest I weighed on this diet was 197, but I did a bit o' cheatin'. :0)

So, do pray for me, because now, the real test begins.

Will I keep it off?

Only time will tell.

This is a life-long battle, just like sanctification.

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 8: JAY DYER'S CLOSING STATEMENT

2008-04-06T22:55:00.000-07:00

Jay Dyer's closing statement is up. Use the link below and click on part 8. Since it was fairly long, Jay had to cut it short. I will refer my readers to his finished portion when it is up as well. Part 9, the Q & A for our readers, will take place on my blog this week sometime.

Thank you Jay for a good and intellectually-stimulating debate.

Here is the link for all parts of the debate:

http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/03/all-parts-of-th.html

PARADOX IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

2008-04-02T21:22:00.000-07:00

My friend Paul Manata recently reviewed an excellent book which I think will be very useful to the Christian community: James Anderson's Paradox In Christian Theology. Anderson argues that in the history of the church, the heretics have always either gone too far with logic to the expense of mystery, or too far with mystery to the expense of logic. He argues for what constitutes a biblical paradox. Many Christians do not like or even think there is paradox in Scripture. Anderson makes a great case that both the Trinity and the Incarnation are indeed paradoxes.

You can read my friend's review by clicking on the link below:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/paradox-in-christian-theology.html

CHURCH SEARCH UPDATE

2008-04-01T11:25:00.000-07:00

Hello all. Angela and I are in the process of "courting" the Escondido Orthodox Presbyterian Church ( http://www.escondidoopc.org/ ). If all works out, we will be seeking membership there. One of our elders at Grace Bible Church suggested giving it a couple of months. I think this is good advice.

So far, all is working well. I hope that it works out. Angela and I are burnt out from all of this. However, the light is dawning and the pain is slowly subsiding. The difficulty of course will be the official dissolution of membership at our Reformed Baptist church, but we need to do what we think is best according to our conscience.

Please continue to pray for us. We will continue to keep you all updated.

MY DIET: LAST DAY THIS APRIL 9TH!!!

2008-03-29T21:58:00.000-07:00

Readers,

Thanks to all who have been praying for me about my diet. I wanted to inform you all that it has been going well. My last day of my diet is April 9th, so just around the corner!

On April the 10th, I will reveal to all publicly on this blog how much I weigh on that day, according to my bathroom scale. When I started this diet, my bathroom scale said 272 (yikes!).

Not anymore. The Lord has been good to me, and to us. Please pray that I would stick with it for the remaining days through April the 9th.

The main event will be held on my blog on April the 10th!

WHY I AM A CREDO-COMMUNIONIST

2008-03-25T21:35:00.000-07:00

Hello again all those who enjoy drinking here at The Reformed Oasis!

With our recent transition into paedobaptism, a few have asked me whether we embrace paedocommunion. I have told them no, for the main reasons that (1) children did not partake of the Passover, and (2) children cannot examine themselves in the way Paul mentions in 1 Co 11.

One must of course do their own research on these two assertions I listed above, but I have personally found the arguments for paedocommunion extremely weak, and many times downright sentimental.

I thought I would include an article from a website that I thought was a good summary and a quick read, and with excellent proofs for the Reformed position of credo-communion. I think it also demonstrates that Reformed theology is NOT being inconsistent by believing in baptizing covenant children while granting access to the Table during later years.

The article follows below. I also recommend Kenneth Gentry, Brian Schwertly, and especially Francis Nigel Lee's articles on the subject of anti-paedocommunion/credo-communion.
__________________________

In Reformed circles there are different positions on peadocommunion. There is the “pro” (P-PC) and the “anti” (A-PC) positions. Ra McLaughlin, a trusted and scholarly theologian at IIIM, endorses the “Pro” position (see link below) and I personally endorse the “Anti” position (Third Millennium Ministries' official position). Why do I endorse the A-PC position?

1. 1 Corinthians 11:28-29.

A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The first reason I endorse A-PC is Paul’s reasoning above. Infants and smaller children, not instructed in the Lord, cannot “examine themselves” or properly “recognize the body of the Lord.” Though this qualification was not specifically mentioned by the Lord “verbally” at his institution of the Supper, it was by “example” as the Bible holds that only thirteen adults were present (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17). Moreover, though this requirement was not mentioned by Christ himself it is given to us by Paul who was taught by the revelation of Christ (Gal. 1:12). The P-PC position states in numerous ways that 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 was written “only” to adults and “only” to the Corinthians. However, church history records that the church letters were read from church to church (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of the New Testament, etc.) and the reasoning that 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 was “only” meant for adults does not stand up under the further scrutiny of Paul’s letters. Least we forget, infants and children are to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1) and they are to be raised with the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) - part of this training and instruction would be 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 and thus Paul’s argument is for the entire visible church (including infants and children) and not just the Corinthians or only adults.

2. Covenant Inclusion, Element Exclusion.

The second reason I endorse the A-PC position is that there would not biblically be any in drunken diapers present at the Meal (Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 10:7; 11:21; Gal. 5:21; 1 Thess. 5:7). In other words, drunkenness by infants, young children, and adults would not be tolerated by the Lord or Paul at the Meal (or any other time)! The Lord’s Supper is based upon the Passover Meal.

During Passover, each Jew is obligated to drink four cups of wine at specific times during each Seder (i.e. order): the first at the start of the Seder, following Kiddush; the second before the meal, after reciting the Haggadah story; the third following the Grace after the Meal; and the last after completing Psalms of Praise (Hallel). The Four Cups represent the four expressions of deliverance promised by God (Ex. 6:6-7), "I will bring out," "I will deliver," "I will redeem," and "I will take." At times a fifth cup was added symbolizing Elijah the Prophet. How would “infants” and “children” react under such a volume of wine? Historically, The Babylonian Talmud states concerning the Passover Meal,
....Nor shall a person have less than four cups of wine.....Rabhina, however, said: "At all events, the four cups cannot be conjoined, for each one represents a different duty."This also corresponds to what happened during Christ’s institution of the Meal. In the New Testament synoptics, we find reference to the First Cup, also known as the Cup of Blessing (Luke 22:17); to the breaking of the matzoh (Luke 22:19); to the Third Cup, the Cup of Redemption (Luke 22:20): to reclining (Luke 22:14): to the charoseth or the maror (Matt. 26:23f), and to the Hallel (Matt. 26:30).Moreover, The Babylonian Talmud makes some more significant statements concerning our understanding of the Meal and children,
R. Jehudah, said: "What benefit would children derive from wine? They should rather be given nuts, parched corn, etc., on the eve of Passover, so as to keep them awake at night, and that may make them inquire into the reason of the festivity." It was said of R. Aqiba, that he would deal out nuts and parched corn on the eve of Passover to the children, in order to keep them awake and have them ask for reasons. Boraitha, R. Eliezer said: On the night of the Passover the unleavened bread is snatched out of the children's hand in order to keep them awake and have them ask for the reason. This is momentous. Above, we see “covenant inclusion,” but “element exclusion” (just as we should have today). Since infants and children are part of the covenant they should “participate” in the Meal (by asking questions, etc.), however they should not “partake” of the elements. The children’s participation (covenant inclusion) in the Passover Meal was to ask questions [though not the topic of this question, the wife's inclusion could be seen in the prepartion of the meal]. For instance the youngest child would ask, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" After the asking of a specific question, the main portion of the Seder, Magid, would give the answers in the form of a historical review. At different points in the Seder, the leader of the Seder will cover the matzot and lift his cup of wine; then put down the cup of wine and uncover the matzot — all to elicit questions from the children. [information gathered from The Shalom Center]. This is also consistent with the teaching in the New Testament that children should be raised with the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).Since drunkenness is a sin at the Meal (1 Cor. 11:21), the children, even according to Jewish Passover custom, would not have “partaken” of the elements, though they would have “participated” in the meal in another way!While I believe that many churches should reconsider how to structure their communion meal – to include instruction for children – I do not believe they should be restructured to the point of allowing children to partake of the meal. Covenant participation in the meal does not absolutely mean partaking of the elements.

3. Census of Men and Lambs.

The third reason I prefer the A-PC position is seen in the way Israelites prepared for the Passover Meal as a nation. Though Passover began as a family celebration it developed into a national celebration. In this national celebration adult males went to Jerusalem, children were what we call catechized, (Deut. 16:2), and the numbering of Israel was taking place (Ex. 12:26-27, 21). Only the Israelite males were commanded to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The census included males 20 years of age (Num. 20:1) and those that had been properly catechized (Prov. 22:6) and were at least 12 years of age (Luke 2:40-41). Though there is not an actual record of Jesus’ participation at twelve years of age in the Passover Meal (Luke 2:40 ff) the text does say that he, "waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him" (Luke 2:40) and thus he was eligible for the Passover and thus the reason he would have accompanied his parents on this particular pilgrimage (please note the text says that his parents went to the feast “every year,” but only records Christ coming in his 12th year). Please also note the detail John goes into in John 6 in Jews traveling for the Passover (John 6:4) and the fact he specifically mentioned a “lad”(John 6:9) that by definition (paidarion Friberg, Thayer, and BDAG, etc.) would have been eligible for the Passover as well.Did Israelite woman and children participate in the Passover? Exodus 12, the original Passover narrative, does not openly spell out that women, underage girls, underage males, and infants participated in the meal. Morton Smith states the PCA report on the matter of children partaking of the elements saying,
Children participating in the first Passover would need further maturation beyond the nursing stage. The Passover meal consisted not simply of liquids and semi–liquids, but of roast meat, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. It is highly unlikely that an Israelite father would feel constrained to force such a diet on an infant that was newly weaned. The same would apply to the meat of the sacrificial meals such as the peace–offerings.The point is simple enough. The Passover differed from circumcision in that children had to be older to participate in it. The nursing child, drinking milk rather than eating meat, could not at that state participate in the Passover. The point of the distinction is clearly expressed by the author of Hebrews: ‘[you] are become such as have need of milk, not of solid food. Everyone that partaketh of milk is inexperienced in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil’ (Heb. 5:12–14). Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Prolegomena, Theology, Anthropology, Christology, Index created by Christian Classics Foundation.; Published in electronic form by Christian Classics Foundation, 1996., electronic ed., 525 (Greenville SC: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press, 1996, c1994).The Paedocommunion view has been implied from the term "household" (Ex. 12:4) that this included "infants and children" and simply “assumed” this to be a fact. But, did they partake of the Passover? If the children didn’t this would explain the catechism, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' (Ex. 12:26) immediately following the command for the Passover (Ex. 12:1ff). Again, as Morton Smith states,
Exodus 12:26 does not give evidence that the child himself partook of the Passover. The question, “What mean ye by this service?” would seem to indicate that the child was not one of the partakers. He does not know what the service was intended for, and so the father is to instruct the child. (Page 687).The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible parallels Joshua 4:6 and Exodus 12:26-27 (including, Deut. 6:20-25) supporting this view. Compare,
Exodus 12:26 And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' Joshua 4:6 to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, 'What do these stones mean?' Above we observe nearly the identical language to describe children inquiring about an act in which they did not participate! Thus, according to Jewish history only Jewish boys – normally thought to be 12 yoa, or older – and adult men partook of Passover meal [in feminist Judaic circles today Miriam’s Cup has been added so the women may participate. They even have woman Seders today!]. Moreover, we might add that if wives and children normally partook of the Passover meal where were Peter’s (Matt. 8:14-15) in Luke 22:1f? (It should be noted that adult women today should be included in the Lord’s Table as the John the Baptist baptized women as well as men (Luke 3:21), the great commission of Matthew 28:19-20 includes men and women, Acts 8:12 states men and woman were baptized (cf. Acts 16:33), and of course Paul’s inclusion that “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28). Please note that Paul’s inclusion did not go as far as saying, “there is neither child nor adult”).

Lastly, I will end with a quote which I believe sums up the A-PC position nicely. Calvin stated,
At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord’s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. In the early Church indeed, the Lord’s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup”? (1 Cor. 11:28.) Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord’s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord’s injunction? “Do this in remembrance of me.” And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them “to show forth the Lord’s death,” of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious? (Institutes IV: xvi: 30).
_________________________
Indeed, these are many of the reasons why the Reformed faith has always and unanimously rejected paedocommuion as a serious error.

Credo-communion is the position of the Reformed faith, and for good reasons.

JOHN OWEN ON COVENANT CHILDREN AND BAPTISM

2008-03-19T10:26:00.000-07:00

I was reading one of my favorite theologians today on infant baptism: John Owen, the great congregationalist paedobaptist Puritan. I thought this part of his discourse would be good to publish on my blog because, as mentioned, there was a time for a while when, even as a Baptist, I believed my children were in the covenant, but I figured I should withhold the sign and seal of baptism from them until they professed faith. Owen takes this to task. He writes:

It may be it will be said, that although children have a right to the covenant, or do belong unto it, yet they have no right to the initial seal of it. This will not suffice; for, —
1. If they have any interest in it, it is either in its grace or in its administration. If they have the former, they have the latter also, as shall be proved at any time. If they have neither, they have no interest in it; — then the truth of the promises of God made unto the fathers was not confirmed by Christ.

2. That unto whom the covenant or promise doth belong, to them belongs the administration of the initial seal of it, is expressly declared by the apostle, Acts 2:38, 39, be they who they will.
3. The truth of God’s promises is not confirmed if the sign and seal of them be denied; for that whereon they believed that God was a God unto their seed as well as unto themselves was this, that he granted the token of the covenant unto their seed as well as unto themselves. If this be taken away by Christ, their faith is overthrown, and the promise itself is not confirmed but weakened, as to the virtue it hath to beget faith and obedience.

Furthermore, in this same discourse, Owen argues well the following:

God having appointed baptism as the sign and seal of regeneration, unto whom he denies it, he denies the grace signified by it. Why is it the will of God that unbelievers and impenitent sinners should not be baptized? It is because, not granting them the grace, he will not grant them the sign. If, therefore, God denies the sign unto the infant seed of believers, it must be because he denies them the grace of it; and then all the children of believing parents dying in their infancy must, without hope, be eternally damned. I do not say that all must be so who are not baptized, but all must be so whom God would not have baptized.

But this is contrary to the goodness and law [love?] of God, the nature and promises of the covenant, the testimony of Christ reckoning them to the kingdom of God , the faith of godly parents, and the belief of the church in all ages.

In other words, there is a reason why God does not have the church administer baptism to unbelievers: because baptism belongs to those who are the people of God. Why would we give baptism to an unbeliever? To whomever we deny it, we deny it because it does not belong to unbelievers. But, if we deny it to our infant children, we are also saying that they are unbelievers. We are treating them like any other child of pagan parents.

But the children of believing parents are not viewed that way by God. If our children are in the covenant, then they have a right to the sign of God's promise. They are holy; otherwise, they would be unclean.

Praise God for His kindness and mercy!

CONTINUED UPDATE

2008-03-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

Thank you again to all who have been praying for us. I wanted to update you on some developments in our church search.

We appreciated the reverence of the worship at the URC, and we appreciated the children's program and the preaching at the PCA we visited yesterday. However, the URC is too exclusive for us (they consider non-Reformed churches and even Reformed Baptist churches as "not true churches," although they consider them Christians; they are also close communion), and we weren't quite used to the worship style at the PCA we visited. Angela and I agreed that we need something kind of in between them.

It looks like, Lord willing, the OPC is where we will land. Last night I visited Harvest OPC in Vista ( http://www.hopc.org/ ), which is only 4 minutes away. That went very well. We will also be visiting the Escondido OPC this Sunday morning ( http://www.escondidoopc.org/ ), which is a little over 20 minutes away. In the evening, I will be visiting the Providence OPC in Temecula (http://www.temeculaopc.org/ ), which is 38 minutes away.

Oh how I wish these churches had the Table weekly! We are 100% convinced that weekly Lord's Table is a *must*. We see in Acts 2:42 and 20:7 that the early church was devoted to it. Indeed, it was a regular pattern of their worship. It grieves my soul to know that, in all of North San Diego County, there are only two churches that practice it weekly: GBC and the Oceanside URC.

So, at this point, it looks like we will be joining an OPC, but we will be enjoying the Table with GBC in the evening. I will explain to the elders of whatever church we join that for this reason we will need a dual membership. Furthermore, since on the last Sunday of the month, GBC has the Table in the morning, we will be at GBC in the morning for that Sunday. This is all we can do; we see the Table as a vital means of grace in which we truly feed spiritually on the Body and Blood of Christ. We see Calvin's view as robustly Scriptural. The OPC sees it that way too--for which reason I wonder why many of them only do it monthly. I need to feed on Christ *at least* weekly!

Please continue to pray for us. We will keep you updated.

UPDATE ON CHURCH SEARCH

2008-03-14T16:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Family and Friends,

Just a quick update on our church hunt situation. As you know, last Sunday we visited the Oceanside URC. That went very well. We enjoyed the worship in its reverence and we enjoyed the liturgy. This Sunday we will be visiting New Life PCA in Escondido ( http://www.newlifepca.com/ ). So, both churches are Reformed churches, and both have different worship styles.

Basically, if we end up joining New Life PCA in Escondido, we would still go to GBC in the evenings for the Lord's Table. If we joined the Oceanside URC, we would have the Table weekly as well as evening service there, and we would need to dissolve our membership at GBC. That of course is a very difficult decision.

I have the difficult task of being the leader of my family and making the final decision as to where we will end up. There are pros and cons of whichever way we go. At this point, I need to consider how much weight some of the pros and some of the cons have. I of course want to run over all of this with my beautiful wife, who is my counselor. I want to do what is best for my entire family, and not just what I want. I need to remember that.

Any words of wisdom in the comments section are very welcome. Lift us up in your prayers please. You all know how painful this has been for us. We are slowly getting better, but also pray especially for any who may be saddened by this as well.

Thank you all for your prayers thus far. We know the Lord will never leave us nor forsake us. We take comfort in that.

CLARIFICATION

2008-03-11T09:39:00.000-07:00

I wanted to clarify about our situation with regards to our beloved church. My wife has posted it well on her blog, so I paste what she mentioned below:

With the last few posts about our journey into paedobaptism, I believe there has been some misunderstanding. It was not our intention to announce that we were dissolving our membership at our current church. We simply believed that our closer friends, who are generally the ones who read our blogs, deserved an explanation as to why they may not see us at church regularly. We are in the process of *looking* for a church which agrees with our heart on this issue. We are still members at our beloved current church until further notice. Also, if or when we do dissolve our membership, we will announce it in a way that is more personal. Our hearts are breaking over this. But we don’t know what else to do. We don’t know how else to handle it. We believe we may have made some people angry/frustrated/disappointed in us. Again, we are truly heartbroken about this. Neither Josh nor I slept much last night because we were too grieved at the prospect that we have let someone in particular down who we love and respect so much. We understand that not everyone will understand, or support us, let alone agree with us. It’s possible that we may not have handled this situation in the best way possible, but we did think it through and we tried the best we knew how. We’re sorry if we’ve caused any unnecessary pain, but please know that we’re hurting too.

I would also add that we recognize that it is not about us. We realize that the unfortunate thing is that there is sadness on all ends.

I am also learning when it comes to growing into maturity that we may or may not find another church, and we wish to keep our options open to stay at GBC. If we did, we would keep quiet on the baptism issue. We would somehow have our children baptized elsewhere.

Please continue to pray for us. We will keep you all posted dear brethren.

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 7: JOSH BRISBY'S CLOSING STATEMENT

2008-03-10T17:16:00.000-07:00

I will now make my closing statement. First of all, I wish to thank Jay Dyer for his participation in this debate. I appreciate him being willing to do this, and for his cordiality both on my blog and over the phone. Although sadly we cannot consider each other brothers, I certainly do consider him a friend. Jay, if you’re ever in town, stop on by my crib and I’ll show you my hood. We’ll have some sushi and some Asahi!

Now, I opened this debate defending Reformed Baptist Christianity. The ironic thing is that during the course of this debate, I have become a Reformed paedobaptist. I am no longer a Baptist. However, since there are extensive similarities between the Reformed credobaptist view of Reformed theology and the Reformed paedobaptist view of Reformed theology, I do not feel compelled to hash those out in my closing statement. Instead, since I opened by defending Reformed theology, I will now close by mentioning why I am not Eastern Orthodox, and I will also interact with Jay’s presentations here in our debate.

AREAS OF EASTERN ORTHODOXY I FIND LACKING

THE CANON

As we have seen, most of our debate has been spent hashing out canonicity. Jay made extensive argumentation trying to defend the Apocrypha as part of the canon by giving us alleged quotes from the Apocrypha in the NT, but I think that Steve Hays did an excellent job at Triablogue showing that the great majority of these quotes actually come from the OT. Furthermore, Jay has not established that the Apocrypha deserves its place in the canon for several reasons. I ask my readers to do their research as well on the following facts:

(1) The OT Jewish view was that the Apocrypha was NOT canonical.

(2) The Apocrypha has several historical errors, as many scholars have attested.

(3) Several of the early church fathers, especially Athanasius, disagreed as to the extent even of the Apocrypha.

(4) Which books of the Apocrypha should we accept? Again, Russian Orthodoxy has more than other brands of Orthodoxy, so which is it?

(5) Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that NT quotes are from the Apocrypha itself, how does that lead to the fact that the Apocrypha is canonical? Again, even pagan poets are quoted in Acts, but all would agree that the pagan poets were not inspired.

(6) The Apocrypha has been called the “deutero-canon”, which means “secondary canon.” Even the name itself shows that it does not hold the same weight of canonicity at least.
The above reasons give us plenty of evidence that the Apocrypha should not be considered canonical.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX REJECTION OF THE FILIOQUE

We did not touch on this in our debate, but the Eastern Orthodox have a different view of the eternal procession of the Spirit. The West says that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father AND the Son (filioque), while the East says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Historically this was not the case. Not only does this run into problems when we speak of the ontological order of the Trinity (1st Person, 2nd Person, 3rd Person: if the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then how can we say that the Spirit is the 3rd Person of the Trinity? Why not the 2nd Person? How do we distinguish between the Son and the Spirit?), but even the Eastern Church itself before the 8th century did not believe this. They spoke of the Spirit proceeding from the Father, but not the Father alone. They also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, as the West has always believed. For example, this from a helpful website:

First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Ep. cxxv; Ep. xxxviii (alias xliii) ad Gregor. fratrem; "Adv.Eunom.", I, xx, III, sub init.]

Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; "De Incarn.", ix; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", v, in P.G.., XXIX, 731; cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. xliii, 9).

Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Greg. Thaumat., "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufius, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Greg. Nyss. Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", ass. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

Now, to be sure, many Orthodox nowadays are seeing this as a tempest in a teapot, but my discussions with Jay over the phone demonstrate that Jay views it differently. For a helpful discussion on this, see Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church, in which he speaks of the perspectives of the Orthodox “doves” (who find this as a tempest in a teapot) and the Orthodox “hawks” (like Vladimir Lossky).

EASTERN ORTHODOX PICKING-AND-CHOOSING OF THE FATHERS' STATEMENTS

One thing which I find incredible is how the Eastern Orthodox always talk about the “Fathers” of the church, but then they pick and choose from the Fathers what they want to believe. This is not a problem for Protestants, because we are clear that what ultimately matters is what Scripture says (sola Scriptura). But this is indeed a problem for the Orthodox, because they lay so much weight on patristics. Jay mentioned in his response to my cross-examination question about the Fathers and the Papacy that there were not any quotes from the Fathers about universal jurisdiction of the Papacy. Jay said, “simply put, there are none.”

Well, I now submit as evidence to the court the following quotes from Eastern, yes Eastern, Fathers on the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy:

St. John Cassian, Monk:

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem:

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy. (Sophronius,[quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, x., 893)

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine:

[addressed to Pope Martin I]And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair [the Chair of Peter at Rome] which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine. (Mansi, x., 893)

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus:

[ Writing to Pope Theodore ]O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

St. Maximus the Confessor:

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? ... And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople:

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople:

Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Popes of Rome] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople:

[ Writing to Pope Leo III ]Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)
[ Writing to Pope Paschal ]Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. 43:23/44:23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)
[ Writing to Emperor Michael ]Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)
I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).
In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here [Constantinople], for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363)

Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the disciples, He asked, 'Whom do men say that the Son of man is?' ...And all being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says to Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' not simply that, but 'the Son of the living God.' (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3) For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350).Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15) In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, also the foremost of the Apostles and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ. (Cyril, Catech. xviii. n. 27)

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom) Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom). Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote) (Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3) In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.) He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc.' (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434): A disciple of St. John Chrysostom

Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles. Art not thou he that didst say, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'? Thou Bar-Jonas (son of the dove) hast thou seen so many miracles, and art thou still but Simon (a hearer)? He appointed thee the key-bearer of Heaven, and has though not yet layed aside thy fisherman's clothing? (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

St. Nilus of Constantinople (448) A disciple of St. John Chrysostom

Peter, Head of the choir of Apostles. (Nilus, Lib. ii Epistl.) Peter, who was foremost in the choir of Apostles and always ruled amongst them. (Nilus, Tract. ad. Magnam.)

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1). Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

St. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311) Head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, he became bishop around A.D. 300, reigning for about eleven years, and dying a martyr's death.

Peter, set above the Apostles. (Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv. p. 98)

St. Anthony of Egypt (330)

Peter, the Prince of the Apostles (Anthony, Epist. xvii. Galland, iv p. 687)

St. Athanasius (362)

Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35)The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)

St. Macarius of Egypt (371)

The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180) Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424)

He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.) Therefore, when the Lord had hinted at the disciple's denial in the words that He used, 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail,' He at once introduced a word of consolation, and said (to Peter): 'And do thou, when once thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.' That is, 'Be thou a support and a teacher of those who through faith come to me.' Again, marvel also at the insight of that saying and at the completeness of the Divine gentleness of spirit. For so that He should not reduce the disciple to despair at the thought that after his denial he would have to be debarred from the glorious distinction of being an Apostle, He fills him with good hope, that he will attain the good things promised. ...O loving kindness! The sin was not yet committed, and He already extends His pardon and sets him (Peter) again in his Apostolic office. (Cyril Comm. on Luke's Gospel) For the wonderous Peter, overcome by uncontrollable fear, denied the Lord three times. Christ heals the error done, and demands in various ways the threefold confession ... For although all the holy disciples fled, ...still Peter's fault in the threefold denial was in addition, special and peculiar to himself. Therefore, by the threefold confession of blessed Peter, the fault of the triple denial was done away. Further, by the Lord's saying, Feed my lambs, we must understand a renewal as it were of the Apostleship already given to him, washing away the intervening disgrace of his fall, and the littleness of human infirmity. (Cyril, Comm. on John's Gospel). They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter. (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736). And even blessed Peter, though set over the holy disciples, says 'Lord, be it far from Thee, this shall be done to Thee. (Cyril, Ibid. 924). If Peter himself, that prince of the holy disciples, was, upon an occassion, scandalized, so as suddenly to exclaim, 'Lord, be it far from Thee,' what wonder that the tender mind of woman should be carried away? (Cyril, Ibid, p. 1064) That the Spirit is God we shall also learn hence. That the prince of the Apostles, to whom 'flesh and blood,' as the Savior says, 'did not reveal' the Divine mystery, says to Ananias, 'Why hath Satan tempted thy heart, (Cyril, T. v. Par. 1. Thesaur. p. 340) Besides all these, let there come forward that leader of the holy disciples, Peter, who, when the Lord, on a certain occassion, asked him, 'Whom do men say that the Son of man is?' instantly cried out, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' (Cyril, T. v. P.2, Hom. viii. De Fest. Pasch. p. 105) 'If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.' When the Coryphaeus (Peter) had heard these words, he began to change. (Cyril, Ib. Hom.) This bold man (Julian), besides all this, cavils at Peter, the chosen one of the holy Apostles. (Cyril, T. vi.l. ix. Contr. Julian. p. 325).

Eulogius of Alexandria (581)Born in Syria, he became the abbot of the Mother of God monastery at Antioch. In 579, he was made Patriarch of Alexandria; and became an associate of St. Gregory the Great while visiting Constantinople. Much of their subsequent correspondence is still extant.

Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter. (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch.

The great foundation of the Church was shaken, and confirmed by the Divine grace. And the Lord commanded him to apply that same care to the brethren. 'And thou,' He says, 'converted, confirm thy brethren.' (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Haeret. Fab. lib. v.c. 28) 'For as I,' He says, 'did not despise thee when tossed, so be thou a support to thy brethren in trouble, and the help by which thou was saved do thou thyself impart to others, and exhort them not while they are tottering, but raise them up in their peril. For this reason I suffer thee also to slip, but do not permit thee to fall, thus through thee gaining steadfastness for those who are tossed.' So this great pillar supported the tossing and sinking world, and permitted it not to fall entirely and gave it back stability, having been ordered to feed God's sheep. (Theodoret, Oratio de Caritate in J. P. Minge, ed., Partrologiae Curses Completus: Series Graeca).I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197). If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Salamis (385)

Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same (Peter) furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith. He (Peter) heard from the same God, 'feed my lambs'; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master. (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor).

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649)

Writing to Pope Theodore:O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)
_________________________________________
The reader can see very clearly from the above quotes that Jay Dyer has not done his homework on the Church Fathers. As a Protestant, I reject the Pope because the concept is nowhere in the Bible. The Fathers held to it because they did not want to follow the Scriptural pattern of church government being a plurality of elders for each local church, all with equal authority. They got away from the biblical pattern by speaking of one bishop per local church. This became centralized in Rome, but the East could never develop this concept historically because the various centers in the East could never centralize. But Jay has a major problem because he wants to appeal to the Fathers so much as part of the Eastern Tradition. Well Jay, I have news for you: If you want to appeal to the Tradition of the Fathers, you’re going to have to become a Catholic.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX VIEW OF MARY

The worship of Mary and the saints did not come up in our debate either. I know that I am already causing Orthodox readers to cry out, “But we don’t worship Mary or the saints!”. However, this has indeed been a major problem for both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Although Catholicism and Orthodoxy are different, this probably explains why many Protestants view them as two sides of the same coin.

Again, let the reader judge whether Orthodoxy doesn’t worship Mary by the following quotes from some of their akathist hymns:

"Rejoice, Protection of the world"
"Tree of delectable Fruit that nourishes the faithful"
"Forgiveness for many transgressors"
"Bestower of divine goodness"
"You who wash away the stain of sin"
"Rejoice, Healing of my flesh. Rejoice, Salvation of my soul"
"Unto you, O Theotokos, invincible Champion, your City, in thanksgiving ascribes the victory for the deliverance from sufferings."
"Distressed by many temptations, I flee to thee, seeking salvation"
"I implore thee who gavest birth to the Saviour and God, O Virgin, to deliver me from perils"
"Thou alone art the protectress of the afflicted"
"O Virgin, help me! For I know thee to be the inexhaustible, unfailing treasury of healings, O all-blameless one."
"Having thee, O all-hymned one, as our hope and support and unshakable wall of salvation"
"We have thee as a wall of refuge and the perfect salvation of our souls and release from our afflictions, O Maiden, and we ever rejoice in thy light."
"but as thou art one with might which is invincible, from all dangers that can be do thou deliver us”
____________
The above quotes indeed demonstrate to me that the suspicions of Protestants towards both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are indeed true: the Orthodox and the Catholics do indeed commit idolatry when it comes to the cults of the saints. Only Jesus Christ deserves the titles given above.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX VIEW OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

This has been one of the kickers for me. I have met some people on my blog who have flirted with Orthodoxy or who are becoming Orthodox. Many of them came from a Reformed background. The attraction for them is that they think they are joining something that is centuries old, something that is “changeless.” However, Orthodoxy has indeed changed.
One council that by all measures was ecumenical, as we have seen, declared iconoclasm the official position of the church and declared the iconodules heretical. However, later this was repudiated. Now Orthodoxy is iconodule.

The Orthodox used to say that bishops from all areas should be present to make a council ecumenical, as opposed to just local councils. But they recognized this as problematic, so they now opt for the idea of what the “whole church” accepts.

But, as Timothy Ware even readily admits, the “whole church acceptance” idea is extremely problematic. Certainly the Coptic Church did not accept the Formula of Chalcedon. In other words, from an inquirer’s standpoint, how would they know whether to turn to the Copts or to the Greeks? On another note, what about the Russians? Orthodoxy shows itself to be a mixture of confusion here. This is not at all acceptable epistemologically.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX DO NOT EMBRACE THE JURIDICAL CONCEPTS IN SCRIPTURE

Another reason I find Orthodoxy lacking in substance is because the Bible is clear in several places, and this by Jay’s own admittance, that guilt and justification are major concepts in redemption. The Orthodox have this absent from their thought almost entirely, opting instead for theosis and divinization.

ESSENCE/ENERGIES AND THE VIA NEGATIVA

Finally, this was not touched upon, but the Orthodox concept of the attributes of God is nearly absent in its thought because they place such a major emphasis on God being “unknowable” in His essence, but knowable in His uncreated “energies (cataphaticism).” The best way to know Him, they say, is to bask in the face of the unknowable God and use negative statements about Him (apophaticism). However, although we indeed cannot know God in His essence when it comes to His infinity and omnipresence, we can know Him analogically, as Van Til said. Indeed, He reveals Himself to us. The essence/energies distinction and the via negative have major problems epistemologically when it comes to revelation. How do we know of God’s inner life? If God does not reveal to us in any way His essence, Who He is, then how do we know Him? How do we know that what He reveals is consistent with His inner life? Indeed, the essence/energies distinction and the negative way seem to lead to an epistemological agnosticism.

CONCLUSION

We can see from the above that Eastern Orthodoxy is all promises but no fulfillment. I honestly do not understand the attraction that some have to it. Throughout this debate, we have seen and demonstrated the following:

-Eastern Orthodoxy offers a “timeless connection” to the Christian past, and claims to be “changeless,” but it cannot offer a consistent view of what makes a council ecumenical, and cannot tell an inquirer why they should not accept the Coptic church.

-Eastern Orthodoxy cannot agree amongst itself as to the extent of the canon, which certainly is part of Tradition, and certainly is part of God’s revelation of Himself.

-Eastern Orthodoxy tries to have a robust view of the Church Fathers, but having such a view does not help it, because we have seen that the Church Fathers themselves held to the jurisdictional universal primacy of the Papacy, and we have seen that even amongst Eastern Fathers.

-Eastern Orthodoxy leads to an epistemological agnosticism when it comes to their essence/energies distinction, and the via negativa.

-Eastern Orthodoxy cannot tell us why we should hold to their “tradition” but not the Roman Catholic one.

-Eastern Orthodoxy’s defense of itself is ultimately circular. That is, it claims that we should accept its tradition and claims because its tradition and claims are true. Why are they true? On what grounds? Well, because its tradition supposedly never changes. But we saw this as untrue. Besides that, how does that claim lead us from an epistemological claim to a metaphysical proposition of ultimate truth?

-Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the juridical concepts in Scripture, although Scripture is replete with them.

-Eastern Orthodoxy cannot demonstrate that it distinguishes between “worship” and “reverence” of the saints; indeed, we have seen from its own akathist hymns that it uses titles of Mary which rightfully only belong to the only Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
__________________________________
This debate has been a serious one, because this is ultimately about our eternal destiny. Reader, do you trust in Christ alone for your salvation? Do you trust in His righteousness alone, His keeping of the Law and obeying God’s Law? Or do you conflate your works, although you would say they are given to you from Christ?

We have seen that the Orthodox Church is a false church and that it rejects the gospel of our only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We have demonstrated that it is easily refutable on its own grounds. But ultimately what matters is, whom do you trust for your eternal soul? Do you rest in Christ and His perfect righteousness, or do you bring your filthy works to the table?

I think we can conclude with a section from John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress. I see Ignorance as the man who reminds me of many in our day, whether they be Orthodox or Federal Vision or New Perspectives on Paul or Roman Catholic or any other works-righteousness heresies.

From Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress (conversation between Ignorance, Christian, and Hopeful):

Then directing his speech to IGNORANCE, he said, "Come, how do you? how stands it between God and your soul now?"Ign. I hope well; for I am always full of good motions, that come into my mind to comfort me as I walk.Chr. What good motions? Pray tell us.Ign. Why, I think of God and heaven.Chr. So do the devils and damned souls.Ign. But I think of them, and desire them.Chr. So do many that are never like to come there; the soul of the sluggard desires, and hath nothing.
"The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat." Proverbs 13:4
Ign. But I think of them, and leave all for them.Chr. That I doubt, for leaving of all is a hard matter; yea, a harder matter than many are aware of. But why, or by what, art thou persuaded that thou hast left all for God and heaven?Ign. My heart tells me so.Chr. The wise man says, "He that trusts his own heart is a fool".
"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." Proverbs 28:26
Ign. This is spoken of an evil heart; but mine is a good one.Chr. But how dost thou prove that?Ign. It comforts me in the hopes of heaven.Chr. That may be through its deceitfulness; for a man's heart may minister comfort to him in the hopes of that thing for which he yet has no ground to hope.Ign. But my heart and life agree together; and therefore my hope is well grounded.Chr. Who told thee that thy heart and life agree together?Ign. My heart tells me so.Chr. "Ask my fellow if I be a thief." Thy heart tells thee so! Except the Word of God bears witness in this matter, other testimony is of no value.Ign. But is it not a good heart that has good thoughts? and is not a good life one that is according to God's commandments?Chr. Yes, that is a good heart that hath good thoughts; and that is a good life that is according to God's commandments: but it is one thing indeed to have these, and another thing only to think so.Ign. Pray, what count you good thoughts, and a life according to God's commandments?Chr. There are good thoughts of divers kinds: some respecting ourselves, some God, some Christ, and some other things.Ign. What be good thoughts respecting ourselves?Chr. Such as agree with the Word of God.Ign. When do our thoughts of ourselves agree with the Word of God?Chr. When we pass the same judgment upon ourselves which the Word passes. To explain myself: the Word of God saith of persons in a natural condition, "There is none righteous, there is none that doth good." It saith also, "That every imagination of the heart of man is only evil, and that continually".
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:9-18"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5
And again, "The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Now then, when we think thus of ourselves, having sense thereof, then are our thoughts good ones, because they are according to the Word of God.Ign. I will never believe that my heart is thus bad.Chr. Therefore thou never hadst one good thought concerning thyself in thy life. But let me go on. As the Word passes a judgment upon our heart, so it passes a judgment upon our ways: and when our thoughts of our hearts and ways agree with the judgment which the Word gives of both, then are both good, because agreeing thereto.Ign. Make out your meaning.Chr. Why, the Word of God saith, that man's ways are crooked ways; not good, but perverse. It saith, they are naturally out of the good way, that they have not known it.
"As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the LORD shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity: but peace shall be upon Israel." Psalms 125:5"Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths:" Proverbs 2:15"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:9-18
Now, when a man thus thinks of his ways--I say, when he doth sensibly and with heart humiliation thus think, then hath he good thoughts of his own ways because his thoughts now agree with the judgment of the Word of God.Ign. What are good thoughts concerning God?Chr. Even (as I have said concerning ourselves) when our thoughts of God do agree with what the Word saith of him; and that is when we think of his being and attributes as the Word hath taught, of which I cannot now discourse at large. But to speak of him with reference to us: then we have right thoughts of God when we think that he knows us better than we know ourselves, and can see sin in us when and where we can see none in ourselves; when we think he knows our inmost thoughts, and that our heart with all its depths is always open unto his eyes; also, when we think that all our righteousness stinks in his nostrils, and that therefore he cannot abide to see us stand before him in any confidence even of all our best performances.Ign. Do you think that I am such a fool as to think God can see no further than I? or that I would come to God in the best of my performances?Chr. Why, how dost thou think in this matter?Ign. Why, to be short, I think I must believe in Christ for justification.Chr. How think thou must believe in Christ, when thou seest not thy need of him! Thou neither seest thy original nor actual infirmities; but hast such an opinion of thyself and of what thou doest, as plainly renders thee to be one that did never see a necessity of Christ's personal righteousness to justify thee before God. How then dost thou say, "I believe in Christ?"Ign. I believe well enough for all that.Chr. How dost thou believe?Ign. I believe that Christ died for sinners; and that I shall be justified before God from the curse, through his gracious acceptance of my obedience to his law; or thus, Christ makes my duties that are religious acceptable to his Father by virtue of his merits, and so shall I be justified.Chr. Let me give an answer to this confession of thy faith:
1. Thou believest with a fantastical faith; for this faith is nowhere described in the Word.2. Thou believest with a false faith; because it taketh justification from the personal righteousness of Christ, and applies it to thy own.3. This faith makes not Christ a justifier of thy person, but of thy actions; and of thy person for thy actions' sake, which is false.4. Therefore this faith is deceitful, even such as will leave thee under wrath in the day of God Almighty; for true justifying faith puts the soul (as sensible of its lost condition by the law) upon flying for refuge unto Christ's righteousness--which righteousness of his is not an act of grace by which he makes for justification thy obedience accepted with God; but his personal obedience to the law in doing and suffering for us what that required at our hands. This righteousness, I say, true faith accepts; under the skirt of which, the soul being shrouded, and by it presented as spotless before God, it is accepted, and acquitted from condemnation.
Ign. What! would you have us trust to what Christ in his own person has done without us? This conceit would loosen the reins of our lust, and tolerate us to live as we list; for what matter how we live, if we may be justified by Christ's personal righteousness from all, when we believe it?Chr. IGNORANCE is thy name; and as thy name is, so art thou: even this thy answer demonstrateth what I say. Ignorant thou art of what justifying righteousness is; and as ignorant how to secure thy soul, through the faith of it, from the heavy wrath of God. Yea, thou also art ignorant of the true effects of saving faith in this righteousness of Christ: which is, to bow and win over the heart to God in Christ, to love his name, his Word, ways, and people; and not as thou ignorantly imaginest.Hope. Ask him if ever he had Christ revealed to him from heaven.Ign. What! you are a man for revelations! I do believe that what both you and all the rest of you say about that matter is but the fruit of distracted brains.Hope. Why, man, Christ is so hid in God from the natural apprehensions of the flesh, that he cannot by any man be savingly known, unless God the Father reveals him to them.Ign. That is your faith, but not mine: yet mine, I doubt not, is as good as yours, though I have not in my head so many whimsies as you.Chr. Give me leave to put in a word. You ought not so slightly to speak of this matter; for this I will boldly affirm (even as my good companion hath done), that no man can know Jesus Christ but by the revelation of the Father; yea, and faith too, by which the soul lays hold upon Christ (if it be right), must be wrought by the exceeding greatness of his mighty power;
"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Matthew 11:27"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Corinthians 12:3"The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power" Ephesians 1:18
the working of which faith, I perceive, poor IGNORANCE, thou art ignorant of. Be awakened, then, see thine own wretchedness, and fly to the Lord Jesus; and by his righteousness, which is the righteousness of God (for He himself is God), thou shalt be delivered from condemnation.Ign. You go so fast, I cannot keep pace with you. Do you go on before; I must stay awhile behind.Then they said:
"Well, IGNORANCE, Wilt thou yet foolish be,To slight good counsel ten times given thee?And if thou yet refuse it, thou shalt knowEre long the evil of thy doing so.Remember, man, in time; stoop, do no fear:Good counsel taken well, saves; therefore hearBut if thou yet shalt slight it, thou wilt beThe loser, IGNORANCE, I'll warrant thee."
_______________________________
It is the gospel of free and sovereign grace in all its simplicity and all of its glory to God through which God saves. It is the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox who say “What do you mean we are saved freely? Surely this would loosen our lusts!”

It is this gospel which Paul answers this charge of in Romans 6.

It is this gospel which is the good news. Flee to Christ and His righteousness, and repent of your own works, all you who practice the filthy rags of self-righteousness! Admit your wretchedness and bow the knee to Christ. Ask Him to give you His righteousness.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

RETURNING TO GOD'S COVENANT PROMISES: 9 YEARS A REFORMED BAPTIST, NOW REFORMED PAEDOBAPTIST

2008-03-08T22:15:00.000-08:00

Thank you to all who have been praying for us. For the record, we are convinced of the paedobaptist position.

Most of the hard part is now over. We have told both our families. We were raised Baptists, but Angela's parents are supportive, and my mom believes as well that our children are in the covenant.

But please continue to pray for us. Tomorrow, we will be visiting a new church, the Oceanside United Reformed Church ( http://www.oceansideurc.org/ ). We are in a scary time right now because we were with Grace Bible Church for so long, and our souls were taken care of so well over there. We honestly don't know how any church could compare. It's kind of like I could never imagine myself remarrying if Angela were to die, because I don't think that anyone could compare to her.

Please pray that the Lord would make this transition time as smooth as possible for us. Pray that our souls and the souls of our children would be fed with Word and Sacrament. Please also pray that we would have shepherds that would care for us even as we were cared for at GBC.

We know the Lord will take care of us. It's just a scary time for us right now.

O Lord, You know that we are fragile. You know how sinful I am. Please, Lord, feed us. Cause us, especially during this time, to rest in You. We do thank You for opening our eyes to Your covenant promises to us and to our children, but we know that it also involves so many changes in our life. Would You be pleased, Almighty Father, to comfort us during this time? Please feed us with Your Word and with Christ's Body and Blood. Please strengthen us to rest in Christ. Please let us be surrounded by Your Church. We are scared. Please let us be taken care of. Grant us in our new church godly elders who love their work and love to shepherd their flock. Grant us elders who are ministers of and not above Your Word and who consider themselves simply undershepherds as accountable to the Great Shepherd of the sheep. Use us, O Lord, to Your glory. For the sake of Christ our Savior we pray. Amen.

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 6: JOSH BRISBY CROSS-EXAMINES JAY DYER

2008-03-01T20:50:00.000-08:00

For some reason, I cannot seem to get Jay's response to my cross-examine questions to post, perhaps b/c it is having trouble accepting certain links. I refer my readers to Jay's website at http://www.nicenetruth.com/ in which he responds to my cross-examine questions. I apologize for not being able to post it.

Again, Jay Dyer has responded. Please visit http://www.nicenetruth.com/ .

I will prepare for my closing statement as well.

--Josh Brisby

VERY CLOSE TO PAEDOBAPTISM

2008-02-29T13:07:00.000-08:00

Well, I am now the closest I have ever been to becoming a paedobaptist in the past nine years.

My wife and I are discussing this together, and we are also going to talk to our elders. I'd like to give them some chances to persuade us otherwise.

I'd like to give any of my Baptist blog readers some chances to if you would like to comment.

Let me give you a brief baptism position testimony.

When I came to the Reformed faith, I became paedo for a few years, but I did not have a deep understanding of the covenant. I became Reformed Baptist in 1999. Even at that time I still recognized that the Reformed Baptist view of only the elect in the covenant from Jeremiah 31 was very problematic based on texts like John 15 and Hebrews 10:31 and Hebrews 10 and 6 and 1 Corinthians 5. Why would there be given warnings at all? Many Baptists suggest that they are merely "hypothetical," but I don't see how that could work at all. These people are excommunicated from something. They fall away from something.

So, I reasoned that perhaps I could stay a Baptist and uphold a kind of two circles view. I did this for many years, even participating in Gene Cook's show "The Narrow Mind" critiquing infant baptism on one program. But later my friend Paul Manata (who debated Gene masterfully) asked me to look at the many passages which speak of the word "children" in holy Scripture. If one does a simple word study on the word "children" they will be blown away by what they find.

So, I reasoned that the promises belonged to them but perhaps they weren't in the covenant. But I saw this as very problematic later because a promise itself in Scripture is covenantal. Indeed, God sees my children as special, as heirs of His promises of salvation.

So finally, I reasoned that OK, they're in the covenant, but perhaps they don't receive baptism, even as most paedos agree that they don't receive the Table until they can examine themselves. But I saw that theologians on both sides agree that baptism is a sign of entrance into the church.

So I then fought it some more. I said to myself, "Perhaps the Reformed Baptist view of elect only is actually true, and those passages which speak of falling away mean falling away from the church but not the covenant." But this is extremely problematic. What is the local church but the covenant people of God? What are the sacraments but covenant signs? The covenant of grace with regards to administration has always included both elect and non-elect. Indeed, it has to on this side of heaven.

So I realized that that wouldn't work. So now I recognize that my children are in the covenant.

How could I then deny them the sign of covenant entrance? Baptism says something of them. It says that they belong to God.

How could I deny them baptism?

JAY DYER'S RESPONSES TO MY QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW SOON

2008-02-09T07:58:00.000-08:00

Hello readers. It has been a good debate thus far. I have sent my six cross-examination question to Jay Dyer and he told me he would answer them as soon as possible. I have appreciated his cordiality in the midst of our debate.

To whet the appetite of our readers, here are the six questions I asked him that he will respond to:

1. Jay, Kallistos Ware admits that the Orthodox have a problem when it comes to the Ecumenical Councils because there were some where bishops were present but the Church does not accept, i.e., the "Robber" Council. The Orthodox try to respond to this by saying, then, that it is the idea of what the "Church accepts," and that's the only way, then, that a Council is viewed as dogmatic. But the problem here is that the Oriental churches (Copts, etc.) do not accept the Formula of Chalcedon and are monophysite. So, how would one "searching out" the truth of Orthodoxy know if he or she should accept the Oriental churches (monophysite) or the Orthodox, based upon that line of reasoning?

2. I of course reject the Pope as you do, but, it seems inconsistent to me that you have such a high view of the Church Fathers here given your thought. You have said that the Eastern Fathers did not accept the *jurisdictional* authority of the Pope, but merely a primacy of honor. But if that is the case, then how do you explain the numerous *Eastern* Father's quotes which very clearly spell out a *universal* primacy with regards to *jurisdiction* when it comes to the Roman Pontiff?

3. Wouldn't you say that Scripture, as part of your tradition, is necessary for faith and life? If so, then how can one not see it as problematic that the Orthodox Church can't even agree as to the extent of the canon (the extent of the rule for faith and life)?

4. If the Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father alone, as the Orthodox understand, and not from the Father and the Son (filioque), how do you understand the fact that He is called the "Spirit of Christ"?

5. Your quotes on infant baptism have shown once again how paedobaptists beg the question. If infant baptism was so clearly the apostolic practice, then why does it not become universal, as many scholars now agree, until well until the sixth century, and why do we find no clear evidence of it practiced at all until the late second/early third century?

6. How does Orthodoxy deal with the numerous Scripture texts which speak of "atonement" and "guilt" and "judicial reckoning" etc., being that it has an aversion to judicial categories? How does this not further prove that Orthodoxy does not take into account the full biblical revelation?

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 5: JAY DYER CROSS-EXAMINES JOSH BRISBY

2008-02-02T14:13:00.000-08:00

Eastern Orthodox Jay Dyer now cross-examines Reformed Baptist Josh Brisby. Dyer's questions are in italics and Brisby's answers are in regular text.
____________

1. Josh, why do you accept Hebrews as canonical?

I accept Hebrews as canonical because the Church accepted it as canonical over time. The issue of canonicity is not a problem for Protestants. We have never argued that a book becomes canonical apart from the thinking of the Church at large. We can furthermore point to the science of textual criticism when it comes to authentic books and inauthentic books such as the gospel of Thomas. I could furthermore reverse the question and ask why the Orthodox do not accept the Didache as canonical, especially because it is a manual for early church worship. Scholars date this around A.D. 95, during the apostolic era.

2. How do you know, apart from patristic tradition, that Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, wrote Matthew's Gospel, if Apostolic authorship is key to canonicity?

I'm not sure when or if I have ever argued that apostolic authorship is key to canonicity. Hebrews, for example, seems to have been a sermon preached and that by someone who we are not sure of. Those who claim it was Paul run into a whole host of problems when it comes to the style of the writer and at other points. Likewise, even when we consider the OT, David certainly was not a prophet, but most of the Psalms were written by him and canonical; some by the Sons of Korah, who were neither prophets nor kings. So, prima facie, something does not have to be written by an apostle or a prophet to be considered canonical.

3. If the Apostles quoted and used the LXX in the majority of instances of NT citations of the Old (as all scholars admit), why do you reject the LXX, intending to follow wicked, Christ-rejecting Jews?

This question assumes a kind of source fallacy. "Look where it came from," says Jay. "It must therefore be bad." I could do the same thing by saying "Look where the Septuagint came from--from Greek speakers, and we all know that the Greeks were pagans." I stay away from these kinds of fallacies. Moreover, the deutero-canon was not accepted by the Jews even *before* they were "Christ-rejecting." Do we think honestly that, furthermore, everything that the Christ-rejecting Jews believed or rejected should all be agreed upon by us? There were things the early church agreed with the Jews about, and things they disagreed with them about. There are good reasons why the Jews did not consider the Apocrypha part of their Hebrew Bible, and it wasn't just for language differences.

4. Explain in your system the lengthy, clear prophecy of Christ's persecution by the Jews in Wisdom 2 in your inspiration theory, which all admit was written prior to His Advent.

Explain in your system the lengthy, clear prophecy of Christ in Isaiah 53 in your inspirtation theory, which all admit was written prior to His Advent. In other words, even if Wisdom 2 did predict it, that does not mean that *all* of the deutero-canon is therefore inspired! This commits the fallacy of composition as well as the fallacy of begging the question.

5. What is the nature of the quotes I listed, such as from the Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Enoch, etc. in your theory of inspiration, especially where St. Jude refers to a prophecy of the Second Advent? Do you not admit that this is a reference to Christ, and thus not in the same category as a reference of a pagan poet?

My point in my rebuttal was simply that prima facie just because something is quoted does not necessarily lead to inspiration of the whole package. Again, this commits the fallacy of composition. In fact, even some Jewish oral tradition has prophecies of the Messiah that we would say are right on, but of course we would both agree that these are not inspired. If you say they are inspired, then you must abandon your accusation of not accepting the LXX and following the "Christ-rejecting Jews." If you say they are not inspired, then it is clearly not a problem for me when I say that just because something is quoted it does not make that which it is quoted from canonical.

6. Explain with consistency 2 Thess. 2:15 in your system.

Thank you for this question. I'm glad you brought it up. 2 Th 2:15 reads as follows: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

To begin with, the Greek word for "traditions" is "paradoseis," which can have to do with a written narrative as well. According to Thayer, Josephus used this word in the meaning of "precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did, were to be obeyed with equal reverence." Note also that these traditions come from the apostles themselves. I have no problem, and nor does Protestantism, holding to apostolic tradition. But the Orthodox church, as well as Rome, claim to hold to apostolic tradition, yet differ from Scripture on several matters, and differ from each other as well (the so-called Church Fathers clearly held to the jurisdictional primacy of the Pope, as I will argue in my closing statement, yet the Orthodox do not accept a jurisdictional primacy, but only an honorary status should he repent). Furthermore, when someone clearly holds to false doctrine, they can claim they hold to apostolic tradition, but we would agree, as you do about the various Popes holding heresy, that they are not truly apostolic.

So, Orthodoxy does not hold to the faith of the apostles since it believes several things which are not in accord with Scripture. Oral teaching cannot contradict Scriptural revelation.

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 4: MY REBUTTAL OF JAY DYER'S OPENING STATEMENT

2008-02-02T11:23:00.000-08:00

Thank you, Mr. Dyer, for your opening statement and your rebuttal to my opening statement. I refer my readers to Mr. Dyer's website http://www.nicenetruth.com/ for more that he has to say with regards to my opening statement, because, as he noted, he has much to say by way of response to my opening statement, and that could take many pages. We decided to limit our responses so as not to over-burden our readers.

I apologize to my readers that this has also taken so long to get my rebuttal up. My wife is pregnant with our fifth child and her morning sickness isn't so great, so I have been very busy helping with the kids, as well as finishing my credential and Master's in education.

Without further ado, I now rebut Jay Dyer's opening statement.
______________

JAY'S FAILED ARGUMENT FROM THE CANON AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA

Suffice it to say that Jay's whole argument from the canon of the Scripture towards Protestants fails on its own terms. Jay argues that, if Protestants don't have the canon right, then we can't hold to Sola Scriptura, and therefore Protestantism fails. What Jay did not tell us, readers, is that Eastern Orthodoxy itself cannot agree as to the extent of the canon! Indeed, Russian Orthodoxy has a different canon than other branches of the Orthodox church. So, Jay says that Protestantism cannot hold because it has the wrong canon, but we are left wondering, then, what is the right canon? Which canon of the Orthodox church should we Protestants accept?

We see, then, that even *if* Protestants had the wrong canon (for the sake of argument--of course I believe we have the right canon as Protestants), that at least prima facie, this is no argument against Sola Scriptura.
______________

JAY'S FAILED ARGUMENT FROM NT QUOTES OF THE DEUTERO-CANON AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA

Jay also tries to argue that, since the NT writers quote the deutero-canon in several places, that this supposedly defends the deutero-canon as inspired Scripture, which must prove that Protestants have the wrong canon, and that therefore Sola Scriptura fails. We have several replies to this line of argumentation:

(1) Just because the NT writers quote the deutero-canon in *some* places (I do not for a second grant that they do it in many of the places Jay argues) does not mean that it is inspired. Indeed, the book of Acts quotes pagan poets, but no one would say that those pagan poets were inspired, nor would we say that their writings were inspired. Why should we then jump the gun and say that the deutero-canon is inspired?

(2) The Orthodox themselves have a problem here, because there are quotes in the NT from writings that they themselves do not include in their canon!

(3) Even the name "deutero-canon" itself means a "secondary" canon. Why is this secondary? Even Protestants admit that there are some useful things in the deutero-canon, but we see it as having historical errors, pagan doctrines, and we do not use it as part of our canon; the earlier Hebrews did not count it as part of their canon either. Why should we?

(4) Again, since the NT quotes writings which were at least up for debate as to whether or not they were Scriptural, *and* since the Orthodox church cannot agree on the canon, why shouldn't we, and they, also accept say the Didache as inspired? The epistles of Clement? The epistles of Barnabas? Etc.?

(5) Many of Jay's ideas that the NT is replete with quotes from the Apocrypha begs the question. They take certain sayings of our Lord and, he concludes that, since the saying sounds *similar* to certain ideas or quotes in the deutero-canon, that it therefore proves that these were quotes of the deutero-canon. Jay begs the question here. This is like (no offense to my paedobaptist brothers) those who believe in infant baptism pointing to the household passages and saying "see, infants are in the text." Or pointing to Polycarp saying he served God for 86 years, therefore infant baptism "must" be true, etc. This is a big petitio principii fallacy.
_______________

DYER'S FAILED ASSERTION OF LITURGY LEADING TO CANONICITY

Jay asserted in his opening statement that ancient liturgy in the church led to canonicity of certain books of the Bible. I find this assertion interesting for several reasons:

(1) It is merely an *assertion.* Jay offered no argumentation or evidence whatsoever.

(2) If it were true, then he has a problem, because the Orthodox church does not use the book of Revelation in its liturgy *today* because it is such a difficult and mysterious book. Since this is so, then, once again, at least prima facie liturgy does not *necessarily* equal canonicity.

(3) Even the liturgy of the ancient church changed during the first three centuries. I do not have time or space here to demonstrate this, so I refer my readers to their own studies. But it is clear that the first few centuries of the church's worship were very simple, but, by the third century, new things were being added.
_________________________

CONCLUSION

Jay's opening arguments to refute Protestantism are bankrupt. He did not establish that Sola Scriptura fails because on his own terms, then the Orthodox view of the canon would fail as well. He did not establish that the deutero-canon is inspired Scripture, nor did he establish that liturgy necessarily leads or has lead to canonicity. Indeed, Jay will have to do better than this if he wants to refute Protestantism.
_______________

I now turn the floor to Mr. Dyer, who will now cross-examine me for six questions. My responses during the cross-examination must be limited to no more than four paragraphs each so as not to overburden my readers.

Mr. Dyer, you now have the floor for cross-examination.

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 3: JAY DYER'S REBUTTAL OF MY OPENING STATEMENT

2008-01-17T11:26:00.000-08:00

I thank Josh for his response. In my first rebuttal I want to do only a few things. First, Josh has brought up a plethora of issues that cannot be dealt with in one response. Thus, I can either spend ten pages on each item he raises, or spread it out a bit, and deal with these several issues over the course of several posts. My first rebuttal will only deal with his assumption of sola scriptura, since we will continue to talk past each other with competing exegesis. I’m not avoiding anything out of fear, either: I will deal with Van Til, Apostolic Succession, predestination, and other issues. But I also think readers would rather read a rebuttal of 7 pages than have to wait another week for a rebuttal of 30 pages.

2. Sacred Tradition, and that the “Word of God” is not solely written.

Suffice it to say that Josh’s arguement, and all of Protestantism generally, rests on the assumption that only the written texts are the Word of God, and that the Word Himself is only known from these. If this fails, then so does all of that system, since this its sole foundation. My goal is to get my opponent and the readers to see the error of his most foundational presupposition, and the overwhelming evidence for mine. When we consider the history of Revelation, we note that in the beginning (Gen. 1:1-3), God’s Word was spoken, and yet nothing was written down. In fact, from Adam to Moses, a period of several hundreds of years passed with the Revelations given to Noah, Abraham, Joseph and others being passed orally. At least, we have no knowledge of anything being written. So, we see that there is nothing inherently defective with oral tradition, as Calvin seems to think in the Institutes. If God can guide the written texts, as the Protestant will admit, then He can also guide the Oral transmission as well. And, in fact, if one believes the Bible, one must affirm that from Adam to Moses the Oral Revelation was passed on faithfully and perfectly to Moses and Joshua, from whence arises the origin of the written texts.

When we survey the Old Testament, we realize that the Patriarchs, all through Genesis, operated according to this infallible Oral Tradition, when God was not giving a new Revelation, of course. When Abraham built an altar, he didn’t have a book to instruct him, He had the truths passed on from the time of Adam in the godly line of Seth, and whatever Revelations God spoke. He didn’t refer to “Genesis.” As an even better example, we can examine the formation of the temple worship of God based on Sacred Oral Tradition in 2 Chron. 29 as follows, concerning King Hezekiah:
“25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the LORD by His prophets. 26 The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.”
But we have no written record of what David commanded concerning these things. Furthermore, it’s also clear that King David flourished some 250 years before the time of King Hezekiah! It might be argued that this was David’s “opinion” concerning worship, but we know that God doesn’t tolerate men’s opinions in His worship. Such is the irony of the regulativist principle. The next chapter makes it clear that this was the Oral Word of God,
“10 So the runners passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, as far as Zebulun; but they laughed at them and mocked them. 11 Nevertheless some from Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. 12 Also the hand of God was on Judah to give them singleness of heart to obey the command of the king and the leaders, at the word of the LORD.”

Take note of this reformed regulativists: the most holy thing--the very worship of God, is here based on an Oral Tradition. Very similar to the way the Holy Church of God has handed down her Liturgies “from the commandment of God through Apostles.” Other examples can be given. When we read of the sons of the prophets in 2 Kings, for example, we know that there was a guild/school, of which Elijah and Elisha were the preeminent members. These “sons of the prophets” were all prophets and prophesied. But we do not have any record of all that they prophesied, but if they were prophets of the LORD, then they prophesied the Word infallibly. Similarly, Obadiah was a prophet, but his recorded prophetic text is only 21 verses. Do we seriously believe that when he preached (and the OT prophet functioned in many ways like a preacher), that he only read the same 21 verses day in and day out, as if OT prophets functioned in a modern, Protestant, sola scriptura fashion? Such a view strains credulity. I point all this out because Josh has used Isaiah 8:20-21 where we are commanded to stick to “the law and the testimony.” But the testimony is precisely the Oral Tradition. Now, when I say “Oral Tradition,” it should be recognized that that Tradition can, of course, be written down, and never achieve canonical status as a book. We see that in the New Testament with The Book of Enoch. But I want to remove from my opponent the idea that he can cite OT texts as proof of sola scriptura. Furthermore, how can you have sola scriptura in a period of ongoing Revelation? You can’t. We see the same principle of Sacred Tradition also exemplified in the following extra-canonical books/traditions quoted in the OT. Note particularly the fact that the books of those prophets listed must have contained infallibly true religious propositions since they were prophets of the Lord, and not false prophets:
1] Book of the wars of the Lord: "Wherefore it is said in the book ofthe wars of the Lord: As he did in the Red Sea, so will he do in thestreams of Amen. The rocks of the torrents were bowed down that theymight rest in Ar, and lie down in the borders of the Moabites."(Num.21:14-15)2] Book of the just:"Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that hedelivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and hesaid before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon,toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still,till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not thiswritten in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midstof heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day." (Jos.10:12-13)"(Also he commanded that they should teach the children of Juda theuse of the bow, as it is written in the book of the just.) And hesaid: Consider, O Israel, for them that are dead, wounded on thy highplaces." (2 Kings 1:18)
3] Book of Nathan the prophet:"Now the acts of king David first andlast are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book ofNathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer:" (1 Paral. 29:29)Now the rest of the acts of Solomon first and last are written in thewords of Nathan the prophet, and in the books of Ahias the Silonite,and in the vision of Addo the seer, against Jeroboam the son ofNabat.(2 Paral. 9:29)4] Book of Samuel the seer: Now the acts of king David first and lastare written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathanthe prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer: (1 Paral. 29:29)5] Book of Addo the seer:"Now the rest of the acts of Solomon firstand last are written in the words of Nathan the prophet, and in thebooks of Ahias the Silonite, and in the vision of Addo the seer,against Jeroboam the son of Nabat."(2 Paral. 9:29)

The last one is particularly revealing, in that we are told that that prophetic text contained visions of Addo the seer against Jeroboam. Thus, a true prophet is prophesying against the evil king Jeroboam, obviously from the Lord. But where is the “written law” of this incident? Note also that the OT text itself is directing one to these books as references! On the Protestant model, we would have the infallible referencing the fallible for truths about the Lord! But this is absurd. So, again we see that they did not have a sola scriptura mindset in the OT, as Josh’s use of Is. 8:20-21 mandates. All of these prophecies were still the “Word of the Lord.” Rather, the written law and the Oral Testimony of the prophets was the Word of the Lord. And, it’s because the Word is a Person, and not a book, that some of these obscure prophesies and visions have been lost. It’s because the Person of the Word came to men (Is. 2:1) and spoke what was necessary whenever and wherever He saw fit. And in His providence, He has maintained and preserved for us today what He has seen fit in both an Oral and written form.
At this point, I move to the New Testament. Is this principle continued into the New Testament, or do the arrival of the Word Incarnate and the commission of the Apostles inaugurate sola scriptura? I believe it can be shown that the OT principle carries right on through into the New. Now, this does not mean that there are any new, public revelations that bind the Church after St. John died. Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and most reformed hold that the deposit of faith was complete with the death of the last Apostle. From what conduits that Revelation is derived is where we differ.

Our Lord Jesus, as far as we know, never wrote anything (aside from what he inscribed in the sand). Yet St. John records in John 20:
“30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
And in John 21:
“25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”
All those other words and actions and miracles and signs of our Lord are all infallible truths concerning Himself. And the Apostles were taught all these things, yet could not write them all down. Now surely there is an advantage to the written form, in terms of communication, but there is nothing inherently faulty with the Oral. If the Oral is inherently flawed, then Jesus would have surely written something! But, it so happens that only some of the Apostles wrote anything we know of! But they all went out teaching and preaching the deposit they had received from Jesus, which includes all that He did and said (that each particular one knew).
My opponent cited Acts 20:27, concerning sticking only with the “full counsel of God,” which he assumes means only written texts. However, this section functions as a powerful refutation of his Protestant tradition. St. Paul says that he taught day and night for three years in Ephesus (31)! Now, all we have from St. Paul in this regard is his letter to the Ephesians and the two to St. Timothy. Are we to imagine that he only repeated these written texts (as if that was all the Holy Spirit had to say to the Ephesians)? Was St. Paul like Obadiah in the Protestant view, only reciting his few verses day and night for three years? Of course not, and we can see in the Book of Acts that this is not Apostolic method. They preach the Word. As a side note, it is also in Acts 20:35 where we have the Oral Tradition recorded that Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” This is nowhere recorded in the Gospels. Thus, all that they taught, both Oral and Written, was the Word of God. Here, my opponent may raise an objection and say that only what the Apostles taught in written form is authoritative and inspired. But where does the NT say that? From whence does he derive that principle? In fact, it says the exact opposite. We read in St. Paul:

“For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13)
This means the Oral preaching of the Apostles was infallible. My opponent was hesitant on the phone to agree to this, but we see that St. Paul clearly claims that his oral preaching to the Thessalonians was the Word of God.
And to St. Timothy he writes:
“Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.” (2 Tim. 1:13)
“1You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:1-2)
Again we see that the Oral preaching of St. Paul is commanded to be passed on to men after St. Timothy, along with the written. This is the same injunction of St. Paul used with the Thessalonians: 2 Thess. 2:15:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”
Clearly the command is for both to be passed on because both are the Word of God. St. Peter agrees:
“…having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God [a Person] which lives and abides forever, because,
“All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the LORD endures forever. Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.” (1 Peter 1:23-24).

Thus, St. Peter understands that the Oral preaching he did was infallible, inspired revelation from God, as much as His written texts were. James White admits this, too, in one of his debates with Matatics. Too many problems arise when we propose that the Apostles could orally teach error, and were inerrant only in written texts. And clearly the biblical evidence is otherwise. The same goes for St. Paul’s lost letter to the Laodiceans:
"Salute the brethren who are at Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in his house. And whenthis epistle shall have been read with you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that you read that which is of the Laodiceans." (Col. 4:15-16)
St. Paul would not have ordered that it be read in the church if it was not the Word of God! And yet, we do not have this text. But for the Orthodox, it would be no problem if it were discovered and were identified as certainly Pauline. It wouldn’t be a new revelation, but part of the original deposit. Furthermore, if the Apostles could err in their oral teaching, they could also err in their written teaching, since their written proposition that their oral is infallible would be proven false!

How do we account for all this? The answer is that all truths and all knowledge are summed up in a Divine Person: The Logos Himself, who contains all the logoi of creation, as St. Maximus says. That is why we read in John 5:
“But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.”
The very same thing said to the Pharisees can be said with equal weight to the Protestant sola scripturist: you search the texts because you confusedly think that they are the Word, when the written texts bear witness to Him. That’s Jesus’ theory of inspiration. And that’s really as far as you can go with the idea concerning what sense the written texts are the Word. Strictly speaking, they are not. They are merely words on a page. But just like icons, they are created images which are empowered to be vehicles of Revelation for the Word Himself. And they contain nothing erroneous. If the Protestant has no problem with me writing “God” or “Jesus,” he should have no problem with icons, since words themselves are images. And those two words are made holy by that fact.
Thus:
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His (the Word’s) sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.” (Heb. 4:12)

He is a living, Divine Person, not a book. And just like it is true that someone can know about me through a letter, without knowing me personally, the Protestant is devoid of true knowledge of Christ, and is just like the Pharisees who worshipped Moses, like the Protestants do St. Paul, when, in fact, St. Paul “wrote of Him.” Even St. John expresses this fact when he writes that he would rather speak in Person as opposed to writing (3 John 13)! Why wasn’t he thinking in terms of sola scriptura?

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 2: JOSH BRISBY'S OPENING STATEMENT

2008-01-12T14:26:00.000-08:00

I thank Jay Dyer for his opening statement. I will interact with his opening statement and focus on more specific critiques of Eastern Orthodoxy in particular in my rebuttal.

INTRODUCTION

I have the privilege of defending and earnestly contending for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints. But what is this faith? Indeed, the debate topic for us asks whether Reformed Baptist Christianity or Eastern Orthodoxy is the true faith. Many denominations and branches of Christianity, including the cults, claim to be the one and true faith handed down by the apostles. To verify whether they are true or not, many offer different claims as proof. Some appeal to "apostolic succesion"; some claim that only they are living in right practice; still others claim that their "translation" of the Word of God is the only correct one. How did the apostles and Jesus Himself view this? "To the Law and to the Testimony."

WHY I AM A REFORMED BAPTIST

I will briefly outline why I am a Reformed Baptist in my theological and philosophical convictions. These will be mainly described as follows:

(1) Philosophically, only Reformed theology allows for the preconditions of intelligibility. That is to say, only it makes sense of the world around us.

(2) Theologically, Reformed theology alone makes sense of the Scriptural revelation.

(3) Practically, only Reformed theology in all its fullness delivers the whole counsel of God and therefore brings about proper Christian living. Specifically, Reformed Baptist theology sees the glory of the New Covenant, which is a far better covenant, with Christ Himself as its very essence.

PHILOSOPHICALLY SPEAKING

Philosophers have always asked questions about the nature of reality, the nature of good and evil, the nature of knowledge, and the nature of beauty. These are of course only a few of the questions that philosophy asks. But philosophers are rightly not content to be satisfied with only a few questions answered. They want to know what is the truth.

Cornelius Van Til was a Christian philosopher and theologian who the Lord used to bring glory to Christ by demonstrating that only Christ Himself and the Christian theistic worldview, particularly in its Reformed presentation, is the only worldview which makes sense. The presuppositions of the Reformed worldview help us to critique other worldviews themselves. Let us look at a few examples of these presuppositions:

(1) God exists as the absolute sovereign Ruler of the universe, governing all aspects of His creation. This is an important presupposition, because, although other Christians will affirm this to some degree, when they are really pressed, we Reformed find that they do not really understand the word "sovereign" in its true sense. For example, a "sovereign" nation is one that is self-governing, and only influenced by itself when it comes to its laws and reign. We Reformed would say the same about God. God is sovereign in the sense that He has absolute free reign over His entire creation. There is nothing that anyone can do to influence Him. He is a Law unto Himself. In fact, not even man's so-called "free will" can stop His plans, because God Himself has even ordained our free acts themselves. Many Christians do not believe that God has really ordained all things. They most certainly don't believe that God has ordained the Fall of man into sin. More than that, they don't dare believe that God has predestined who will be saved and who will be lost. But this is what the Bible teaches. See Romans 9; Proverbs 16:4; Lamentations 3:37-38; Ezekiel 14:9; Ephesians 2:1-10; etc.

If someone does not affirm that God has ordained all things, we can simply break it down and ask them what they mean. So does an event happen because God just thought it would happen or knew it would? Then it was still certain. But some have gone the heresy road and deny God's foreknowledge at all. We can ask them, then, how God planned the redemption of mankind. There is simply an unraveling of the faith unless one upholds God's absoute and sovereign decree.

(2) Although God is absolutely transcendent, yet He stoops down to us and is immanent as well. He has revealed Himself to us in the Person and work of Christ and in Holy Scripture, as well as by way of covenant. Eastern Orthodoxy will say that God's Word is mainly Christ, Who they say is the Icon of God. This is only half the story. How do they know about Christ except by the propositional revelation which is Scripture itself? When we view Scripture, we see that God revealed Himself by way of covenant to the people of Israel, who He used as is even presently using even in their casting away temporarily to bring the gospel to the Gentile nations. God's covenants with Abraham, Moses, David, and the New Covenant are all related and supplement one another. Reformed theology calls this the unity of the covenant of grace. That is to say, that in these covenants there underlies a unity and a fundamental purpose, which is God's plan of salvation for the human race, and the bringing about of the glory of His dear Son.

Dispensationalism, which is the most popular form of thought in American evangelicalism today, sees God's purposes for Israel and the Church as entirely distinct and separate from one another. This gave way to the rise of premillennialism and pre-tribulationism, and a truncated ecclesiology and soteriology. The dispensational view of the holiness of God is very low; it is a focus on His immanence at the expense of His transcendence. Eastern Orthodoxy, likewise, I argue, focuses on God's transcendence (hence apophatic theology and the "negative way") at the expense of His immanence. Both are extremes. It seems to me that only Reformed theology keeps the balance.

(3) Our understanding is darkened unless God renews us and regenerates us by His Holy Spirit. False understanding and idolatry is expressed in all non-Reformed worldviews. I realize that this is a grand statement to make, and a sweeping one. But I have yet to see any worldview that is not Reformed (and I argue, baptistic as well) keep from falling into internal contradictions or practical contradictions from its own claims. One example dealing with Eastern Orthodoxy will suffice. The East says that apophatic (negative) statements about God are really the best way to know God; yet Jesus Himself says in John 17 that "this is eternal life: that they may KNOW You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom You have sent." Now, if eternal life is knowing God, then surely it is more than negatively! If I know my wife, I know BOTH positive AND negative things about her. EO claims to accept Scriptural revelation, but not only does it have problems here epistemically, but it also fails to account for the fullness of divine revelation.

THEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING

This brings us to why I am a Reformed Baptist theologically speaking. I believe that the best expression of the faith once for all delivered unto the saints is the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (although I would amend one part to say that the Pope is AN antichrist, although not THE Antichrist). We do not have time to exposit the Confession now, but every section is replete with Scriptural proofs. Only the Reformed faith makes sense of the strong Scriptural language dealing with the depravity of man (Jer. 17:9; Ro 9:16; Ro 8:7-8; John 6:44ff; etc.). It is probably safe to say that every other branch of Christian thought is semi-Pelagian, if not fully Pelagian. This is ironic as well, because, although I would not view the church councils say the way Rome or the East would (the East holds to seven, Rome to twenty-one), nonetheless, Pelagius was the heretic condemned by the most church councils in all of church history. Yet, his thought is alive and well in Eastern Orthodoxy today (as well as Rome, and also in evangelicalism).

Only the Reformed faith makes sense of the strong Scriptural language when it comes to God's election of individuals unto salvation, and even reprobation (which Lutherans do not accept). I honestly do not have time to list the *numerous* Scriptures on this subject.

The Reformed faith has a very high view of Christ's atonement, His propitiation and expiation. Eastern Orthodoxy does not even like to speak in those categories, since it sees the Resurrection as more central than the cross (because our main purpose, according to them, is theosis and not necessarily judicial justification). We Reformed are very concerned and disturbed by a so-called "atonement" that does not really propitiate and expiate. Further, we see that atonement itself has always and only been designed for only those within the covenant community. Israel's sacrificial system was never designed to remit the sins of those outside of the theocracy and state of Israel. Likewise, Christ's atonement was never, indeed, could never be, designed to take away the sins of anyone except God's elect people.

The Reformed faith has a high view of the Spirit's calling and regeneration. But more than that, the Reformed Baptist faith has a high view of baptism (as well as the Lord's Table). We have been saved, as Titus says, by the washing of regeneration. We have to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. The reason we are born of water and the Spirit is because baptism historically before the third century was always seen as the culmination of the conversion experience. "Arise and wash away your sins." But Peter is clear that baptism does not save merely by the water, but by "the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Christ." It is God's way of testifying to us that we truly have been born again. When the Spirit calls us, there is a clean break with sin. Before that, we are dead in our sins. Even as the lion has the "free will" to choose to eat the vegetables or not, and it never will, our "free will" is bound in sin and will always choose to reject the gospel offer. "Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard change its spots? Neither can you who do evil do good." "The hostile mind is not subject to God's Law, nor indeed can be; those who are in the flesh CANNOT please God." (Ro 8:7-8) "No one CAN come to Me unless the Father Who sent me draws him . . . and I will raise him up at the last day." (Jn 6:44ff.)

Finally, the Reformed faith has a high view of the saints' perseverance. If there is one verse which refutes all self-righteousness, all works-based views of salvation (I include among that the so-called "Federal Vision" troubling Reformed circles these days), it is this: "If we are faithless, He will remain faithful, for He cannot disown Himself." Hallelujah! Our perseverance does not depend upon ourselves. This is hope for the sin-sick soul. The gospel is truly good news. But in Eastern Orthodoxy, the gospel is not good news at all. Michael Horton rightly noted that he has never been attracted to Rome or Orthodoxy, because "there's just not enough of the gospel there." I agree. In fact, the only gospel I know of is what Charles Spurgeon said: "It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." This may seem like a strong statement, but he made clear that he could not (and nor can I) comprehend a "gospel" that depends upon man's so-called free-will, or a "gospel" which has Jesus "loving" and "dying for" Judas in the same way that He "died for" Peter, or a "gospel" which allows man to thwart God's ?perfect? plan, or a "gospel" which lets saints fall away after they are "called."

PRACTICALLY SPEAKING

This leads us to the practical reasons why I am a Reformed Baptist. I have recently wrestled, as many of my blog readers know, with the baptism issue once again, but as I have had time to reflect on this, as well as all of the related issues when it comes to ecclesiology, I am beginning to see the claims of the traditional Reformed Baptist view of the New Covenant. Any kind of Christianity that wants to claim Christianity needs to deal with Jeremiah 31:31-34 in its essence right now. Dispensationalism cannot deal with it because of its stark separation of Israel and the Church, and if it says that the New Covenant is here now in any sense whatsoever, it ceases to be dispensationalism, because here we now have the Church receiving the promises of the New Covenant! Reformed paedobaptist theology cannot really tell us what is "new" about the New Covenant, since it flattens out the covenant of grace to the extreme to the point where there is almost no difference at all. (I realize that paedos will contest this; I am merely speaking from the way we Reformed Baptists see it with our concerns.) Could it be that infant baptism gave rise to the Federal Vision? Could it be that the Federal Vision is kind of a halfway house to Rome or the East? Could it be that all of this is because Reformed paedobaptist theology flattens out the covenants so much that it has a Judaizing element to it, notwithstanding the fact that, to its credit, it does uphold justification by faith alone? This is why I am a Reformed Baptist. Christ Himself is the glory of the New Covenant! As my pastor told me: preaching through the book of Hebrews made him even more of a Baptist. I now see why, praise God!

CONCLUSION

I will do more extensive and specific critiques of Eastern Orthodoxy as well as interact with Mr. Dyer's opening statement in my rebuttal to his opening statement. I again thank my debate opponent for interacting with me and the claims of Reformed Baptist theology.

Mr. Dyer, you now have the floor for your rebuttal to my opening statement.

DEBATE W/EASTERN ORTHODOX PART 1: JAY DYER'S OPENING STATEMENT

2008-01-10T21:08:00.000-08:00

Intro and Opening Statement
By: Jay Dyer

Introduction: Who is this jerk?

Greetings in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the consubstantial, life-giving Trinity. As Josh noted, I am formerly a Baptist Bible College and BTS student who converted to Roman Catholicism roughly 4 years ago, going the traditional, Tridentine route, and subsequently ending up in Orthodoxy. I have a degree (I’m on my last class) in philosophy and history. A more detailed version of the intellectual aspect of my journey can be found here. My real interests, however, are historical theology, biblical studies, patristics, dogmatics, liturgics, and textual studies (as in codices and canonicity). I live in a small town in Paris, TN, and presently work as a clerk in our liquor store as I, finish college (sorry, tee-totalers: please resist the temptation to use this ad hominem… lol).

Such being the case, I affirm that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is the true form of Apostolic, Biblical Christianity, and that not only the Reformed Baptists, but all Protestant denominations, though having generally valid baptisms that impart grace, are, in the final analysis, heretical and severely deficient in their peculiar doctrinal distinctives. Though I am a sinner, I believe God’s deifying grace had brought me to this truth. Such arguments, by God’s grace, have already led to the conversion of many of my learned friends from Protestantism.

1. The First and Major Error: the Protestant Canon of Scripture.
My first argument is that if the Protestant has the wrong canon, then his claim of sola scriptura is completely groundless and falls flat. Let me preface this by saying we believe in soli verbum Dei, the Word of God alone, not Scripture alone. The Divine Logos is a living Person (Heb. 4:12, John 5:39), not a book, though the written Revelation of Himself in the canonical Scriptures is inerrant and infallible. It is not, as will be demonstrated below, the sole means of knowing Christ and obtaining infallibly true religious propositions. A detailed response to the major Protestant myths concerning the DC, which is what is required, are ably dealt with in this article of mine. I cite only conservative, respected Protestant scholars of various flavors. Suffice it to say in summary that it is completely false that the New Testament never quotes the DC. For example, we see the following citations very clearly:
Ecclus. 11:31 and 2 John 10.
Ecclus. 11:18-20 compared with Christ’s parable of the wealthy farmer in Luke 12:19.
Further, Jesus’ statements about the eye making the whole body dark in Matthew 6:22 seems to clearly refer to Ecclus. 14:8-11.
Wisdom 12-13 is almost exactly parallel with Romans 1:18-32. F.F. Bruce admits this in his “Canon of Scripture,” where he writes that St. Paul obviously had this in mind when penning Romans.
Wisdom 2 and Baruch contains clear prophecies of Christ, as evidenced here.
Hebrews 11:35 refers to women and children who refused to be delivered from death (martyrdom) that they might receive a better resurrection. Now, there is nothing like this in the Protestant canonical OT (based on the Palestinian Jewish canon), where a woman refuses to have her children saved in order to merit for them a more glorious resurrection. But there is exactly that situation in 2 Maccabees 7, where the mother and her seven sons refuse to be delivered so that they might obtain a better resurrection.
Thus, we see that the NT writers clearly had no Protestant dislike of the Deuterocanon (from now on DC). I fact, it is well known that many early Protestant vernaculars contained still contained the DC Books, or at least some of them, such as the early King James and the original Geneva Bible. Who, then, is right on the canon? Who has the full written Word of God? If a Protestant cannot give a cogent account as to what constitutes canonicity, who makes that decision, and the historical events that makeup canonicity, then he continue to claim sola scriptura as a viable principle. It might simply be asked, why follow Luther in rejecting them? Luther himself admitted he had theological reasons for rejecting them. But that begs the question—to reject the DC because it doesn’t fit with “the Word of God,” as many Protestants do, is merely presupposing you already have the correct canon. But that’s what is in question. If you do not even have the correct canon, it logically follows that you are also wrong about sola scriptura.

Rather, I affirm that Scripture itself directs us to Sacred Tradition. We also know for a fact, as Protestant scholars on this issue admit (as I showed in my above linked article), that the NT writers, for the most part, used the LXX (the Septuagint). Everyone knows it contained the DC. This explains the NT writers’ numerous allusions and citations (and there are many more than I listed). And, it is the LXX that passed into the early church as their OT “Bible.” This is why the claim of many Protestant Apologists is completely false, when they imagine that the early church, both apostolic and post-apostolic, “didn’t recognize the DC.” In fact, it’s the exact opposite, and it’s far more complex than that. The history of the canon evinces a long, flexible, progressive formation, as any student of this issue knows. However, sticking to the main point, it’s quite easy to demonstrate that the early church used them and cited them as they do the rest of the canonical texts:

"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).
St. Clement of Rome
"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
St. Polycarp of Smyrna
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).
St. Irenaeus
"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible). "Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).
St. Augustine
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]). "We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

I have spent 6 years now in the Phillip Schaff Church Fathers Set, and there are literally too many of these to cite. More examples, for quick reference, can be found here. We see, then, that if 2 Macc. 12 is part of the written Word of God, then suffrages for the dead are laudable and praiseworthy religious actions. Therefore, to deny them, is to reject part of the written Word of God, and it then follows that the very origins of Protestantism’s conception of the canon (Luther’s dislike of the DB) are shown to be a serious heresy and a mere tradition of man: ironically, the very thing Protestants harp against Orthodox.

Many will respond that the Palestinian Jewish authorities [!] of the first century should be our model, since most of them (not all, however), rejected the Hellenized Jewish practices, one of which was the Diaspora use of the LXX. From whence does the Protestant derive this principle? Who determined that the Palestinian Jews must be followed? Didn’t they crucify Christ? Why would they determine our canon? Does the Bible teach that we should follow the Palestinian Jews? Weren’t they a Synagogue of Satan (Apoc. 2:9, 3:9)? In fact, Origen makes a compelling case that apostate Palestinian Jewish leaders purposely omitted and/or changed texts, in this letter. I highly recommend reading it, as it shows, first, that Protestant apologists such as James White are false in stating that Origen rejected the DC, and second, it illustrates the complexity at hand, and the inadequacy of the Protestant approach to this issue of canonicity. Note also that Origen, as did St. Augustine in Bk. XVII of the City of God, touted the Church’s acceptance of the LXX. Further, it exposes the foolishness of thinking that Christ-rejecting Jews have anything to do with defining the Holy Church of God’s canon. It is also well known that the Jews in Palestine fixed their non-LXX canon due to the fact that so many Christians cited the DC prophecies of Christ!

Moving on, we also see the difficulty for the Protestant when we examine St. Jude. We read there the citation from the Book of Enoch, which undoubtedly also prophesies Christ in many places. Protestants may try to take refuge in the argument that only 1 Enoch 9 is cited, so only 1 Enoch 9 is inspired. The problems with this are manifold. St. Jude is not merely accepting that only verse 9 is inspired, inasmuch as the reference here is to the return of Christ Himself. St. Jude is then also presupposing that the author, whoever he is, is correctly transmitting an oral tradition (that was eventually written) from the time of Enoch, since Enoch is explicitly said to be its author in St. Jude 14. Thus, you must affirm that Enoch said this, if you believe in inerrancy. Clearly there is an extra-canonical OT tradition that has been handed down, being subsequently written, so that even if one rejects that Enoch actually wrote it, it’s generally considered to be a text that originates prior to the Advent of Christ. But on what authority does the Protestant say that only verse 9 is inspired? Does the Bible say that? What about the rest of the book, where Christ is spoken of in many places? Furthermore, this is outside the realm of merely quoting a pagan poet for effect, as St. Paul certainly does on two occasions. This is, in fact, understood by the Apostle as a prophecy of Christ Himself!
My point is not to argue for Enoch’s canonicity, but to show that the Apostles obviously did not have the Protestant sola scriptura mindset. Many other examples could be given, such as the story of St. Michael and Lucifer arguing over the body of Moses in St. Jude 8-9, which most scholars believe is from the pseudepigraphical Assumption of Moses, as the notes to the Reformation Study Bible admit. More examples can be given, but the point is, I think, clear. There are infallibly true religious propositions that exist outside the actual canonical texts, and this is a lucid example of Sacred Tradition. And, only one clear example is enough to prove sola scriptura false, since it’s an unequivocal, universal claim.

Another example of this problem from a different avenue is the question of textual authorship. All admit that Matthean authorship, for example, is crucial to its canonicity, yet no one possesses the autographa of St. Matthew himself. Our author does not neatly conscript himself as “I, Matthew, who was the disciple of Jesus, wrote this letter.” There is only one way we know this is part of the written Word of God, and that is through Sacred Tradition. The editors of the Reformation Study Bible are forced to admit this:
"Although this Gospel [Matthew] does not name its author, some earlymanuscripts have an inscription "according to Matthew," and Eusebius(260-340) tells us that early Church Father Papias (60-130) spoke ofMatthew as arranging the "oracles" about Jesus. Subsequent traditionis unanimous that the disciple Matthew, also called Levi (9:9-13,Mark 2:13-17), was the author of this Gospel, and not until theeighteenth century was this tradition doubted...other objections toMatthew's authorship are more speculative...but these objections[liberal, higher-critical doubts] do not disprove the tradition thatMatthew was the sole author..."-New Geneva/Reformation Study Bible, pg 1503.

To simply assume that “Matthew” is the Apostle Matthew, begs the question. All the false gospels ascribe their origins to Apostles as well, such as the blasphemous Gospel of Thomas. The same goes for the question of the authorship of St. Mark’s or St. Luke’s Gospel. Again, Sacred Tradition is clearly inescapable. To ignore all this is to be dishonest, when confronted with the facts. Other examples could be given, such as Lent. We know from the writings of St. Polycarp that Lent was celebrated in the first century, along with Easter. How else would St. Victor threaten to excommunicate the Easterns and have his famous dispute, in which St. Irenaeus refers to the time of St. Polycarp (roughly 90-100 A.D.) where Easter in the East was celebrated on a different day. How is it, my dear regulativist pals, that the church had almost totally apostatized so early? How was it that Lent and Easter were celebrated so early and so widely in the Holy Churches which the Apostles established? On the genuineness of this, see J.N.D. Kelly’s Oxford History of the Popes, under the entry for Pope St. Victor. Didn’t God promise to raise up for His Church, His very Body, holy and wise men to lead and guide Her through the presence of His Spirit (Eph. 4:9-14)? Where were these men until Luther? Where was the Holy Spirit, in terms of keeping faithful sola fide-ists preching and teaching for that aeon? Over 1,000 years of no one teaching sola fide! See A. McGrath’s Iustitia Dei on this.

Another example of Sacred Tradition often missed by Protestants is the ancient Liturgies. The Liturgies factor in prominently in the discussions of the Ecumenical Councils, and give testimony to the very heart of the Church’s Tradition itself-the worship of God. How is it, that from Apostolic times, Sacred Liturgies have been passed on in the major sees and bishoprics of the Church, that teach all those “Catholic” things? In fact, unbeknownst to many of Protestant thinkers is the fact that inclusion of certain books in the canon was intimately tied to the use of certain verses or texts in the Liturgies! It’s never a hard and fast either/or on these issues, as many Protestants want to make it. Liturgy was involved in the canon, and vice versa. So was Oral Tradition, as were creedal, canonical and conciliar statements-all aspects of either Sacred Tradition or holy ecclesiastical traditions. For example, let us look at the Ancient Liturgy of St. Mark, used by the God-bearing Fathers such as Ss. Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, which in its present form dates to probably the third century. But wait you say: “that’s not Apostolic, if it’s from the third century!” Then neither would be the NT Scriptures, since most of the 5,000 or so ancient texts we presently have date from the same period.

What do we find present in the Divine Liturgy of Saint Mark? We find priesthood, Bishops, Real Presence, invocation of the Holy Angels, incense, One Visible Church, the sign of the Cross, sacrificial Eucharistic offering, epiclesis, consecration, etc. All those “blasphemous idolatries” so hated by Protestants. We see the same practices in the West as well, very early on, when St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and St. Hippolytus describe their respective liturgies that contain all these same elements. So, when the Protestant says he wishes to have the “mind of the Church,” yet rejects virtually everything ecumenically confessed by the “mind of the Church” for the first 1000 years, it’s difficult to understand how this is supposed to work. How can he rightfully oppose the hyper-preterist, for example, when he tries to fend such heretics off with “Tradition,” such as the Nicene Creed (and what else is the Creed but our Sacred Tradition?)? He may refrain from using the term ‘tradition,’ to the “mind of the Church,” but undoubtedly the mind of the Church is expressed in her ecumenical Creed! The Fathers who composed that Creed undeniably meant by “one, holy, catholic, apostolic,” what we Orthodox alone have maintained: one visible institution with the presence of the Holy Spirit in her sacraments alone, that spreads across the nations and through all ages, being founded on Apostolic Teaching & Succession.” To profess this Creed, and redefine the terms to fit one’s theological fancy to appear in line with the Church of all times is simply dishonest.

Such is my opening statement. In the follow ups and rebuttals, I will move on to other key topics: more essential biblical evidences for Sacred Tradition, the proper conception of the Word of God Incarnate & the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession, justification, the filioque heresy, and other key issues, such as problems with Van Tillianism, icons and relics, with attending responses to whatever Josh poses.

Ss. Peter, Paul, Athanasius, Cyril, & Augustine, Michael and Raphael, and the Holy Theotokos, pray for us.

Jay Dyer

UPCOMING BLOG DEBATE: ME VERSUS EASTERN ORTHODOX

2008-01-10T11:34:00.000-08:00

Hello readers,

I am pleased to welcome an Eastern Orthodox man by the name of Jay Dyer to my blog. He contributes to http://www.nicenetruth.com/ . Jay is formerly Reformed and formerly Tridentine Roman Catholic who came to the Eastern Orthodox religion in 2006. I have spoken with him over the phone as well and he is very enjoyable and cordial to speak with. I welcomed him to a debate on my blog. He will be posting it on his blog as well.

Jay will have an introduction of himself so you can all get to know him.

The debate topic will be in the form of a question: "Is Eastern Orthodox or Reformed Baptist Christianity the True Faith?"

The format will be as follows:

Part 1: Mr. Dyer's Opening Statement
Part 2: Mr. Brisby's Opening Statement
Part 3: Mr. Dyer's Rebuttal of Mr. Brisby's Opening Statement
Part 4: Mr. Brisby's Rebuttal of Mr. Dyer's Opening Statement
Part 5: Mr. Dyer Cross-Examines Mr. Brisby (Six Questions)
Part 6: Mr. Brisby Cross-Examines Mr. Dyer (Six Questions)
Part 7: Mr. Brisby's Closing Statement
Part 8: Mr. Dyer's Closing Statement
Part 9: Blog Readers' Q & A (to either blog writer)

Once again I would like to welcome Jay to The Reformed Oasis. It should be a good debate. Thanks Jay, and welcome to The Reformed Oasis!

WE'RE RICH!!!

2007-12-31T15:01:00.000-08:00

Hello readers! Rejoice with us! We ended the wonderful year of 2007 with a wonderful bang! We found out today, and confirmed with Kaiser Permanente today, that Angela is pregnant with our fifth wonderful arrow of our quiver!!!

If it is a girl, she will be named Sofia Cristiana. If it is a boy, he will be named Isaiah Calvin.

We praise You, O Lord, because You grant Your favor to those who are undeserving. O Lord, we do not deserve Your kindness to us, yet You lavish it upon us every day. Thank You for the gift of this precious life. Please guard this child and protect this child. May our baby one day know You personally, and Jesus Christ, Whom You have sent. Thank You that You confound the wisdom of the "wise" through the mouths of little children. We praise You that You crush Satan's kingdom this way. May You be pleased, O Lord, to grant us even more children after this one. We are unworthy. You have made us rich with every spiritual blessing in Christ. In Jesus' precious Name. Amen.

WHERE I (CURRENTLY) STAND ON VARIOUS REFORMED DISCUSSIONS

2007-12-20T20:59:00.000-08:00

Hello my fellow Reformed readers! This post is for you all. As many of you well know, we Reformed come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. This is just to let you know where I currently stand on different Reformed issues. I would love to know where some of you stand as well.

JOSH BRISBY'S CURRENT CONVICTIONS:
_________________________________

Eschatology: Postmillennialist

Christian Liberty: Fire me up a cigar and a cold beer and a nice warm Merlot with some gambling chips and a Blackjack table!

Apologetics: Van Tillian Presuppositionalist (kind of in between the Bahnsenian and Frameian stripes)

The Sabbath: Moderate Sabbatarian who believes that we should honor the Lord's Day, but every Christian needs to work out in their conscience issues associated with it

Have the gifts of tongues and prophecy ceased?: Yes (cessationist)

View of the general equity of the moral law of God: Non-theonomist in the stripe of Frame and Poythress (see The Shadow of Christ In the Law of Moses and Frame's articles on the subject, esp. his "The One, the Many, and Theonomy" in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique)

Justification and the Federal Vision: I reject the Federal Vision as heretical. I hold to the imputation of Christ's righteousness, including both His active and passive obedience.

Law and Gospel: I believe Law and Gospel are antithetical when it comes to our justification, but that they are united in our sanctification. Christ causes us to walk in His Law and transforms our hearts to obey it in our sanctification. Our union with Christ flows from our justification.

Counseling: I affirm that nouthetic counseling in the stripe of Jay Adams seems to be the most biblically-oriented manner to touch the soul and deal with the heart of the issues.

Days of Creation: Literal, 24-hour day six-day creationist; I reject Kline's Framework Hypothesis as damaging to the church, and other views as influenced by evolutionary thought

Corporate Worship: I hold to the regulative principle, while not being strict to the point of denial of instruments. It is important to distinguish between elements and circumstances of worship.

Exclusive Psalmody?: No. Hymns and songs that are non-Psalms are appropriate as well.

Redemptive-Historical Preaching?: No, I appreciate the Puritan way of application in sermons

Strict or moderate subscription to the Confession?: Moderate

Prophetic school of thought (partial preterist, idealist, historicist, or futurist?): Idealist

Proper subjects of baptism: Those who profess faith; rejection of infant baptism as unbiblical and unprovable

Nature of the Lord's Table: Calvinist suprasubstantiationist (I recommend Keith Mathison's excellent book Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper)

Infralapsarian or Supralapsarian?: Infra, although I'm not sure if it really matters. Sometimes this seems to me to delve too deep into the mind of God.

Have I left any out??? :0D

Where do you stand, O Reformed readers?

THE SAD STATE OF THE CHURCH TODAY

2007-12-16T05:47:00.000-08:00

We are currently staying at a Hampton Inn in Gallup, NM, about 3 1/2 hours away from my parents' house in Albuquerque. This morning, I have looked all over the yellow pages here, doing research on websites, for a church for us to go to this morning.

I found none.

The only good news is that I found a sister F.I.R.E. Church (Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals) about 41 minutes close to my parents' house. We will consider going there tonight for evening worship. However, it saddens me that there are no good Reformed or Calvinistic churches where we are staying right now.

I sure am glad I'm a postmillennialist. I just wish that God would work a little faster. The state of the church today grieves me greatly.

ON VACATION

2007-12-15T06:17:00.000-08:00

We are on vacation right now, driving to see my parents. I am typing this from a hotel in who-knows-where, CA right now, but we are taking it easy, and it is nice. I hope we see some of God's wonders of snow. I am looking forward to this.

Also, this may be the last time we see my parents' house in New Mexico, because they are retiring and moving to TX. I have a lot of memories in their house, so it will be kind of sad. You know all about nostalgia I'm sure.

For my readers, I plan on doing some posts on Why I Am A Reformed Baptist soon, as well as A Critique of Eastern Orthodoxy. Before I do the post on why I'm a Reformed Baptist, I'll probably do several on Why I Am NOT . . . and then several religions/worldviews.

Most of all, I am a Christian because of the sovereign grace of our Triune God.

Have a Merry Christmas everybody, and a Happy New Year!

MY DIET: AFTER ONE MONTH

2007-12-07T06:23:00.000-08:00

Hello friends! The Lord has been gracious to me and my family! Today, after one month on the diet, I now weigh 236.2!

Almost half-way there! Praises to our sovereign God!

A WORD ON ADVERTISEMENTS

2007-11-26T11:51:00.000-08:00

I do NOT endorse or approve of all of the advertisements on my website. I originally signed up for this thinking it would bring in a little extra income. So far it has not. Furthermore, some of the advertisements are for heretical websites and authors.

I would encourage those who are thinking of signing up for Google Ads to not sign up. DON'T SIGN UP. You'll be disappointed, and you may have advertisements of things you do not approve of.

So, to my readers, if you do click on the advertisements, be careful to take it with a grain of salt, and to always have your Bibles open.

MY DIET: DAY 12

2007-11-20T10:14:00.000-08:00

Down to 249.0!

MY DIET: DAY 6

2007-11-13T07:58:00.001-08:00

Down to 254!

MY NEW SPANISH BLOG!

2007-11-10T08:56:00.000-08:00

Hey all,

To all you Spanish speakers, and to all of you who wish to practice your Spanish, my new Spanish blog is now up and running.

Please visit me at http://www.josuebrisby.blogspot.com/ .

Tell your Spanish-speaking friends! The site is similar to The Reformed Oasis in content.

MY DIET: DAY 3

2007-11-10T08:09:00.000-08:00

Well, I started my diet last Thursday. On Wednesday at my Positive Choice class I weighed 272. I'm not joking--this morning I weighed myself, on the third day of my diet, and I now weigh 259.2! I'm almost certain that most of what I have already lost is water weight. But it's nice to see it come off.

I will keep my readers posted on the progress. Please pray for me, as this is going to be a long and hard road. But, pray most importantly that I would have a hunger and a thirst for God more and more through this. That is more important than losing weight.

MY FAVORITE MUSIC

2007-11-06T16:39:00.000-08:00

Some of my favorite albums/bands currently:

As I Lay Dying, "An Ocean Between Us".

This album is absolutely amazing Christian metal/hardcore/"scream-o". Back when I was in my first band "The Big Cheeze," their drummer was in a band called Edge of Mortality. I used to get up on stage with them and they let me be the guest singer (more like "screamer") for the Overcome song "Sacrificed." Later, when As I Lay Dying first became a band, and when I was in Flight 180, at a battle of the bands in Point Loma I was asked to be a guest judge. I voted for As I Lay Dying when they played. Guess who won that battle of the bands. Yup. Of course.

The album "An Ocean Between Us" is amazing musically and lyrically. My wife and I are going to see them at Soma on November 30th. I can't wait!

Mae, "The Everglow."

This album is kind of in the emo/rock genre. It is beautiful rock music with piano. Track 2 is especially amazing. When this album first came out, I danced with Gabriel, my son, to track 2, which is an ethereal-sounding piano song. Every time I hear it it is so hard for me to hold back tears. It makes me think of how much I love my son and how much I want what is best for him.

Mae is with Tooth and Nail Records, which is one of the divisions of the record label my band was on a while back. (We were with B.E.C. Recordings.)

Extol, "Synergy."

This band is on Solid State Records, the hardcore/metal division of Tooth and Nail Records. Their musicianship is amazing. Lyrically, they are theologically right on--at least in this album. the ironic thing is that this band is Pentecostal/Arminian. Funny how Arminians really are Calvinists when it comes down to the grind.

Jimmy Eat World, "Clarity."

I saw Jimmy live. You know a band is good when live they sound like their produced album. Well, that's Jimmy for ya. Clarity is probably one of the most beautiful emo-rock albums I have ever heard.
_____________________

The above is just a sampling of what I like to listen to. All praise be to the Triune God, the Maker and Creator of music!

THE MORTIFICATION OF SIN

2007-10-11T09:40:00.000-07:00

I have been reading John Owen's The Mortification of Sin lately. It is very quickly becoming one of the best books I have ever read. My top three right now are the Bible, John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, and then Owen's book.

I am almost done with the book. It has cut me to the heart and slain me deeply. I have struggled with assurance of salvation for many years. Now I am convinced that I am either not a believer, or, if I am, that I am a most miserable believer. I highly recommend especially chapters 8 and 9.

My wifey took a quote from Owen and posted it on her blog about how God requires nothing less than universal obedience. When I read this quote in my car, tears came. As I read it to my wife one evening, it was difficult to read without crying. God blessed Owen with so much wisdom. I felt like I have come to one of the best doctors for my soul.

I too would like to place that quote here on my blog for my readers to consider. May our Lord bring us into true spiritual mortification!
________________________

We must hate all sin, as sin, and not just that which troubles us. Love for Christ, because He went to the cross, and hate for sin that sent Him there, is the solid foundation for true spiritual mortification. To seek mortification only because a sin troubles us proceeds from self-love. Why do you with all diligence and earnestness seek to mortify this sin? Because it troubles you and takes away your peace, and fills your heart with sorrow, trouble, and fear, and because you do not have rest through it? Yes, but, friend, you have neglected prayer and reading! You have been vain and loose in your conversation with other things. These are just as sinful as the one that troubles you. Jesus Christ bled for them also. Why do you not set yourself against them? If you hate sin as sin, and every evil way, you would be watchful against everything that grieves and disquiets the Spirit of God. You would not be concerned only about the sin that upsets your own soul! It is evident that you fight against this sin merely because it troubles you. If it did not bother your conscience you would let it alone. If it did not bother you, you would not bother it. Do you think God will help you in such a hypocritical effort? Do you think that the Holy Spirit will help in the treachery and falsehood of your own spirit? Do you think He will free you from this so you are free to go and commit another sin which grieves Him?

‘No’, says God, ‘if I free him from this lust, I will not hear from him anymore, and he will be content in his failure.’ We must not be concerned only with that which troubles us, but with all that troubles God. God’s work is to have full victory, and universal obedience, not just the victory over the sins that trouble our soul.

‘Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God’ (2 Cor. 7:1). If we will do anything, we must do everything. So, then, our need is not only an intense opposition to this or that particular lust, but a universal humble frame and temper of heart that watches over every evil, and seeks the performance of every duty that is pleasing to God.
______________________
John Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 50-51 (Banner of Truth)

ZWINGLI: A CALVINIST ON THE LORD'S SUPPER?

2007-10-05T21:05:00.000-07:00

I was surprised to read the following quotes from someone quite unexpected:

"In the Lord's Supper the natural and essential body of Christ in which he suffered and is now seated in heaven at the right hand of God is not eaten naturally and literally but only spiritually."

"So then, when you come to the Lord's Supper to feed spiritually upon Christ, and when you thank the Lord for his great favour, for the redemption whereby you are delivered from despair, and for the pledge whereby you are assured of eternal salvation, when you join with your brethren in partaking of the bread and wine which are the tokens of the body of Christ, then in the true sense of the word you eat him sacramentally. You do inwardly that which you represent outwardly, your soul being strengthened by the faith which you attest in the tokens."

Yup, those quotes came from, you guessed it: Ulrich Zwingli!

_____________________________________________________________

(The quotes are from his Exposition of the Faith sent to King Francis of France. Thanks to Tom Nettles for the quotes.)

A PRAYER

2007-10-02T19:12:00.000-07:00

O Lord, help me to hate that which is ugly and to love that which is beautiful. Amen.

MY UPCOMING DIET

2007-10-01T11:07:00.000-07:00

Well, next month sometime I will be officially starting a weight-loss program with Kaiser Permanente called Positive Choice. I would start it now, but I have to complete a physical and a body assessment, and one class. So I'm sure that next month sometime, Lord willing, I will be starting it.

My sister-in-law did the program and she lost a lot of weight. She lost it quickly too. The only thing is, of course, keeping the weight off after you lose it. I have a personal trainer who I work with three times a week, and I try to do cardio every other day except for the Lord's Day. So, I anticipate keeping the weight off.

The diet consists of liquid formulas, and it's only like 425 calories a day. They are formulated to give your body all the nutrition it needs so you can lose the weight fast, as well as in a healthy way. You are monitored by a personal physician and also have to keep going to the lab every week.

The only downside is that I have to go to a weekly "support group" where I have to meet with a psychologist. Yuck! But one of my elders told me not to let that stop me, so away I go.

Please pray for me! This will be 5 months of only these liquid formulas (and some kind of soup broth as well). I have 60 lbs. to lose, and I wouldn't mind losing even more.

I do plan on having my final fling with food the nights before I start. :0D

Anyways, I am looking forward to losing all that weight in 5 months that it took me ten years to put on.

GOD IS FAITHFUL

2007-09-06T14:31:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: This post is meant not as offense to those who do not embrace Calvinism, but it does intend to attack Arminianism as a system of thought.
_________________________

I hate Arminianism. Let me tell you why.

Arminianism portrays God as this all-loving, sentimental, grandfather in the sky type of god who loves everyone equally, but is devoted to no one. He has no special love for his bride, the church. After all, god loves all equally and alike, and jesus died for everybody equally and alike, and, although all of a sudden, god intervenes to keep those who truly belong to him (for some Arminians), they cooperated with the holy spirit in regeneration, since faith precedes regeneration.
_________________________

I love Calvinism. Let me tell you why.

Calvinism portrays God as the Ephesians 5 Husband, Who is devoted to His Bride, the Church. Although He has a general love for all mankind, He has a special, sovereign, saving love for His elect, the Church. He is devoted to Her entirely, and to no one else, even as a husband is to be devoted to his wife alone, and to no other woman. In fact, God is so devoted to His Bride, the elect, that He sees to it that they not only come to faith, but that they are sanctified, and that they persevere, and He feeds us with His Word and cleans us in baptism and feeds us again in His body and blood in the Holy Supper. Jesus gave Himself for His Bride alone, because He is the Faithful Husband. His Name is Faithful and True. He is faithful even when we are faithless, because He cannot disown Himself.

This is the kind of God who shows me what it is to be a faithful husband. I love my wife. In my eyes, she can do nothing wrong. But when we have an argument, I try to remember that God is faithful to me even when I am not all that enjoyable to be around. God teaches me to love my wife, even in the midst of an argument.

This is because the God of the Bible is the God that the systematic theology known as Calvinism, highlighted in the Reformed faith, portrays biblically and beautifully.

If today you are struggling with sin, if today you are unfaithful to God, if today you are not persevering as you should, know this:

God is Faithful, and He is committed to you for His glory. Even when you don't feel it, even when you've had a day full of sin, know this:

God will sanctify you and preserve you.

When we are faithless, He is faithful, for He cannot disown Himself.

INFANT BAPTISM: CASE DISMISSED

2007-08-31T10:41:00.000-07:00

Well, we are officially dropping our infant baptism studies. This will be my last post on the matter (hopefully for the rest of my life).

I do not pretend to have this all worked out. Let me say that, over the years, I was dogmatic for some time. In fact, you can see some of it in the earlier archives of this website. But I am hardly dogmatic about anything anymore, except for the doctrines of sovereign grace and the gospel.

So, I will leave this last post on the subject for all my paedo and credo brothers and sisters to consider, and then feel free to comment. If there are any comments that to me warrant a consideration and response, I'll probably respond in the comment thread. But I have heard countless arguments on both sides, many many times. To me, both sides seem to have much to say. So, without pretending that I have this all worked out, perhaps I can sum up why I remain a credo, although I am sure it is by default.

The best thing to do I think would be to list what I think to be bad arguments on both sides, and good arguments on both sides. I will include brief commentary as to why I think they are bad or good arguments.

BAD ARGUMENTS ON THE CREDO SIDE:

CREDO BAD ARGUMENT: Baptism is for believers only because of the nature of the New Covenant. It is made with the elect only, as Jer. 31:31-34 says.

RESPONSE: I think that Paul Manata has done a phenomenal job of showing how this text has nothing to do with the subjects of baptism. Elsewhere in Jeremiah, there are several passages which mention that in the New Testament era, God will be the God of our children. Furthermore, it still seems that God has a special view of our children today, since Mary herself sings that God's faithfulness is unto a thousand generations.

CREDO BAD ARGUMENT: Only the elect are in the New Covenant now, in the current administration of the covenant of grace.

RESPONSE: When we examine the way the covenant of grace is applied today, this just doesn't hold water (pardon the pun). Romans 11 speaks of being cut off. What were these unbelievers in the olive tree cut off from? 1 Corinthians 5 speaks of excommunication. Ex= "out of", and "commune" = assembly. They had to be "in" in some way, didn't they? Hebrews 10:30 speaks of the Lord judging "His people." The context is eternal judgment. In John 15 our Lord speaks of every branch "in Him" being cut off. In fact, the language of being "cut off" is most definitely covenantal language. It seems to me that the threatenings make no sense if they are not to be understood covenantally.

CREDO BAD ARGUMENT: But you see, these people were only cut off from the church, and not the covenant. The church and the covenant are different.

RESPONSE: This kind of "out" makes the Reformed Baptist view unfalsifiable. Anytime there is a text against the credo view, they have an out--it's only the church, not the covenant. Or when children are mentioned, they are spiritualized. Besides, isn't the local church the "covenant" people of God? Are we going to really say that ALL the members of the local church are not "in covenant" with God? The very threat of excommunication is covenantal. I see no way of getting around this. Every church that practices church discipline, whether paedo or credo, is practically showing that the covenant still has attending curses that come along with it for breaking it.

CREDO BAD ARGUMENT: Every example we have of baptism is of people professing first, then becoming baptized.

RESPONSE: This is debatable. The "household" passages are at least inconclusive. But where do we see a child of the age of three, or four, or five professing faith and being baptized? Yet Baptists have no problem doing that because of the inference that it doesn't matter what age, as long as they profess. There is no case of women partaking of the Lord's Table anywhere in Scripture, but Baptists (and paedos) believe they can because of *inference*. The fact is, both sides use inference.

There are others as well, I believe. But this post is already getting long, and I wish to examine both sides.

BAD ARGUMENTS ON THE PAEDO SIDE:

PAEDO BAD ARGUMENT: Circumcision and baptism both share the same meaning. So, we can assume that baptism replaces circumcision in the New Covenant administration of the covenant of grace, and that therefore the subjects of baptism are the same as the subjects of circumcision.

RESPONSE: First of all, this makes an unwarranted leap. Indeed, circumcision and baptism do not share *only* the same meaning. Baptism signifies union with Christ. In fact, both sacraments do. No matter how much a paedo tries to tell us that circumcision signified union with Christ, that is a huge burden on them to prove so. How do they know that? I think many times the paedo makes the mistake of taking the full meaning of the New Testament and mixing it into the shadowy, not-yet-revealed analogy of the Old Testament. There seems to be an error in biblical theology here. More than that, even if we assume that paedobaptism is true, even our paedo brothers must admit that the subjects are not the same. Needless to say, only males were circumcised in the OT (for obvious reasons). But now infants of both sexes receive baptism in their system, so, at least on the surface, circumcision and baptism do not correspond as closely as they mention.

PAEDO BAD ARGUMENT: Romans 4:11 says that circumcision was the sign of faith, yet it was still applied to infants.

RESPONSE: Romasn 4:11 is speaking of Abraham as the father of our faith--the faith he had while uncircumcised. If anything, this is actually a case for the credo. The apostle is speaking of Abraham's faith, and is not making a generalization for the meaning of circumcision.

PAEDO BAD ARGUMENT: 1 Corinthians 7:14 says the children are "holy" and not "unclean." It doesn't mention that the unbelieving spouse is "unclean."

RESPONSE: Just because it doesn't specifically mention that the unbelieving spouse is "unclean" does not mean that he or she is or is not unclean. But the same root word (hagiedzetai--"sanctified") is used of the unbelieving spouse as is used for the children (hagioi--"clean, sanctified, holy"). In other words, in this passage, it is clear that whatever "holiness" the children have, the unbelieving has as well.

PAEDO BAD ARGUMENT: That passage says that because it is speaking of adults . . .

RESPONSE: Here the paedo has an "out" as well. When Peter calls baptism the "pledge of a good conscience toward God," is he giving baptism a meaning for adults that it doesn't have for baptized infants? It seems to me that they are driven to change the meaning of baptism for infants, and make it mean something different for adults.

PAEDO BAD ARGUMENT: That's because circumcision and baptism mean the same thing.

RESPONSE: They do not. As mentioned above, the paedo has a heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that circumcision signified union with Christ. Again, how would they even begin to demonstrate this?
_______________________________

On the good side of things, I think that we need to listen to our paedo brothers when they speak about God's view of our children. I also think that the credo side has some very excellent and helpful things to say when they speak about the "newness" of the New Covenant. I think you could still remain a paedo or a credo and incorporate those good things into your sytem.

_________________________

Well, that's basically it. I apologize to any if I have misunderstood either side or not addressed some things. It seems safer to me to drop this. Both sides agree that those who profess faith should be baptized, so it seems to me that the safer route to take would be to remain a credo by default.

I hope that the above is helpful to the Body of Christ as we continue to be led by our Lord into the unity of the faith.

PIPER'S NEW BOOK: OCTOBER 19, 2007

2007-08-17T11:17:00.000-07:00

I just went to http://www.amazon.com/ and pre-ordered John Piper's new book coming out on October 19th, 2007. I am looking forward to it.

It is called The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. I encourage my readers to buy and read this book when it comes out. I too have been very concerned with the teachings of N.T. Wright and his redefinition of the doctrine of justification.

Piper's book will no doubt be a great help to the Body of Christ.

UPDATE

2007-08-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

Thank you to all who have been praying for us and concerned with our theological wrestling matches lately. Our study on baptism has led us to an even deeper study, going as deep as the New Covenant itself.

Below is a copy of an e-mail I sent to a brother recently which helps explain what is going on right now. I would appreciate interaction with this in the comments section, or over the phone or in person.
_________________________

______________, that is basically how we were wrestling with it. Over the years I have come from being so dogmatically against it (even critiquing it on Gene Cook's radio show three years ago), to admitting that I don't have much left to refute it.

However, recently this study has led me even into a deeper study of the New Covenant itself. I am beginning to doubt even traditional covenant theology. I have thought that, perhaps paedobaptism is kind of like a "magic trick," in that, everything looks good on the surface, and it appears to have a strong case, but when the deeper questions are probed, the case does not appear as strong. Some of the questions include the following:

*Since female infants obviously did not receive the sign of the covenant in the OT, why do we assume that female infants should receive baptism?

*Baptism in the NT seems to be actually about union with Christ (Romans 6, 1 Co 12, Gal 3),
rather than about being brought into a covenant which has both blessings and curses. Furthermore, it speaks of those having received it as having "died unto sin," and having received the Spirit, and having been clothed with Christ. For that reason, there seems to be less of a connection between baptism and circumcision.

*Even if we do take the household principle, could it not be argued that this was common thinking because that was the way the culture of the day thought? Indeed, non-Jewish cultures, as Kline points out, had that principle as well, so it seems to have been merely a cultural thing. Perhaps this is why the Philippian jailer is told that he and his household will be saved, which would explain why we don't speak that way today. In fact, Jim was mentioning to me that in Leonard Verduin's book, he argues that this was tied to a view of the unity of the state and religion. America is the first country in all of history to finally separate church and state.

*How far do we go with the "unity of the covenant of grace" idea? How was the Noahic covenant part of the administration of it? Are we saying then that animals can be in the covenant of grace, since the Noahic covenant was made with all of creation?

*What about the covenant of works? It seems that Adam was created in perfect harmony with God. How do we know that if he would have obeyed, that he would have been "confirmed" in righteousness? How do we know, in fact, that it was even a probationary period to begin with? It seems that God would have just left the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there.

It seems to me that the glory and power of the New Covenant is much grander than traditional covenantal theology makes it out to be, with it flat-line carryover between the Old and New Covenants. This study has led me even deeper into a study of the New Covenant itself, and not just baptism.

Anyways, that's where I am right now. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts so we can sharpen one another as we both continue our pilgrimage here.

In Christ,
Josh Brisby

STILL THINKING ON THE BAPTISM ISSUE . . .

2007-06-30T16:31:00.000-07:00

Thank you to all of you brothers and sisters who have been praying for us on the issue of the proper subjects of baptism. I just wanted to give you all an update.

We are continuing to take this slowly, but through talking with our elders and thinking and discussing it out more, we still have our doubts about infant baptism. It seems to me that both sides have excellent points to make, and both sides have arguments, and arguments that respond to arguments, and arguments that respond to arguments' arguments, ad infinitum.

Having said that, we are considering dropping the issue. I want to let it sit for a while, but I know that, when a case comes up in a court of law, when true and reasonable doubt is present, the case is dismissed.

Currently, I have true and reasonable doubt about the issue of infant baptism. I have dialogued with paedobaptist friends where they tried to answer these issues. On the surface, the answers seemed to be somewhat satisfactory, but after probing it a bit further, I am still unsure.

When this chapter in our life comes to a close (probably in a couple of months, I hope), I will do a final post on this issue.

Please continue to pray for us. I know that there have been godly men on both sides of this issue in the history of the Church. Our only wish, as I know both credos and paedos wish as well, is to obey God's Word in this area of our life and our childrens' lives.

I also wish to open up my blog for any comments from credo brothers or paedo brothers for fruitful discussion if you wish.

May our Lord continue to guide His Church into all truth.

PLEASE PRAY FOR US

2007-06-18T18:41:00.000-07:00

To My Blog Readers:

Please pray for us. I am copying the text of two e-mails I sent out to the elders of our church. I can't believe this is happening. This is a difficult time for us.
____________________________

To Our Spiritual Fathers, the Elders . . . ,

This is an e-mail to ask for help. This is Josh and Angela Brisby, and we wanted to let you know that, over the past couple of years, through baby steps, and through dialogue/debate, we have become more and more convinced of infant baptism. This is hard for me to believe that this is happening, especially because I was Presbyterian for two years before I became Reformed Baptist. However, I am unsure whether I fully understood the paedobaptist position then, nor did I give it a fair chance to respond when I was becoming Baptist.

Yet, this time we have no desire whatsoever to become paedobaptists. We love [this church] , and the last thing we would want to do is to have to change churches. We are asking you to please convince us from Scripture, with reason subservient, that the infant baptism position is incorrect, and to please show us that the Baptist position is correct. We are asking you to rescue us. We love this church, and we want to stay.

Please pray for us as well. This is a very emotional time for us, but even more so for me as the husband and leader. I wept over this yesterday.

In Christ,
Josh and Angela Brisby
________________________________

Brother ______,

To tell you the truth, I think that most paedobaptist literature is not very good. I had recognized some aspects of what I believed in articles by Richard Pratt, and I am currently reading The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (edited by Gregg Strawbridge). I also read the collection of essays Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant In Christ, but was not persuaded by most of it (many of the writers wrote from a New Covenant Theology perspective).

Over the years, it has happened as the following:

Shortly after I became Reformed Baptist, I saw problems with the traditional Reformed Baptist view, namely, that only the elect are in the New Covenant in this administration of the covenant of grace. I saw this as problematic from texts such as John 15, Romans 11, 1 Corinthians 5, and the book of Hebrews (particularly Hebrews 10:30). I agree that the covenant of grace, eternally speaking, has always been with the elect only, but in its administration temporally, it has always included both elect and non-elect.

Because of this, I reasoned that I could still stay a Baptist and believe that the covenant had two circles to it: the internal and the external. The internal is those who truly possess saving faith, and the external is all those in the outward administration, that is, those who belong to the visible church. Indeed, that is the way I was for quite a while.

But as years passed, I read an article by Gregg Strawbridge which demonstrated Scripturally that children were in the covenant. Ironically (and thankfully), I am not convinced of paedocommunion (we can discuss later as well why I do not see this as inconsistent), but the article was in The Case for Covenant Communion. I found that if one does a search on the word "children" and ponders God's promises, they are so powerful that indeed, it seems to me that to cut the children out of the covenant would be drastic. But in the New Testament texts, we still see promises made to the children (Acts 2:38ff), and the children are called "holy" as opposed to "unclean." (I am also aware of how Baptists respond to this, and we can discuss why I am not persuaded by their response as well.) Furthermore, when Jesus says that "brephoi" (infants) belong to the kingdom, and then blesses them, that it something that seemed to tug at me. I learned through dialogue with _______ that "blessing" was always looked at in a covenantal context in Holy Scripture. Our Lord blessed them.

I also realized that indeed, both the paedo and the credo position use inference. For example, the Baptist cannot find an example in Scripture of children believing and then being baptized. The only examples of professors who are baptized in Scripture are adults. There are some Baptists who wait until age 18 to baptize (Spurgeon, Dever), but they are few and far between. So Baptists reason that, since it seems that in every case of baptism in the NT, it seems, there was repentance and faith first, and then baptism followed, they therefore conclude that if children repent and believe, they are admitted to the waters of baptism. They conclude this by good and necessary inference, as it were.

But the paedo also concludes by good and necessary inference that children were in the covenant in the OT, and that God nowhere put them out. Circumcision was a sign of entrance into the covenant, and baptism is the sign of entrance into the New Covenant. Therefore, since they see children in the covenant, they conclude, by inference, that children or infants should be baptized.

Both sides agree that the household baptisms are inconclusive, but it seems to me that the "you and your household" principle goes back to the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet this is still spoken to Gentiles (such as the Philippian jailer in Acts 16). In other words, when was the last time that we all have evangelized someone and said to him, knowing he was a family man, that the promise was to him and to his children? Or that if he believes, he and his household will be saved? I confess that I too was uncomfortable with this language, but I sort of brushed it off and put it in the back of my mind.

Finally, I reasoned that, perhaps I could say that infants of believers were members of the church, yet I did not have to baptize them. But I learned as well that both sides agree that baptism is a sign of entrance into the church. I concluded that it would be unwise of me to deny it if I thought that my children were members of the church.

One imporant thing, as we dialogue, I think, is to carefully define our terms. I think especially the term "church" and "covenant" need to be carefully defined, because I think that many times, Baptists unknowingly may equivocate and switch on the visible/invisible church, and on the external/internal covenant (although the traditional Reformed Baptist view sees the New Covenant as purely internal currently).

There is much more, of course, that could be discussed, but perhaps this will get us started. I would love to discuss in whatever way you think is most convenient and profitable, whether over the phone, by e-mail, or in person, or all of the above.

We love you as our spiritual fathers. As my wise and amazing wife told me, if this is not true, then we need to fight to stay Baptists. If this is true, then we need to fight to believe it and to have our hearts follow. Right now my head is there, but my heart does not want to go. Please help us.

Yours In Christ,
Josh Brisby for the Brisbys

A BRIEF CRITIQUE OF NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY

2007-06-16T15:17:00.000-07:00

A while ago I had mentioned that I was doing a study on New Covenant Theology. The purpose of this blog entry is to discuss elements of New Covenant Theology I appreciate, while critiquing the elements I disagree with. I hope to be biblical in this brief discussion.

APPRECIATION OF NCT

New Covenant Theology is a way of interpreting Holy Scripture which places more focus on the discontinuity between the testaments. It sees all of the Old Testament Law as having passed away, even in its moral aspects. As such, New Covenant theologians see the Ten Commandments as being only for Israel, and not for the nations or the New Testament Church. Instead, they see the Sermon on the Mount given by our Lord Jesus as the normative New Testament ethic.

Surprisingly enough, I think that there are elements of this idea that I can agree with. It seems clear to me that from 2 Corinthians 3 that indeed, all of the Law has passed away. But what do we mean by this? I think that is simply to say that, all of the Law has been transformed and written on the hearts of God's elect in Christ, like a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel do the same analogy in their book New Covenant Theology. I appreciate this aspect.

However, what is quite unfortunate is the way I think NCT treats the ethic of Scripture because of this. I think it comes to unfortunate hermeneutical difficulties, and confusion. It is to here which I now turn.

CRITIQUE OF NCT AND CONCERNS

The way Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel in their book flesh out the differences between the testaments is disturbing. Christ is pitted against Moses to the point of contradiction between the two, with no other claim other than that Christ is "higher than" Moses. Indeed, Christ is higher than Moses. But not to the point of contradiction! In fact, even John Macarthur, the dispensationalist, argues that in Matthew 5-7, Christ is not giving us different laws, but is instead correcting the distortions of the Pharisees.

This is the way that John Reisinger views the Sermon on the Mount as well in his Abraham's Four Seeds. It is problematic at best to see Jesus simply dismiss the OT Law. Our Lord does not dismiss the Law (Mt 5:17ff), but rather fulfills it in such a way that brings its fullest intent to bear upon us as Christians.

Indeed, Greg Welty has written numerous articles critiquing this problem in NCT. It seems that NCT does not take a systematic approach to the Scriptures. For example, the law against lust was indeed even *in the Ten Commandments themselves!* "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." The Proverbs also bear numerous passages dealing with the avoidance of lust.

Wells and Zaspel argue that it was OK to hate your neighbor in the OT, but is not OK in the NT. I refer the reader here to Welty's excellent articles, which also mentioned Scriptures that mention loving the pagan, even in the OT.

When all is said and done, what scares me about NCT is that it seems to be content with saying that the NT even contradicts the OT on certain ethical principles, because Christ is "higher than" than the OT.

WHAT ABOUT THE SABBATH?

NCT believes that the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ, and I think I would agree with this. Wells and Zaspel discuss the practical implications of this, and look deeply into Romans 14 and other texts. Again, I would agree, but why can't we say that, for example, the Sabbath has passed away, but the Lord's Day is now its replacement? How far do we take this? Can we meet as the local church body on any day of the week that we want, and disregard Sunday? Is our only obligation to meet? Can we treat the Lord's Day like any other day, merely going to church, but then going out to a movie, or working, or discussing the cares of the week and financial issues?

Indeed, the Lord's Day has been given as a gift to believers. I plan on posting on this in the near future.

NCT'S CRITIQUE OF THE "COVENANT OF GRACE" CONCEPT

NCT also critiques covenant theology's idea of the unity of the covenant of grace by saying that we should instead speaks of the "gospel of grace" or the "purpose of grace." The problem it has is that we should not look at the Scriptures in this way because it imposes a system upon them which is not there, and which can lead to a host of problems.

However, as covenant theologians, when we speak of the unity of the covenant of grace, we ARE speaking of God's purpose of grace, expressed by means of the various covenants administered throughout Scripture. Indeed, most biblical scholars today (even non-covenantal theologians) admit that the concept of covenant is at the core of Scripture. (I'm sure many NCTers would also say the same.) Not everything has been fulfilled yet, even in the Abrahamic Covenant. (Many NCTers would no doubt agree here as well.)

DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVE "LOGICAL PRIORITY"?

Related to this idea, should we give the New Testament "logical priority" over the Old? I believe that that depends on many things exegetically. For example, I don't think that we can accurately understand the Book of Revelation without giving the OLD Testament a sort of "logical priority." And we cannot understand many of the types and shadows of the OT without giving the NT the logical priority.

In other words, it is not that exegesis is over systematic theology. It is that exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic theology are all on the same plane. As one of my friends pointed out to me in a recent discussion, you can't do exegesis without systematic theology, and you can't do systematic theology without exegesis. No doubt, many good exegetes agree about this.

ARE ONLY THE ELECT IN THE NEW COVENANT?

I am going to leave the reader with this last point, but you may recognize that this is also a problem with traditional Reformed Baptist thought. Both Reformed Baptists and New Covenant Baptists will say that only the elect are in the New Covenant. But this is certainly problematic for now, for numerous reasons, Scriptural and practical. In an upcoming post, I will be discussing this.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is clear that I did not intend for this post to go into deep detail, nor did I intend it to be a major paper. (Indeed, as a husband and father of four, with a bedridden wife currently, I do not have the time.) However, I wanted to give my readers something to chew on.

It is for those reasons above that I cannot in good conscience embrace New Covenant Theology.

____________________________
ADDENDUM: STEVE LEHRER'S VIEWS

Steve Lehrer is a New Covenant theologian who has recently written a book called New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered. My critique of his book could well be summed up above as well as I critiqued Wells, Zaspel, and Reisinger. However, there is more.

Lehrer is kind of an aberrancy from mainstream NCT in that he (1) denies the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, and (2) holds to some sensationalistic ethics which many NCTers would outright reject.

As far as his denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the believer, I would refer my readers to past blog entries (especially toward the beginning archives of this site).

But one example of an ethic which Lehrer holds to is that, if it is not repeated in the NT, then it must be permissible. Lehrer believes that, were it not the law of our land, incest would be permissible, because it is not repeated in the NT.

His thing is to ask us why we believe that incest is not permitted. As a covenant theologian, I have my answers. Perhaps Lehrer is more of a consistent NCTer. But if this is where NCT leads logically, then what do we make of this?

LEHRER'S INCONSISTENCIES

Lehrer argues that bestiality would not be permissible, because it would be "committing adultery," and that law is repeated in the NT. But how far do we take this? Would it be OK for someone to marry an eight-year old girl? After all, that is not even discussed in either the OT or the NT!

Furthermore, why would bestiality be adulterous? Lehrer attempts to explain why, but he forgets that adultery as such is defined as "adult"ery," between two "consenting adults."

I am very concerned about Lehrer's views, and I do hope that he might reconsider some of the dangers of his ethical and hermeneutical positions.

THE MAJESTY OF THE HOLY TRINITY, part 2

2007-06-14T16:52:00.000-07:00

A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ

by Samual E. Waldron

One place at which the historic doctrine of the Trinity is in danger from rationalism in our day is in a widespread doubt among evangelical teachers as to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit. This doubt is probably due to the seeming contradiction of asserting that the Son is self-existent God and yet eternally generated. The Baptist Confession, in line with both the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration and all the historic creeds of the church, warns us against indulging such doubts upon this subject.

It is often thought that the doctrine of eternal generation involves Subordinationism. Three kinds of subordination must be distinguished.

There is subordination in the modes of operation. This has reference to the subordination of the God-man to the Father in the economy of redemption. This may be called economic subordination.

Secondly, there is subordination in the modes of subsistence. This has reference to an order and relationship of derivation among the persons (or hypostases) of the Trinity itself. The Son is begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from both. This may be called hypostatic subordination.

Thirdly, there is subordination in essence. This has reference to the idea that the deity of the Son and Spirit is a qualified form of the deity of the Father. This may be called essential subordination. It is this which has been historically and properly known as Subordinationism.

The historic doctrine of the church and its creeds is that as to their essence the Son and Spirit are equal in power and glory to the Father, but as to their persons they are eternally generated and eternally proceed from the Father. Thus, as to their essence, they are self-existent, while as to their persons, they are eternally derived from the Father. As the historic doctrines of the church, these two doctrines are not rightly called Subordinationism. That term is properly reserved for the teaching that the Son and the Spirit are as to their essence less God than the Father and essentially less transcendent. Hypostatic subordination and economic subordination are not, therefore, Subordinationism. The biblical evidence in favour of the eternal generation of the Son may be summarized as follows.

The economy of redemption is that of creation (John 1: 1 3; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6). Surely it is strange that both in the economy of creation and the economy of redemption the same order is maintained, if this economic subordinationdoes not reflect a certain hypostatic subordination in the Trinity itself?

The Bible teaches explicitly that the Son is begotten, or, at least, derived (John 1: 14, 18). The translation of the key word is, however, disputed. Some translate it in the traditional way, 'only begotten', while others prefer the translation I unique'. To some extent this problem of translation is related to a disputed etymology. Some derive the word from the verb which means 'to beget' and others from the verb which means 'to become'. Either possible etymology contains the idea of (eternal) derivation.

Proverbs 8:22-31 also contains explicit teaching to this effect, if applied to the Son of God. The New Testament seems to make the application itself (Col. 2:3; 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Luke 11:49). Note also Micah 5:2.

It has sometimes been argued that the designation 'Son' is never used of the pre-incarnate Christ. Allowing this interpretation of these terms for the sake of argument, it does not explain the use of the term 'Father.' This term is clearly applied to the first person of the Trinity describing his relationship to the second before the incarnation (John 10: 36; 16:28; 1 John 4:14). It is impossible to disentangle this term from the idea of One who is the cause, source, or begetter. The Father is the Father precisely to the Son (John 5:18; Col. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6).

The argument that the term 'Son' is never used of the preincarnate Christ is not convincing (John 3:16; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:14).

The argument that the term 'Son' means nothing but equality simply does not carry conviction. That it does note equality we do not, of course, deny. However, to say that it denotes only this appears to fly in the faceof everything we know not only about the word 'father' but also the word 'son'.

Further evidence for the doctrine of eternal generation is gained from what we may call the doctrine of eternal utterance. The other clear designation of the pre-incarnate Son is the Word. Surely this designation intimates a relationship of subordination between the person designated God and the person designated the Word in John 1: 1. As to their essence both are God, unqualified deity. 'The Word was God.' As to their persons, however, one is called 'the God' and the other is called 'the Word' of God.

Without eternal generation and eternal procession and the doctrine of hypostatic subordination it is impossible to distinguish the different persons of the Trinity. There are no revealed personal relations or properties. Even terminology like the First, Second, or Third Person of the Trinity becomes illegitimate. We are left with three colourless, unvarying, indistinguishable persons in the Trinity. This result smells of the barrenness of human philosophy, not the richness of biblical revelation.

Finally, the suppression of a real eternal fatherhood and a real eternal sonship lessens the glory of redemptive love. Is not the glory of the Father giving his Son for our redemption lessened if we limit the idea of sonship in this sentence to mere equality? The result is that one neutered divine person gives another colourless divine person. On this idea, where is the glory of the Father's sacrifice? Where is the glory of the Son's filial obedience? The tendency to doubt eternal generation and eternal procession diminishes the glory of the gospel.

(This work was taken from pages 56-59 of 'A Modern exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith,' by Samuel E. Waldron – second edition)

THE PRACTICALITY OF THE REFORMED FAITH

2007-06-13T22:40:00.002-07:00

I am once again glad to be a Calvinist.

As I type this, I have had quite an emotional roller-coaster ride today. Right now, my wife is staying overnight at the hospital. Today, she had the worst headache of all time in her life, and hasn't been able to keep any food down.

One doctor said it was "sinusitis" (first time I've heard of that). But she just called me and told me that her Kaiser doctor came to the hospital, and said her symptoms don't seem to be of "sinusitis," so he ordered an MRI.

Tonight, or early in the morning, my wife is going to have an MRI to determine what is going on. And I'm not going to be there, because I am home with the kids.

I am typically a worrier. I know our Lord tells us not to worry, because it doesn't add a single hour to our lives, or a single cubit to our height.

But I love my wife so much.

Or not enough.

I know I don't love God and Christ enough.

Lord, once again, I dare come before You, and beg You to have mercy on me, the unworthy sinner of sinners. I continue to take Your blessings for granted, and I take my salvation for granted. O Lord, forgive me again and again! Please have mercy on my wife this evening, the precious bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. I pray that You would be with her, even now. Please comfort her. Please grant her peace. Please grant me peace. Grant me peace to trust in You and Your wise and sovereign care. I know that everything happens, O Lord, because You have ordained it so. Help us to bow the knee to Your sovereign will. In Jesus' precious Name. Amen.

JUNE 8TH: OUR ANNIVERSARY!!!

2007-06-08T23:37:00.000-07:00

Today my wifey and I celebrated our 5th wedding anniversary. We sipped Martinelli's and toasted and watched our full wedding video. It was so wonderful.

The Lord has been so good to us during our five years. I have the most beautiful wife anyone could ever imagine, and the most gracious and selfless wife as well.

The Lord has blessed us with four precious children as well. May He be pleased to grant us even more. May our Lord be pleased to grant us with many more years of a happy marriage.

Most of all, may our Lord be pleased to continue to use our marriage for His purposes, and for His glory.

Lord, let our family honor You. In Jesus' Name. Amen.

THE MAJESTY OF THE HOLY TRINITY, part 1

2007-06-02T08:36:00.000-07:00

Praise to the God Who is Three Persons!

I marvel over how mysterious the Trinity is. Have you ever studied the difference between the ontological Trinity and the economical Trinity? I refer you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology for this.

The ontological Trinity is mysteriously beautiful. We speak of God being "one in essence, three in Person." This is true as far as it goes, but many misunderstand this and think of God as an abstract essence, wherein three Persons fill that essence. But this is not the way the Bible speaks of God.

Van Til was right when he said that God was "Absolute Person." Although, that too was a bit confusing, because God is Three Persons, not one person.

The way the Church has always understood this is that the Father is the eternal Source of the Trinity, and the Son was eternally begotten of the Father (filiation), and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, through the Son (spiration). Historically, it was debated whether we should say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son, because the concern was that the Father be considered the eternal Source, and some felt that to say "AND the Son" (filioque) compromised this. But the other side wanted to respond to the Arian heretics by proving that Jesus was eternal God as well, which was their concern.

I believe there is nothing wrong in saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son as long as it is properly understood that we mean "through" the Son. Indeed, the Father is the eternal source, or fountainhead, of the Trinity, and the Son is eternally generated, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and (through) the Son.

SOME NAYSAYERS

There have been some recent naysayers, particularly coming from evangelicalism. Their concern is that they think that it is a contradiction to say "eternal generation." They argue that the Son became the Son only at the Incarnation, but before then, He was only the Word. But this is not the Church's position, and it never has been. The Church's position is that the Son was eternally begotten of the Father.

This is also the position of the Reformed creeds and confessions. It is the position of my Confession as well, The London Baptist Confession of 1689.

I think it is important to recognize the mystery here, but it is also important to humbly bow the knee to the mind of the Church.

"BUT WE JUST NEED TO GO BACK TO THE BIBLE!"

Some will say, "OK, so it's the position of the historic Church, and the position of the Reformed confessions. So what? What matters is what the Bible says."

I am all for what Scripture says. I think that this can be deduced from Scripture as well. But there is also something to be said for submitting to the mind of the Church. Do we understand Scripture perfectly? It has always been the heretics who have said that we need to ignore what the Church has always said.

"BUT THE REFORMERS WERE ALL ABOUT SOLA SCRIPTURA!"

Yes, the Reformers were about Sola Scriptura, as am I. But they never understood Sola Scriptura as just "me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit." Indeed, Roman Catholic heretics and Eastern Orthodox heretics always criticize us Protestants for this kind of attitude.

But, historically, "me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit" was never the attitude of the Reformers, and it is not what Sola Scriptura means. No, they understood it as submission to the mind of the Church, and bowed the knee to her most willingly. They recognized that the Church was indeed "the pillar and foundation of all truth." They saw the Bible as the Church's book. This is the position of the Reformed faith today as well.

UPCOMING ARTICLE

In part 2, I will be posting an article from a brother which is excellent on the eternal Sonship of Christ. I again also refer my readers to Louis Berkhof's excellent treatment in his Systematic Theology.

I hope that these posts aid us all to marvel at how mysterious and how beautiful our God is!

RESULTS OF GABRIEL'S MRI

2007-05-29T20:26:00.000-07:00

Thank you all for praying for Gabriel's MRI results. My wifey-pooh I'm sure will have more details over at her blog: www.athinkingwoman.reformedblogs.com .

Gabriel's MRI was normal, which means there was nothing wrong physically with his brain. As many know, his EEG was abnormal, meaning his brainwaves were abnormal.

We are pretty sure he has some form of mild autism or asperger's syndrome. We are seeing a Christian counselor who specializes in this field every month as well.

Please continue to pray for our precious Gabriel. What a gift he is from our Lord!

PRAISE TO THE GOD OF MERCY!

2007-05-24T11:35:00.000-07:00

Gabriel woke up from the anesthesia! Praise our Lord for His mercy!
____________________________________________________

Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation! O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation! All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near; Praise Him in glad adoration.

Praise to the Lord, who over all things so wondrously reigneth, Shelters thee under His wings, yea, so gently sustaineth! Hast thou not seen how thy desires ever have been Granted in what He ordaineth?

Praise to the Lord, who hath fearfully, wondrously, made thee; Health hath vouchsafed and, when heedlessly falling, hath stayed thee. What need or grief ever hath failed of relief? Wings of His mercy did shade thee.

Praise to the Lord, who doth prosper thy work and defend thee; Surely His goodness and mercy here daily attend thee. Ponder anew what the Almighty can do, If with His love He befriend thee.

Praise to the Lord, who, when tempests their warfare are waging, Who, when the elements madly around thee are raging, Biddeth them cease, turneth their fury to peace, Whirlwinds and waters assuaging.

Praise to the Lord, who, when darkness of sin is abounding, Who, when the godless do triumph, all virtue confounding, Sheddeth His light, chaseth the horrors of night, Saints with His mercy surrounding.

Praise to the Lord, O let all that is in me adore Him! All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him. Let the Amen sound from His people again, Gladly for aye we adore Him.

WHY GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY MATTERS

2007-05-24T06:13:00.000-07:00

This morning, I am glad to be a Calvinist.

My family just left to go to Gabriel's MRI. The kids are going to be at a friend's house from church (except Owen, who is still on the breast).

I know that to some, anesthesia is just routine. But as a father who loves my son deeply, it was hard for me to not wonder, What if this is the last time I see Gabriel?

I can't go back to sleep. Too many thoughts running in my head.

But this is why I am so thankful to believe in God's sovereignty.

Many Christians believe in God's sovereignty, but I dare say not to a biblical extent. The Reformed faith is deeply and intensely practical.

I just visited my wifey's blog, in which I reread the lyrics to that wonderful hymn, "Whate'er My God Ordains Is Right." I remember singing that hymn at the memorial service of the wife of one of the elders of my church, astounded and blown away at the beauty of God's people.

What comfort! What hope! What security in the midst of trials!

You see, Islam believes in a fatalistic view of predestination, but the Bible teaches predestination inclusive of means, and, most of all, guided by God's infinite wisdom and loving hand. This is the doctrine of divine providence.

But on the other hand, many Christians today do not go far enough with God's sovereignty. "God ordained ALL things? What do you mean? Are you telling me that He has decided from all eternity who is going to heaven and who is going to hell? Are you telling me that it can't be any other way?"

That is what the Bible says. How can we have any hope at all if God is not in control of even the smallest details of life? Consider a snowflake that falls from the sky. Did you know that each and every snowflake is carefully crafted by God? Did you know that each one is intricate in detail? Did you know that each one is different--at least so far as our inductive reasoning can tell us?

You see, if God has not ordained everything, then that means that there are things that are not under His control. This would be utter chaos, and there would be no hope. How could there be order to such an event? This is part-atheism. This is like saying order can come from disorder, and that something can come from nothing. This "god" would be the "god" of open theism, which is really the "god" of atheism.

This is ultimately why there are only two religions, although all religions would fall on the spectrum: Calvinism, and atheism.

But I know that, whatever happens this morning with Gabriel's MRI, that it was ordained of my loving Heavenly Father. He has ordained whatever happens because He loves me, and He is committed to His glory. He works all things out to the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). Nothing can happen apart from His divine decree (Lam. 3:37-38).

But the truest love of all is the love that continually conforms me to the Image of Christ.

This is why I am a Calvinist. God has ordained all things, and He is faithful to His covenant. He is sanctifying His Bride, the Church. He continually shapens us and moulds us into the image of His dear Son.

O Lord, help me to trust You. Thank You that I can rest in the fact that You have ordained all things. Whatever happens today, let me rest in You, the Most Wise, Sovereign, Author of Salvation. In Jesus' Name. Amen.

WE ARE POWERLESS

2007-05-23T22:27:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, my sweet 3-year old son, Gabriel Luther, is having an MRI. It is quite clear that he has mild autism, or asberger's syndrome. A recent brainscan came up abnormal, and hopefully tomorrow's MRI will be able to find what needs to be discovered.

Yet, to do this, they need to use anesthesia and put him under for a while. I worry about this. I know that it is routine and that it happens all the time, even to young children; but I worry.

Oh Lord, help me to trust in You.

WE ARE POWERLESS

Why do we live, even as Calvinists, as though we are in control of our own lives? We are powerless to overcome the mighty hand of God in His sovereignty. Yet, we know that God works all things out for the good of those who love Him. Our God rules in His most wise and providential fashion.

I spent much time with Gabriel tonight. We took him and the other kids to Chuck E Cheese, and then just Gabriel and I watched Nacho Libre (again) and ate popcorn and sipped raspberry-grape juice. He was very cuddly tonight.

I just put him to bed, and as I did, the tears came. Oh, what a precious child You have given us, O Lord!

What if You were to take him from us, O Lord? I pray we would trust You. I only pray we would love You more than life itself.

I have lived a shameful life of loving others and other things more than the infinitely enjoyable God of the universe. I am scared that something major would have to happen for God to knock some sense into me.

I know that He knows what is best.

If not tomorrow, soon there will come a time in which we need to be prepared to say, as Job did, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord."

O Lord, help us to find You more delightful and pleasurable than anyone or anything. May Christ be our all in all. Forgive my shameful idolatry. I am filth. Why do I labor for that which fades away? How foolish I am! I am dung.

O Lord, forgive me for deceiving myself into dare thinking that anything is more delightful than You. Everything I have comes from You.

I am powerless. Destroy me, that Christ may live in me.

THE BLESSING AND GLORY OF CHILDREN

2007-05-17T19:16:00.000-07:00

"Hey daddy, are you daddy?"

"Hey daddy, I dooed it!"

"Hey daddy, will you make me Superman?"

"Mommy, you're beautiful."

"Daddy, I want to watch the wrestling movie."

"Daddy, can I fly?"

"Yes, I may get up!"

"Can I kiss the princess?"

"Can I hug the princess?"

"Mommy, we can pray if we want."

"I disobeyed and I got in biiiiiiiig trouble."

"Does he need a spanking?"

"Look, mommy, God maded a beautiful rainboat!"
_______________________________________________________

Anyone have any from your kids that you would like to add in the comments section?

JOHN PIPER AND JUSTIFICATION/SANCTIFICATION

2007-05-15T18:16:00.000-07:00

I found a very helpful statement from Desiring God Ministries (DGM hereafter) on justification and sanctification.

John Piper (whose teaching ministry DGM is) has been accused of heterodoxy, and sometimes even heresy. However, I believe that those who are accusing him of that do not fully understand his position.

Read sections 9 and 10 of DGM's statement. Many people have problems with 10.3 particularly. However, when we consider a full-orbed perspective and the various passages of Holy Scripture, we may be able to see where DGM is coming from.

I encourage you to read the Scriptures listed at the statement itself by going to this link: www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/affirmation_of_faith.pdf

I think the statement does a good job of considering the full counsel of Scripture, which speaks of how we are justified by faith alone, and how yet we must strive to persevere for final or consummate salvation.

(Some are uncomfortable with the terminology of "final salvation," but when we consider that "salvation" is a broad term in Scripture which includes the whole package of justification, sanctification, and glorification, this should not be too problematic.)

May the Lord continue to aid our understanding of His Word, and may He be pleased to cause us to persevere in the faith once for all delivered unto the saints!

MY WIFEY-POOH TURNS 26 TOMORROW!!!

2007-05-12T08:23:00.000-07:00

My adorable bride, Angela, a.k.a. Angela the Beautiful, Cupcake, Queen, Princess-Queen, Sweetie, etc., turns 26 years old tomorrow!

She will be enjoying her birthday AND Mother's Day, all rolled into one!

I could not have asked for a better wife. I am excited about her birthday. I could not have asked for a better mother for my children. I am excited about Mother's Day.

I publicly want to announce that I am so happy to be married to you, my beautiful bride. You have been such an excellent wife. You take care of me and the kids so well. Words cannot express how much I love you.

Happy birthday, you adorable sweetheart!!!

WHAT SAY YE? ARE THE FEDERAL VISION AND NEW PERSPECTIVES HERESY?

2007-04-30T14:08:00.000-07:00

Readers,

I just noticed that the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) finished their study report on the Federal Vision, Auburn Avenue Theology, and New Perspectives on Paul. I was delighted to see that the committee declared that these ideas were out of accord with the Westminster Standards.

However, the report said something which I was surprised to see:

"The committee also affirms that we view NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ. Thus, we take their published statements and writings seriously."

As I mentioned, I was surprised to see this. This raises a lot of questions in my mind. Many of these men are denying the imputation of Christ's active obedience, but more than that, many of them are denying justification by faith alone. (They do not like the term "alone" when it comes to justification.) Many of them speak as Shepherd does, openly affirming a "final justification" and a present justification by "faithfulness."

You can read the PCA Committee Report by clicking on this link:

www.byfaithonline.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID323422CHID664014CIID2326076,00.html

I was furthermore surprised to see that Ligon Duncan was on the committee, yet he considers them brothers.

This raises another question: Are we to consider Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox our brothers too?

Is not justification by faith alone the article on which the church stands or falls?

It is time to start asking ourselves these tough questions.

Readers, what do you think?

PLEASE COMMENT

Readers, please comment on the following questions:

(1) Do you think we should consider proponents of the FV and NPP our brothers in Christ? Why or why not?

(2) If you answered "yes" to question 1, then do you think we should consider Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox our brothers?

(3) If you answered "yes" to question 1, then what is the gospel? What does it mean that in the gospel a "righteousness from God" is revealed? What is the "righteousness of God"?

(I know what I believe; just curious as to what you believe. It seems like many Reformed folks are afraid to come out and say what they think on this. I couldn't get an answer from Guy Waters even, and he wrote a book critiquing the FV, and another critiquing the NPP.)

REST IN PEACE, DR. MEREDITH KLINE

2007-04-19T16:23:00.000-07:00

I found out recently that Dr. Meredith Kline, former professor at Westminster West, passed away on Friday, April 13th (one day before my birthday). Dr. Kline contributed much to Old Testament studies, particularly with regards to ancient Near-eastern suzerain-vassal treaties.

Although there was much about Kline's theology which was alarming (particularly the framework hypothesis, his sharp dichotomy between secular and sacred, and his view of some of the OT miracles), it is refreshing to realize that he is with our Lord, seeing Christ face to face.

May Dr. Kline rest in peace, and may our Lord comfort those who are mourning this precious loss.

GOD HATES CHO SEUNG-HUI

2007-04-18T18:23:00.000-07:00

The most notorious shooting in American history took place recently. I just wanted to give my two cents.

The gunman was named Cho Seung-Hui. Arminian theology says that God loves everyone "equally and alike," and that even after unbelievers die and suffer the eternal wrath of God. However, let me be clear.

God hates Cho Seung-Hui.

God was pleased, it appears, in His eternal wisdom, to pass over Cho Seung-Hui. Seung-Hui is numbered among the reprobates, that is, those whom God delivers eternal justice to.

But let us not jump ahead in a judgmental way. We are all Cho Seung-Huis running around. If it weren't for God's sovereign grace placed upon the Christian, we would still be in our sins, and we all have the capacity within us to kill six million Jews.

Seung-Hui is burning in hell as we speak, and he will also spend eternity burning in the Lake of Fire, receiving the eternity of God's justice and anger, wrath, and hatred against him. It is a holy hatred, and a holy wrath, and a holy anger.

My friend's response to an atheist's article on this issue I also heartily recommend to you:

www.triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/times-like-this.html

O Lord, thank You for having mercy upon me. Help us all not to question arrogantly Your wisdom in ordaining this terrible event. I know that You have myriad reasons in Your infinite wisdom. Help us to view this event according to Your Word, which is Truth. In Jesus' Name. Amen.

DO POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THEONOMY LOGICALLY REQUIRE EACH OTHER?

2007-04-16T23:31:00.000-07:00

I have heard it asserted by some friends of mine (some theonomic and some not) that postmillennialism and theonomy require each other. Some have even told me that I am inconsistent in affirming postmillennialism, while yet denying theonomy. One of my theonomic friends, however, I believe correctly pointed out that they do NOT logically require each other.

I thought that a good way to settle this notion was to demonstrate in Greg Bahnsen's reasoning that they indeed do NOT require each other. As many of you readers know, Greg Bahnsen was both theonomic and postmillennial, yet the following article will give some logical demonstration as to why the two positions do not logically require one another.

In other words, indeed it is NOT inconsistent to hold to postmillennialism, but to reject theonomy. Let us listen to Greg Bahnsen himself on this matter.
_______________________

Dr.Bahnsen's reply in his 1978 reply to the Editor of the PresbyterianJournal: "Distinguishing What Will from What Ought to Happen" (section from his article entitled "God's Law and Gospel Prosperity: A Reply to the Editor of the Presbyterian Journal")

"The second mistake in the editor's description of theonomic ethicsand postmillennial eschatology is his assertion that the twoperspectives require each other. According to him theonomy andpostmillennialism go "hand in hand" (9-6, p. 3a) and are "indispensable to each other" (9-6, p. 14b). Of course, if both positions are scriptural, then they would naturally complement and strengthen each other as part of a unified system of truth (just as do, for instance, the doctrines of sin and redemption). However such a harmony between the two positions does not mean that people must choose them in tandem or reject them as a pair. Logically there is a distinction to be drawn between what will in fact happen and what ought to happen. Let me illustrate. Someone can readily believe that Congress will increase the Social Security Tax, and yet not at all believe that Congress ought to do so. On the other hand, someone could believe that the church ought to develop a deaconal system for relieving the poor, and still not believe that the church will actually do it. What will happen, and what should happen are (unhappily) very often quite contrary to each other. Accordingly the editor has committed a logical lapse in saying that postmillennialism and theonomic ethics are indispensable to each other.

"Postmillennialism says that the nations of the world will be converted and come to enact God's law in their societies, while theonomic ethics maintains (among other things) that nations ought to enact God's law in their societies. One can believe one totally without the other. Someone might believe that nations ought to enforce God's law, but never will do so. Someone else might believe that nations will enforce God's law, but ought not to do so.Therefore, the two positions of theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology are logically separate from each other. They are also psychologically separate from each other, for as a matter of fact some postmillennialists are not theonomic in their ethical outlook -–just as some theonomists are not postmillenial in their eschatological outlook. Many people come to these positions separately, as did myself, without the one suggesting or influencing the other. Again, I feel that there is a beautiful harmony between the two positions, for I believe that they are both the teaching of God's word. But logically and psychologically a person can surely hold to one without the other."

"Another passing indication that postmillennialism and theonomic ethics do not require each other is the existence of varying schools of postmillennial eschatology. Roughly speaking I can delineate at least four distinct options proposed through history which might be (with greater or lesser accuracy) designated "postmillennialism." (1) Some have held that the gospel will prosper throughout the world, bringing widespread revival so that the large majority of people are believers; such gospel prosperity, with Christian nurture over time, is bound to have public consequences (cf. "Ye are the salt of the earth . . .. Ye are the light of the world"). Thus revival will eventuate in Christ's commandments being obeyed in all walks of life. This is, I believe, the classic Reformed version of postmillennialism (as evidenced in my article in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol. III, No. 2). (2) Others have maintained that the coming of Christ's kingdom is to be identified with social progress, public reform, and better relations among all men; such goals will be accomplished through humanistic but peacefulmeans of persuasion and reform movements. Here we have the typical "social gospel" version of postmillennialism – a secularization and truncating of the Reformed perspective. (3) Still others have laid their stress on social reformation, but have advocated the means of violent revolt, overt warfare, and external imposition of new social conditions. This might be deemed a kind of Anabaptist version of postmillennialism, sometimes expressed in the Reformation period and condemned by many Calvinists as "seditious"or "stupid." (4) Finally we can mention the view that many people around the world will come to believe the gospel so that our churches will be overwhelmingly filled with Christians and the nations of the world will worship God aright; however (amazingly) this gospel prosperity will not have distinctive and positive consequences for social and political righteousness. It is hard to find a fair, descriptive label for this position since it seems to me to truncate the Reformed view, to represent a retreat from a scriptural world-and-life-view, and to be biblically implausible; thus to label it pietistic postmillennialism or "purely revivalistic" postmillennialism simply reflects an adverse personal evaluation -–and does despite to the full-orbed Reformed position by suggesting that it might be disinterested in piety or that genuine biblical revival could be restricted to internal matters of the heart and at best the church. So recognizing the inherent problem in choosing a fair designation, I will be content to call this fourth option 'ecclesiastical postmillennialism.'"

"Thus it is manifest that for the editor to make theonomic ethics and postmillennialism indispensable to each other is unfair to those versions of postmillenialism which -– in contrast to the Puritans, who were vitally interested in missions and the social use of God's law -–are indifferent to the public consequences of Christian belief (ecclesiastical postmillennialism), are indifferent to the revivalistic foundation of social reform (the social gospel), or are interested in altering social conditions in an antinomian fashion (Anabaptist postmillennialism). Not all postmillennialists would want to be affiliated with the position of theonomic ethics. This is not the place to critique such versions of postmillennialism (which I find biblically and theologically weak or inconsistent), but simply to make the relevant observational point. Therefore, on logical, psychological, and dogmatical grounds we must separate our consideration of theonomic ethics from that of postmillennial eschatology."

AN URGENT PRAYER REQUEST

2007-04-14T21:29:00.000-07:00

Brothers and sisters,

Today was my 30th birthday. To be honest, I kind of feel like I am hitting mid-life crisis quite early. The reason? Because, although I love my four children dearly, they misbehave and whine quite a lot.

Please pray for me especially, because I have realized that most of this is my fault. I need to step up to the plate more and be a better husband and a better father. My children need me, and my wife needs me.

Please pray that God would sanctify me more and more, so that my love of the world would turn more and more into a love for Christ, and a hatred for the world.

Please pray for grace and mercy for my wife, as she nurtures the four little ones while I am at work Mon-Fri.

Please pray, most of all, that the Lord would be pleased to save our little ones.

This prayer request is urgent. My wife and I covet your prayers tremendously.

MORE ON THE DANGERS OF DOGMATISM

2007-04-09T08:57:00.000-07:00

I have lately considered even more the dangers of dogmatism, but this time especially in the area of eschatology. If I could sum it all up, yes, I am still postmillennial, but I am much more extremely cautious about this.

I have been thinking about how prophecy in Holy Scripture is many times fulfilled in ways we did not expect. Furthermore, prophecy can have numerous fulfillments, including literal, earthly, or spiritual. This is why I think it is dangerous to be dogmatic on our millennial position.

UPCOMING RESPONSE TO JOHN MACARTHUR

In light of this, I am planning to do an ambitious response to a man I have much respect for, but have been disturbed recently by a lecture he presented. That man is John Macarthur. I finally listened to his lecture "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should Be A Premillennialist", and, to say the least, was disturbed, and even bewildered by the claims he made in that presentation.

My upcoming response will be in several parts, but suffice it to say, I was astonished by his level of dogmatism in his lecture. My intention in doing my response is to show that it is indeed NOT clear that the Bible teaches premillennialism, and, in fact, even highly doubtful. My further intention is to show that indeed Bible prophecy many times CANNOT be taken literally.

Please feel free to add comments on the way as well. The series will begin soon.

BEHOLD, CHILDREN ARE A HERITAGE FROM THE LORD

2007-03-23T10:21:00.000-07:00

Praise our Lord!!!

We had our beautiful baby Owen on March 21st at 4:00 in the morning, on the dot. He weighed 7 lbs, 15 oz.

His full name is Owen Isaac Brisby. We named him Owen after the great Puritan John Owen (who wrote the best defense of particular redemption ever to this date, and which has still not been answered by universal redemptionists and Amyraldians), and Isaac after the great patriarch of our faith.

Please pray that our little one will trust in the Lord Jesus one day.

Thank You, O Lord, for this little one. Please guard him and watch over him, and grant him faith and repentance, even very soon. May it please You, O God, to have mercy on him by showing him the great riches of salvation in Christ. In His Name I pray. Amen.

HISTORICITY OF INFANT BAPTISM DOUBTFUL

2007-03-14T23:07:00.000-07:00

As I have listened once again and studied up once again on paedobaptistic arguments, the area of history, at least, seems to call into question the paedobaptist view. David Wright, who is professor of Patristic and Reformed Christianity at the University of Edinburgh (and, I might add, a paedobaptist), warns us against the dangers of trying to use the historical record as one of the proofs for infant baptism. I will let my readers click on the link to read his excellent article:

www.baptism.org.uk/wright.htm

Also, two articles on the Triablogue website I thought were helpful in this regard as well:

www.triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/patristic-rejection-of-infant-baptism.html

and

www.triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/history-of-infant-baptism.html

Please read the articles, but they make the point that infant baptism was not the common practice of the church until well into the sixth century, and did not even show up until the second century (although it may had been around in small spurts before Tertullian).

The case is also made that modern historical scholarship is admitting (even admitted by paedobaptists) that credobaptism seems to have been the apostolic practice.

The articles certainly help shed some light on the question at hand.