Toast's Theological & Philosophical Meditations & Musings

I’m rather hesitant writing this, being that it’s bringing up controversy where there really need not be any. However, someone on a forum I visit made another comment about child baptism being a bad “Catholic doctrine” and something has snapped. So, let’s talk baptism.

On the one hand, it’s a very simple argument: Baptists say that true baptism can only be performed on adults who have made a profession of faith, that baptism by immersion is the only true baptism, and that baptism is fundamentally about being buried and rising again with Christ. Meanwhile, presbyterians disagree, with John Calvin summarising those who disagree with the baptism of children as “furious madmen [who] cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God”. Evidently then one side must be correct and the other wrong. Or is it? In his Systematic theology, Wayne Grudem mentions the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA), which allows ordination of pastors holding to both stances. Interestingly, where in 1994 Dr Grudem saw this as a good thing, in the 2007 reprinting he seems to have watered down his view, stating now that the two hold incompatibilities. Grudem’s argument goes that pedobaptists cannot accept the non-baptising of a child without believing they are directly disobeying God, whilst those holding to so-called believer’s baptism cannot rightly allow somebody to be a member without being rebaptised. The fact that most pedobaptists would in fact not have this problem, being accepting of both forms of baptism so long as nobody is baptised twice, is something which has evidently missed his attention.

Grudem does, however, still hold that the issue of baptism need not be one which divides the church, a point which most would agree with. The fact that many do not, and the fact that the majority who do so appear to be those who are thouroughly against the baptism of infants, should surely be one of a lack of understanding.

According to Simmons, “Infant baptism is left without any authority or ground in the Scripture. Faith
as a prerequisite of baptism is indicated, implied, or demanded by every
passage of Scripture that touches the question.” Why is this faith so important? Because

If the faith demanded as a prerequisite of baptism is saving faith, then only
saved people are to be baptized. That this faith is saving faith is made
evident by the fact that salvation is conditioned on faith and the believer is
said to possess eternal life. See Acts 16:31Acts 16:31
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
31 They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved — you and your family.”

WP-Bible plugin; Eph. 2:8-10Eph. 2:8-10
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
8-⁹ For it is by God's grace that you have been saved through faith. It is not the result of your own efforts, but God's gift, so that no one can boast about it. ¹⁰ God has made us what we are, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good deeds, which he has already prepared for us to do.

WP-Bible plugin; John 5:24John 5:24
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
24 “I am telling you the truth: those who hear my words and believe in him who sent me have eternal life. They will not be judged, but have already passed from death to life.

WP-Bible plugin. We are
not to baptize people in order to save them, nor because they want to be
saved, but only because they are already saved.

In other words, faith is a requirement of baptism for the reason that faith is a requirement of salvation and only those who are saved must be baptised. Simmons further qualifies this when he later comments on the position taken as to the symbolism of baptism, and in doing so argues that baptism must be by full immersion;

The Scripture alludes to baptism as a burial (Rom. 5:4Rom. 5:4
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
4 endurance brings God's approval, and his approval creates hope.

WP-Bible plugin; Col. 2:12Col. 2:12
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
12 For when you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ through your faith in the active power of God, who raised him from death. :

WP-Bible plugin). A burial
requires Immersion. The objection that these passages do not allude to water
baptism, but to Spirit baptism or to conversion in a figurative sense, is
groundless, and gives clear evidence of having been born of prejudice rather
than of a fair and impartial consideration of the passages.

However, it should be understood that this is not the symbolism that baptism is supposed to entail. In summarising this point of view, Berkhoff makes the following observation;

They base their opinion on Mark 10:38,39Mark 10:38,39
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
38 Jesus said to them, “You don't know what you are asking for. Can you drink the cup of suffering that I must drink? Can you be baptized in the way I must be baptized?” : ³⁹ “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink the cup I must drink and be baptized in the way I must be baptized.

WP-Bible plugin; Luke 12:50Luke 12:50
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
50 I have a baptism to receive, and how distressed I am until it is over! :

WP-Bible plugin; Rom. 6:3,4Rom. 6:3,4
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
3 For surely you know that when we were baptized into union with Christ Jesus, we were baptized into union with his death. ⁴ By our baptism, then, we were buried with him and shared his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from death by the glorious power of the Father, so also we might live a new life. :

WP-Bible plugin; Col. 2:12Col. 2:12
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
12 For when you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ through your faith in the active power of God, who raised him from death. :

WP-Bible plugin. But the first two passages merely express the idea that Christ would be overwhelmed by His coming sufferings, and do not speak of the sacrament of baptism at all. The last two are the only ones that really have any bearing on the matter, and even these are not to the point, for they do not speak directly of any baptism with water at all, but of the spiritual baptism thereby represented. They represent regeneration under the figure of a dying and a rising again. It is certainly perfectly obvious that they do not make mention of baptism as an emblem of Christ’s death and resurrection. If baptism were represented here at all as an emblem, it would be as an emblem of the believer’s dying and rising again. And since this is only a figurative way of representing his regeneration, it would make baptism a figure of a figure.

So what is the important symbolism of baptism? According to the Heidelberg Confession, “Christ has appointed the outward washing with water and added the promise that I am washed with His blood and Spirit from the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as certainly as I am washed outwardly with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.” In the baptism of John, and in ceremonies of washing in the Old Testament, we see that purification is the most important issue (Ps. 51:7Ps. 51:7
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
7 Remove my sin, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

WP-Bible plugin; Ezek. 36:25Ezek. 36:25
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you and make you clean from all your idols and everything else that has defiled you.

WP-Bible plugin; John 3:25,26John 3:25,26
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
25 Some of John's disciples began arguing with a Jew a Jew; some manuscripts have some Jews. about the matter of ritual washing. ²⁶ So they went to John and said, “Teacher, you remember the man who was with you on the east side of the Jordan, the one you spoke about? Well, he is baptizing now, and everyone is going to him!”

WP-Bible plugin), and so we can rightfully assume that had Christ meant the baptism he gives to be of a different meaning, he would have stated as much. In fact we may go so far as to say that the rituals of purification under the Old Covenant may have been set as an example pointing to the one true baptism that comes from Christ, through His spirit. Further, as both Calvin and Berkhoff emphasise, the act of immersion is neither set up as important nor anywhere definitely qualified as happening within the scriptures. The actual means of baptism, whether by sprinkling or by immersion, is not an issue which holds any importance: both are valid. The qualities of water as a substance which provides cleaning are the issue.

On the issue of who should administer baptism, to the best of my knowledge it is agreed by most Christian denominations that baptism should be administered only by those who are authorised by the church to do so, in the same way that Christ gave the command to baptise not to the entire church but specifically to the apostles. Calvin further argues that while baptism performed by a Roman Catholic priest should be considered valid, baptism performed by a layperson or, more controversially, a woman should not be accepted under any circumstances.

Finally onto the issue of the baptism of infants from a reformed point of view. I apologise for the long and winding detours taken in getting to this point. Baptism is, in essence, a sign of cleansing and a mark of a spiritual covenant between God and His people. An extension of the covenant with Abraham, in the same way that Abraham’s covenant extended to the children of the covenant people so also does the covenant of grace extend to the children of believers. The sacrament of baptism is a symbol of the sealing of that covenant, an analogy to the circumcision of the old testament. In the same way that in the Old Testament both the children of members of the nation of Israel, and persons who as adults wished to become a part of the nation of Israel alike would be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, and where expected to follow God’s laws, so under the new covenant we baptise both new believers and the children of believers, understanding that if they fail to keep to what God asks of them, that is they must exhibit saving faith, then they are covenant-breakers and have no place in the Church of God. The alternative, to deny our children baptism is to treat them as unbelievers, thus denying them the rights of fellowship in the church.

A common argument against child baptism is that there is no explicit example of infant baptism in the New Testament, which Berkoff addresses thusly;

The absence of all definite references to infant baptism finds its explanation, at least to a large extent, in the fact that Scripture gives us a historical record of the missionary work of the apostles, but no such record of the work that was carried on in the organized churches. And here, too, the tables may be easily turned on the Baptist. Will he show us an example of the baptism of an adult who had been born and reared in a Christian home? There is no danger that he ever will.

Finally, in addressing the issue that, according to those who would deny baptism to infants, faith is a requirement of baptism and an infant cannot express active faith, Berkoff argues thusly;

But in that way these words might also be construed into an argument against infant salvation, since they not only imply but explicitly state that faith (active faith) is the condition for salvation. To be consistent the Baptist would thus find himself burdened with the following syllogism: Faith is the conditio sine qua non of salvation. Children cannot yet exercise faith. Therefore children cannot be saved. But this is a conclusion from which the Baptist himself would shrink back.

If this is so, then how can an argument against child baptism really be considered to be so definite?

While there is much more I could comment on, such as the deeper meaning of baptism and its exact significance, I have a police against using so many words that the reader gets bored and stops reading. Maybe I’ll make a later post discussing it. Maybe I won’t. What I hope I have achieved, however, is showing that the arguments against the baptism of infants are not neccesarily arguments which can be defined as biblical any more than the arguments for, and indeed the definition of baptism held by the baptists is arguably somewhat at fault in its interpretation. Even if I have not convinced you that agreement infant baptism is the only biblical option, I do hope that there is now a point that it can be seen that it is not so dividing as to cause a need for insult-hurling: indeed the two interpretations of the meaning of baptism are so different as to not require mutual-exclusivity at all, where it not attempted to be enforced by persons such as Grudem.

I’ve included a list of references used in this post below, allowing the reader to check up on further reading themself on the issues discussed.

Incidently, if anyone would be interested in making a guest post giving further discussionf rom a different point of view, do let me know

-Stephen Whitehead
1 January 2010

References
Louis Berkhoff, Summary of Christian Doctrine, chapter 26: Christian Baptism
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion tr Henry Beveridge, chapter 16:PAEDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Chapter 49
Thomas Simmons, Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine

Based on a few conversations had and articles read over the last few days, I feel obliged to get this off my chest.

To start with, let’s define some terms.

• Doctrine of Grace: Sola Gratia. Not the so-called “five points of Calvinism.
• Calvinism: Reformed theology. Doctrine as preached by Calvin, as preached by Paul, as held sound and biblical. Not the so-called “five points of Calvinism”. Not the doctrine preached by John Piper, or by Paul Washer, or by most of the so-called “Neo-Calvinists”.

As you may have guessed from the above, I am not a fan of certain popular theologians. Actually, I decided by the end of the foreword to Desiring God by John Piper that he seemed to be somewhat off in his attitude, and the more I’ve looked into his preaching the more sure I am. That said, much as I would like to pick on pastor Piper in this posting, I shall refrain and instead discuss more important points. In the proccess, I shall be quoting in some length from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, as translated by mr Henry Beveridge.

In an effort to be brief, but to point out the most simple and glaring problems with the modern definition of “Calvinism” as meeting simpyl five so-called “doctrines of grace”, we shall look briefly at a few key area of the doctrine so well espoused by Calvin and lifted directly from scripture – those of grace, the Christian life, the sacrementology of the new covenant, and eschatology. Areas with which the supposed resurgence in Calvinism are as we shall see in sore contention.

Calvin’s views of grace where simple and to the point: grace is granted to us by God despite our deserving it. We’re granted grace by faith alone. So far so in agreement, but here’s the rub: predestination. A doctrine which is held in such high regard by the likes of John Piper (a man who goes so far in his opinion of the Lord’s sovreignty as to suggest that God did ordain sin) was one which in Calvin’s institutes consists chiefly of a few lines in the shortest chapter of the book, and which was not even included in the original draft! Indeed, a word of warning comes from Calvin himself as to putting too much emphasis on predestination, when he states that the doctrine is “attended with considerable difficulty [and] is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored.”

Many “neo-calvinists”, both elders and lay-members of the church, have informed me of the importance of repentance in the context of a full turning from sin and choosing to repress it, aiming towards a sinless life. Very noble. However, in Chapter III of his institutes, Calvin seems to take a very different viewpoint;

When it is said that God purifies his Church, so as to be “holy and without blemish,” (Eph. 5: 26, 27Eph. 5: 26, 27
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
26 He did this to dedicate the church to God by his word, after making it clean by washing it in water, ²⁷ in order to present the church to himself in all its beauty — pure and faultless, without spot or wrinkle or any other imperfection.

WP-Bible plugin,) that he promises this cleansing by means of baptism, and performs it in his elect, I understand that reference is made to the guilt rather than to the matter of sin. In regenerating his people God indeed accomplishes this much for them; he destroys the dominion of sin, by supplying the agency of the Spirit, which enables them to come off victorious from the contest. Sin, however, though it ceases to reign, ceases not to dwell in them. Accordingly, though we say that the old man is crucified, and the law of sin is abolished in the children of God, (Rom. 6: 6Rom. 6: 6
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
6 And we know that our old being has been put to death with Christ on his cross, in order that the power of the sinful self might be destroyed, so that we should no longer be the slaves of sin.

WP-Bible plugin,) the remains of sin survive, not to have dominion, but to humble them under a consciousness of their infirmity

Sin survives in us, but our sins are ignored by almighty God! How can we try to pretend that although it is not our master, sin is still our constant companion? Can we ignore that we are saved not because we supress that companion, but in spite of the fact that we fail to? Sin exists in us to keep us humble, not to allow us to express pride that we can cover up its worst excesses.

And it is from this standpoint that the Christian life is best examined. In chapter VII of his institutes, a summary of the Christian life, Calvin states that

The rule which permits us not to go astray in the study of righteousness, requires two things–viz. that man, abandoning his own will, devote himself entirely to the service of God; whence it follows, that we must seek not our own things, but the things of God.

This is just the basic summary of a doctrine of self-denial, of forsaking earthly delights in exchange for surrendering one’s life to God. Why? Because in doing so we concentrate on the importance of the life to come, and we allow the Lord to use us in the way that is most beneficial in his plans thereto. Whereas John Piper chooses to interpret verses of 1 Timothy as advocating “using money in a way that will grant us the greatest and longest gain”, in his commentaries Calvin translates that those of us who the Lord has bestowed with earthly riches are obliged to use them for the good of others. Whilst both men agree that in doing so we are “storing up riches for ourselves in the hereafter”, so to speak, the difference is a subtle but important one: that of intent. Whilst Piper goes on to speak of the persuing of heavenly riches through the use of riches towards generosity, such an idea would have been abhorrent to Calvin, a man who would have rightly seen such an attitude as selfish and incorrect: good works should not be in the pursuit of an end, but in the obeying of God’s command to love all men as onesself, and to place God at the heart of one’s life. Setting one’s purpose on the next life may be the correct aim of the Christian life, but it is still a life of self-denial for the sake of obeying almighty God, not for the sake of enjoying him.

Of course a large part of the Christian life is that of sacrementology, and one in which the neo-Calvinists most disagree with Calvin.

The sacrements are more than mere symbols. Calvin goes to great lengths to define the sacrements, but his brief definition should be enough for most of us to comprehend;

First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself and before angels as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these definitions, which, in meaning, differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation.

The sarcements are, in other words, the visible symbols of the covenant. As Calvin puts it, they are seals to confirm the promise and symbols of great importance in confirming God’s presense in the church. The spirit is with us as the sacrements are taken, and their importance to the church should not be dismissed.

There are two sacrements: the sacrement of pedobaptism and the sacrement of the Lord’s supper. Whilst most of us in a “reformed” denomination will agree on the Lord’s supper, it is pedobaptism that has caused some of the greatest arguments in the church, and the area on which the vast majority of “Neo-Calvinists” depart entirely from scripture.

This is not an essay arguing in favour of pedobaptism. If I wanted to I could go on at great lengths on the Calvinist view of baptism, but at over 1300 words already I worry that I may be getting to a point of causing boredom and apathy. However the Calvinist view of baptism does need to be stated as important: as part of the covenant with Christ, the children of believers are nominally covered. Baptism of children is a seal of the covenant, stated by Paul as to be exactly identical and analogous to circumcision. To emphasise the importance in the church today, baptised children are noncomminicant members of the church. They’re a part of the church community, they will grow up as part of the community and grow into an understanding of what their baptism means and the importance of their faith. The cradle roll is put into a prominant position in the church so that we can pray for those infant members. Christ tells us that to enter the kingdom of heaven we must become like a little child, and who better to set the example of how we should do so than little children? It’s a loss of communication with the youngest members of our congregations which can lead to the greatest misunderstandings and loss of clarity of scripture.

Finally, we need to briefly touch on eschatology. I’m not an expert on the matter by any means, so it will indeed be very brief: Calvin was an amillenialist. Whilst historic premillenialism can also be argued to fit in with scripture, Calvin’s writing are incompatible with other eschatologies, from John McArthur’s dispensationalism to John Piper’s post-tribulation premillenialism with a gathering of ethnic Israel somewhere in the middle (I’m not exactly sure how that differs from dispensationalism, mind).

In concluding, Calvinism is the sum of its parts. Parts that are deeply rooted in the scriptures that Calvin masterfully wrote down in his only way exactly as they where preached many centuries before. Calvinism is not some easy doctrine that can be mashed into any old theology, and Calvinism is definitely not what is today called Calvinism. Following Calvin’s 500th birthday last week, that’s something that seems to have been forgotten by so many. Would Calvin really be happy with his legacy?

I like Ray Comfort. I like his book, The Way of The Master. He seems a nice enough guy, he’s got a great compassion for the lost and he has some good lessons to teach on evangelism.

Ray Comfort stated on his blog that I am an “obvious non-Christian” and potentially a mass murderer. Why? Because I mentioned in a blog post of “random facts about me” that I want to do something I’ll be remembered for. It was a throwaway remark.

Over the last few years, I’ve noticed that Living Waters has been moving worryingly away from the true gospel. Ray spends most of his time arguing about evolution – worse, presenting unscientific facts and fabricated “evidence” to try and not only argue against theories such as natural selection, but to try and claim that no true Christian can hold to such facts – he’s openly stated multiple times that theosophic evolutionists are idolatrers.

If I may quote Augustine of Hippo at this juncture, I feel that my words cannot summarise the problem as well as those found in The Literal Meaning of Genesis;

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writer held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.

 

Now, arguing about evolution isn’t in itself a problem – it’s not essential to the gospel, and other than his mistaken view on its importance Ray isn’t really doing anything wrong here. No, the problem is that Ray’s “Way Of The Master” method of evangelism has moved from what is at heart a very good and valid point – the use of the law in evangelism to reveal that we are all sinners – to a cultish and worrying insistence on the use of a specific method – the “good person test”, which can lead potentially lead to the exact situation Ray claims to be trying to avoid – the creation of “false converts”. Indeed, one of the reasons I recently decided to distance myself from Ray’s School of biblical Evangelism and its community was that I was observing there an unashamed loyalty to Ray and the taking of his views as gospel, along with what seems to be an inability to think critically and indpendantly analyse what one is saying, a reliance on quoting verbatim the words of others being preferred. Indeed a number of members rather proudly stated their closed-mindedness when challenged on the issue.

Indeed, ray’s biggest crime, and one to which his entire minsitry by nature needs to be held accountable, is his insistence that his is “the only biblical method of evangelism”.  This is a view that I’ve heard stated by many fo his followers, and one which I feel requires special attention.

Point the first: Ray states that the only biblical method of evangelism is “the law to the proud, and grace tot he humble”.  Fair enough you say, but wait? What does Ray tell us in regards to the challenging questions we may be asked? This brings us nicely onto

Point the second: Well, what he says is to “bypass the intellect”. Ray doesn’t believe in apologetics, and whilst he supplies plenty of “evidence” for the bible (to be honest a lot of it isn’t really worth quoting. Ray cites urban legends, takes passages of scripture out of context, and quote mines) he also makes it clear that one should avoid getting into apologetics and instead insist on using the law to make sinners speechless.  I’m sure that works in some places, Ray, but let me assure you there’s a good reason that you don’t tend to impress people in academic debates with that attitude.

 Point the third: Whilst Ray’s argument that the presenting of the law is definitely “the way of the Master” holds ground – the examples given of Christ using the law to talk to people in the gospel are for the most part acurate – his argument begins to slip when we realise it isn’t “the way of the apostles”. Throughout the book of acts we see evangelism through miracles, we see evangelism through apologetics, and we see evangelism throught he reading of prophetic scriptures. The use of the law is most certainly not the main method of evangelism used, if we can say that one “main method” does exist.

Which leads us nicely onto our final point, point the fifth: Do the scriptures really contain a step-by-step outline for evangelism? Is there actually an instruction manual there? Can we actually state that any “method” is “biblical”? In the two years that I’ve been actively going out of my way to reach out to the lost, I’ve yet to see two encounters that followed the exact same pattern. Different people have different questions, different thoughts, different needs. All we can ask is that the holy spirit guide us and show us what we need to do.

The Way of the Master is fast becoming dangerous, inadvertantly spreading a view that leads Christians to judge each other, question the salvation of those who may struggle or not follow the perfect definition of a good, conservative, evangelical protestant.  Attracting largely those who lack the skills to properly think things through for themselves, those who are easily lead, those who find something missing in modern evangelism but make the mistake of trusting what on the surface appears to be the answer but don’t quite delve in deeply enough.

For all that, Living Waters produce some of the best gospel tracts I know of. Ray’s book, the Way of The Master, is still one of the best evangelical resources available and the first series of the TV show at least is highly reccomended.  Maybe satan siezes upon potentially good things in order to pervert them into furthering his agenda?

John 4:1-42John 4:1-42
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
Jesus and the Samaritan Woman ^{4 1} The Pharisees heard that Jesus was winning and baptizing more disciples than John. ^{2 3} So when Jesus heard what was being said, he left Judea and went back to Galilee; ⁴ on his way there he had to go through Samaria. ⁵ In Samaria he came to a town named Sychar, which was not far from the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. : ; ⁶ Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired out by the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon. ⁷ A Samaritan woman came to draw some water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink of water.” ^{8 9} The woman answered, “You are a Jew, and I am a Samaritan — so how can you ask me for a drink?” Jews will not use the same cups and bowls that Samaritans use; or Jews will have nothing to do with Samaritans. : ; ¹⁰ Jesus answered, “If only you knew what God gives and who it is that is asking you for a drink, you would ask him, and he would give you life-giving water.” ¹¹ “Sir,” the woman said, “you haven't got a bucket, and the well is deep. Where would you get that life-giving water? ¹² It was our ancestor Jacob who gave us this well; he and his sons and his flocks all drank from it. You don't claim to be greater than Jacob, do you?” ¹³ Jesus answered, “All those who drink this water will be thirsty again, ¹⁴ but whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring which will provide him with life-giving water and give him eternal life.” ¹⁵ “Sir,” the woman said, “give me that water! Then I will never be thirsty again, nor will I have to come here to draw water.” ¹⁶ “Go and call your husband,” Jesus told her, “and come back.” ¹⁷ “I haven't got a husband,” she answered. Jesus replied, “You are right when you say you haven't got a husband. ¹⁸ You have been married to five men, and the man you live with now is not really your husband. You have told me the truth.” ¹⁹ “I see you are a prophet, sir,” the woman said. ²⁰ “My Samaritan ancestors worshipped God on this mountain, but you Jews say that Jerusalem is the place where we should worship God.” ²¹ Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, the time will come when people will not worship the Father either on this mountain or in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans do not really know whom you worship; but we Jews know whom we worship, because it is from the Jews that salvation comes. ²³ But the time is coming and is already here, when by the power of God's Spirit people will worship the Father as he really is, offering him the true worship that he wants. ²⁴ God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is.” ²⁵ The woman said to him, “I know that the Messiah will come, and when he comes, he will tell us everything.” ²⁶ Jesus answered, “I am he, I who am talking with you.” ²⁷ At that moment Jesus' disciples returned, and they were greatly surprised to find him talking with a woman. But none of them said to her, “What do you want?” or asked him, “Why are you talking with her?” ²⁸ Then the woman left her water jar, went back to the town, and said to the people there, ²⁹ “Come and see the man who told me everything I have ever done. Could he be the Messiah?” ³⁰ So they left the town and went to Jesus. ³¹ In the meantime the disciples were begging Jesus, “Teacher, have something to eat!” ³² But he answered, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” ³³ So the disciples started asking among themselves, “Could somebody have brought him food?” ³⁴ “My food,” Jesus said to them, “is to obey the will of the one who sent me and to finish the work he gave me to do. ³⁵ You have a saying, ‘Four more months and then the harvest.’ But I tell you, take a good look at the fields; the crops are now ripe and ready to be harvested! ³⁶ The one who reaps the harvest is being paid and gathers the crops for eternal life; so another who sows and the one who reaps will be glad together. ³⁷ The saying is true, ‘One sows, another reaps.’ ³⁸ I have sent you to reap a harvest in a field where you did not work; others worked there, and you profit from their work.” ³⁹ Many of the Samaritans in that town believed in Jesus because the woman had said, “He told me everything I have ever done.” ⁴⁰ So when the Samaritans came to him, they begged him to stay with them, and Jesus stayed there two days. ⁴¹ Many more believed because of his message, ⁴² and they said to the woman, “We believe now, not because of what you said, but because we ourselves have heard him, and we know that he really is the Saviour of the world.”

WP-Bible plugin

Someone recently told me that the woman at the well should be used as an example of how to evangelise – Christ wasn’t confrontational, and he didn’t go condemning the woman as a sinner.

Ray Comfort, who those who’ve chatted to me about evangelism probably know I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with, also uses this incident as an example of how Christ evangelised: he confronted the woman with her the law, by showing her that she’d sinned. All well and good, but I have a problem with both these arguments.

See the thing is, Jesus didn’t just confront the woman with the law: he told her that she was an adulterer. He actually knew this, despite the fact he wasn’t an acquaintance. He showed her that he was the messiah. Now, if the Lord ever grants me the ability to tell complete strangers their sins, and thus demonstrate the great power of our holy God, I will most certainly use it in his service to bring others to him – after I’ve finished freaking out, anyway. But really,t hat’s not a realistic option right now for me, or for most others.

In Luke 18:18-25Luke 18:18-25
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
The Rich Man ¹⁸ A Jewish leader asked Jesus, “Good Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?” ¹⁹ “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “No one is good except God alone. ²⁰ You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery; do not commit murder; do not steal; do not accuse anyone falsely; respect your father and your mother.’ ” : ; ²¹ The man replied, “Ever since I was young, I have obeyed all these commandments.” ²² When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one more thing you need to do. Sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; then come and follow me.” ²³ But when the man heard this, he became very sad, because he was very rich. ²⁴ Jesus saw that he was sad and said, “How hard it is for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God! ²⁵ It is much harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.”

WP-Bible plugin, we see an example in which Christ uses the essence of the first commandment in talking to the rich young ruler. Now isn’t this a better example of how Christ did things, and one we can actually use? Maybe. But then this does beg an interesting question – how did the early church evangelise? Now, to me this is a far more important question – Christ may be the head of the church, but he’s also God. And as shown, we generally can’t just go using all his methods.

In acts, Peter is very confrontational in witnessing at the temple. And at Pentecost. In fact he’s rather confrontational throughout. Paul on Mars Hill gives a simple gospel presentation, beginning with an apologetic in which he takes advantage of the extreme religious nature of the people of Athens to explain the difference between the false gods and the one true God. Stephen rebuked the Sanhedrin, drawing on Jewish history to show that they had over and over again rejected and disobeyed God. He was confrontational in his witness even against men who wanted to kill him!

The Ethiopian eunuch was convinced by scripture after it was explained to him, although we don’t know exactly what was said.  However, he was convicted by scripture. I suppose we can say this was not so confrontational.

There isn’t a set rule, pattern, or method through which we should evangelise. But what we can safely say is that a certain Samaritan woman is dragged up all too often as an example, almost as if we’re trying to avoid admitting that sometimes the direct and confrontational method is required.

Or am I just talking nonsense again?

Here’s some fancy logic for you, in a very low-level format.

(Originally posted on the WOTM School of Biblical Evangelism forum)

Where All men = A, some of A = a, the state of being elected to salvation = S, and the state of being condemed to hell = H. Meanwhile P = the state of being predestined. Keep an eye on P.

(S = ¬H) = T
(H = ¬S) = T

According to double predestination, A = P. Thus;

A = H
However through God’s grace a = S
As such, a = S and a = H

If double predestination is not true and only singular predestination, for want of a better word is, then a = P, thusly;

a = S, a =  ¬P.

IF a = ¬P THEN a = S OR a = H and so

a = S, a = (S || H)

Ergo, either A = P OR ¬C, where C = Calvinism.

Reposted from my other blog, because I feel it needs said. Again.

(originally psoted June 4 2008)

————————————————————————————

When asked by a student to sum up what was msot important about his life’s work and theology in as few words as possible, Karl barth replied, “in the words of a song my mother used to sing me, ‘Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so”. To me, this rather nicely summarises what theology should be. Now, I’ll admit I don’t have a firm understanding of Calvin’s Institutes. I can’t get my head round the idea of election, I don’t have a huge interest in Hebrew or Greek and I just don’t see where people get some of their interpretations of Revelation from. Neither does it tend to bother me. In Matthew 18, Christ says, “unless you become like little children, you shall never enter the kingdom of heaven”. [Note: all references will be taken from the TNIV translation of the Bible unless otherwise noted.] In Luke 10, we see that “[God has] hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children”. I feel from this that my aproach to Scripture – that of a small child – is a fair and acceptable one. Can I stand and debate complicated issues? Not really. Do I need to? Only for fun. I’ll leave such things to pastors, thanks.
However, here is what I understand, from the scriptures, by just taking things at face value, as they where given.

1)I am saved by grace alone (Ephesian 2)
2)All that is required of me to be saved is that I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 14)
3)Faith without deeds is useless(James 2)
4)The perceived contradiction there is because you think too hard
5)All are equal in Christ: race, gender, age etc are meaningless (Galations 3/4)
6)My actions are meaningless in regards to my salvation (Epehesians 2)
7)All scripture is innerant (2 Timothy 3)
8)We win(Revelation in general)
9)We don’t know and cannot predict when Christ will return(Matthew 24)
10)Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so.

That’s just a few points that sprung to mind. I think we can all agree that these points can’t be argued, non?

Actually, it’s quite a small list. Nevertheless, here’s a list of folk who for whatever reason are bloody inspiring and I feel the need to point you in the direction of.  Generally because they have an effect on all the writing I’m doing here!

Anyway, here goes;

• God – without whom I wouldn’t be writing this.  Goes without saying, really.
• Charles Haddon Spurgeon – It’s no secret that I’m a huge fan of Spurgeon, despite our disagreements on certain issues (namely child/adult baptism, and millenialism). Spurgeon’s writings have both been an inspiration to me when inspiration was lacking, and a helper in times of hardship.
• Ray Comfort – Sure we don’t agree on certain issues, and admitably a lot of his followers make me feel ill, but Ray was in a big part responsible for indling a great compassion for the lost in me, and pushing me to do something about it. Incidently, his book, The Way of the Master, is a must read.
• CS Lewis – Much of what I know abotu Apologetics, I learned from CS Lewis. Also, I like Narnia.
• Stephen – The guy who appears for two chapters in Acts, and gets stoned to death. Sure I might be biased as I have the same name, but I honestly think he’s a great example for us all
• Hunter S Thompson – Showed me that English lessons don’t neccesarily show the best way to write…