“The distinction between the two was the love of God for Jacob and the hatred of God for Esau — the distinction was in God’s intention, and God’s intention is not mediated. The intention drives the mediation, not the other way around . . . The fact that the gift of faith is not inexorably given with every instance of a sacramental gift is what sets up the problem for us, and which is what makes historical evangelicalism a necessity” (Against the Church, p. 194).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
“what makes historical evangelicalism a necessity”
A necessity for us, maybe — to gain assurance that the Jacobs out there have been brought into the flock.
But God has no such need.
He can put flesh on dirt or dry bones without our preaching.
“The fact that the gift of faith is not inexorably given with every instance of a sacramental gift is what sets up the problem for us, and which is what makes historical evangelicalism a necessity.” So, what you’re really saying is that because your magical bread and wine and incantations don’t work every time, the actual Gospel of Christ is your Plan B. This is why you’re never going to be able to make this scenario work, and will keep writing insightful but deeply flawed books until the penny finally drops. The Gospel is everything, and the sacraments are not… Read more »
Mike — some of us peons would like to know better what you’re talking about.
Can you simplify?
Seems like you’re saying God can’t or won’t save folks around the time baptism is experienced.
(By around the time, I mean from conception to expiration.)
Or are you saying we simply can’t presume He saves folks just because they get baptized?
Faith isn’t given at all. Evidence is furnished.
How can one’s act of the will be given to him by another?
John, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . .” (Philippians 1:29)
Where did one get one’s act of the will in the first place? Cabbage patch?
John Barry wrote:
Indeed.
There goes God, acting like God again. If He hadn’t proven Himself faithful, I’d be deeply concerned, but still utterly His to do with as He pleases.
katecho, I think that the underlying premise is as you mentioned: “There goes God, acting like God again.” The only WILL that cannot be thwarted, Who does ALL for His good pleasure, Who does not check in with puny man to see if it fits his conceptions about God. The sin of seeking autonomy is at the foundation of this type of unbelief; that frequent statement that goes something like “I could never serve a God like that”. A God Who says: “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who… Read more »
John, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . .” (Philippians 1:29) Doug, I take Paul here to mean that the Philippians were given the opportunity to believe, just as they were granted the opportunity to suffer for Jesus’ sake. Paul says that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17) Jesus doesn’t give Thomas faith. He shows him his hands and side. There are numerous examples in Scripture of believing (or not) in response to evidence.… Read more »
Where did one get one’s act of the will in the first place? Cabbage patch?
Eric, I originate the acts of my will. Who originates yours?
“for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
katecho, do you take this to mean that God gives me the acts of my will? God’s willing is the only willing mentioned here. I guess I don’t see the connection.
not katecho,
but how about:
“for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
You grow your own?
Can you choose not to?
Or does He not offer you that option?
RFB,
FWIW, I believe the “you” here is plural, as in “in you all” or “in your midst”.
In any event, I am very thankful that God is at work in [me] both to will and to work according to His good pleasure. And I am to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. I assume that I do this by so willing.
I don’t see any indication here that God overrides or co-opts my will. He certainly influences what I will, but he doesn’t “give willing” or “give believing (faith)”.
Pity wretched wave,
Marching up & down
At His commands
No will its own.
Pity humpback’s song,
Sung north then south,
The tune imposed
Into his mouth.
And pity me,
Life is given,
Force in faith,
To live in heaven.
John,
There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside…And you were dead in trespasses and sins…But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved… And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God
“Or are you saying we simply can’t presume He saves folks just because they get baptised?” Eric, I’m saying that there is an old Israel and a new, because there is a first birth (womb) and there is a second (tomb). Paedobaptists waste so much time arguing over what baptism means because they are hung up on keeping the first birth special as though we were under the Old Covenant. It’s that simple, and it is this error which results in the misunderstanding and redefinition of just about everything, and the manufacture of superstitions like paedofaith (infant faith from the… Read more »
Thanks for trying Mike. I’m sure I’m just thick in the head, but I’d like to understand better what you are saying. Firstly, you say they’re wasting so much time arguing about infant baptism. Weird, but I don’t see them taking much time at all, except when folks with your take on the religion keep bringing it up. And I encourage you to keep bringing it up since it seems like a sticky wicket for you. They (we) don’t mind at all continuing to revel in what we consider the joy of what infant baptism represents in our thinking. If… Read more »
I tell my kids that no matter how it happened, whether sprinkled in an Orthodox church in Siberia (son) or a dunked in a Calvary Chapel swimming pool (daughter), that little wool-de-do ceremony has a string attached that’s buried irremovably in heaven — IF it really is leading up there.
But it’s their highest and most urgent priority to make sure it is so.
To know that baptism was true.
RFB, God has given salvation by grace through faith. It is improper to extract “faith” and say that God gives faith. God saves by grace through faith. It is this entire salvation that God gives to the world. Acts 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were… Read more »
Thanks Eric You described infant baptism well, but my point is that it’s entirely a fabrication of well-meaning but superstitious people. The main point of Galatians (and indeed the New Testament) is that repentant faith is everything and heredity is nothing. The only string to heaven is the Gospel which enters through the ear. Anything else, however secure it makes anxious parents feel, is of the flesh. It’s just circumcision exhumed and squirted with air freshener. Ain’t one iota of difference between a sprinkled baby and a non-sprinkled one. The difference is which one hears and responds to the Gospel… Read more »
Mike,
What of babies then, or defectives (like me) under your view?
What if no ears are available?
Or only half a brain?
“Rather than demonstrating His love for us, why did God not simply give faith?” Because “it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” There is zero incentive to try to enter something that one does not believe in, and the reason is because there is no reason to believe when one is blind and dead to it. Unless one is made alive, with eyes to see, there is nothing to see: “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” As previously, “it is not of him who wills, nor… Read more »
And, more pointedly to your question of ““Rather than demonstrating His love for us, why did God not simply give faith?”
He does both: He demonstrates His love for us by giving us faith, without which it is impossible to please God, and by doing both He shows that He is both just and the justifier.
Mike Bull wrote: “Ain’t one iota of difference between a sprinkled baby and a non-sprinkled one. The difference is which one hears and responds to the Gospel of Christ.” In a very narrow sense Mike is correct that the purpose of baptism isn’t to change the baby. Baptism publicly testifies of who the baby already is. To be born of a believing parent is to be born to God, born in the house of the covenant family. Baptism is God’s way of publicly proclaiming this truth that was true prior to the baptism itself. Likewise, Abraham and his household weren’t… Read more »
So, Mr. Barry,
He didn’t give you faith.
That was your own doing, yes?
Smart man.
Good man.
I mean, it’s smarter & more gooder than not believing, isn’t it?
Choosing heaven was smarter than continuing on the road to hell, right?
And believing in Jesus is not a bad thing in and of itself.
It’s better than not believing, isn’t it?
And you did that all by yourself!
Why did you believe and others not?
You’re just a better person than them?
katecho,
“born of a believing parent is to be born to God”
Ain’t necessarily so.
Only if He chooses.
And He hasn’t always.
Maybe so in my case.
Hope so.
But that’s God’s choice.
When my youngun died — it was & remains our hope that He chose to do so.
I mean, He chose to put Him with us before He died.
And that’s saying something to us.
Clarification is in order. To be born to God doesn’t necessarily mean to be born to eternal life. To be born to God means to be born into covenant identity and relationship with God and His people. We know from the example of Israel that simply being in the covenant is not the same as being faithful in that covenant. There are curses for unfaithful covenant members. Eternal life is for that fixed number who abides in the covenant and perseveres (because God gives them perseverance, not because of their own strength). See Ezekiel 23:37 for an example of this… Read more »
Question for katecho – in your covenant analogy of marriage, are you speaking about a man who said “I do” or a man who has never done so himself, but is informed by his parents that they performed the ceremony on his behalf when he was an infant? If the latter, is he violating a covenant?
Nice clarification.
The burden there = parents to raise their children well:
Grease the skids
To slide those kids
To Kingdom come
Eric Stampher wrote: “The burden there = parents to raise their children well:” Yes. A covenant relationship (think marriage) creates burdens and obligations and expectations that are fitting. Some of this burden extends to parents, to family, and to congregation, but ultimately to the individual as they mature and increasingly represent themselves. God leads with blessing, and promise, and grace poured out. As with Adam in the garden, God doesn’t require that infants of believers prove themselves first. He initiates and receives them into His family, fully. We baptize them as a testimony of who they are, in covenant. It’s… Read more »
@Katecho. First, beautiful stuff; I was never opposed to baptism, but I never saw it through the vista you provided. I look forward to thinking on this in the future as the subject arises. Second, the best argument I have read against the need of baptism for salvation (not what you are arguing here, but I hope you will comment on it) is also the shortest. Christ died on the cross between to other men. One, Christ told that he would be in paradise with Christ. That crucified man was not baptized and our Lord himself said he was saved.… Read more »
You see a different requirement for younguns than for the rest of us.
As though God can’t implant faith in them the same way He does for olderuns
Katecho – Analogies generally break down somewhere. You use the marriage analogy “To see where Mike’s reasoning leads …” but an important aspect of objection to infant baptism is the lack of participation on the part of the infant. So – does your marriage analogy cover the (absurd?) case of a man who never said “I do” but instead had a marriage ceremony performed by his parents in his infancy? Is he in a covenant relationship? Further, try substituting the concept of such a marriage for “baptism” in your statement “the purpose of baptism isn’t to change the baby. Baptism… Read more »
Apologies if I am misreading on this, but I would start with “A baby shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife” makes no sense.
In the case of infants of a believing parent, they aren’t “converting” from a lack of union with Christ. They are conceived inside that union by way of the faith of their representative. In one sense we could say, “of course infants of believers have faith — the faith of their parents.” This isn’t to discount that infants can also have their own faith (even if not manifest and detectable by us). Some persuasive arguments are raised along those lines, but I’m not convinced that we have a burden to establish a principle of distinct infant faith, because the point… Read more »
katecho —
So you’re not convinced babies need to have their own “distinct infant faith.”
I’m guessing what you haven’t yet said — babies aren’t capable of possessing their own faith.
I’m guessing you think this because you perceive “faith” as requiring cerebral capacity & maturity.
Eric, You say “As though God can’t implant faith in them the same way He does for olderuns”.
God implanting faith strikes me as a concept foreign to scripture .
Can you explain exactly what this faith is that God implants?
John,
I will explain, and I don’t mean to come off sounding cute — but to help you (I’m pompous enough to think I can help), please first do explain how it is you came to have faith, while others don’t or haven’t or will not?
Are you better than them?
Why did you do the right thing, and they didn’t?
DeanL wrote: “an important aspect of objection to infant baptism is the lack of participation on the part of the infant.” I believe that baptists are attempting to avoid presumption about the eternal destiny of the infant. This is a very good instinct. Parent’s shouldn’t presume, apart from any obedience, that their children will automatically walk in the faith that they were represented in from birth. Parent’s need to act faithfully and obediently toward their children if they want to see the blessings of the covenant. Children can wander away if not shepherded. Children grow up, and begin to represent… Read more »
katecho
“The solution is belief on their behalf”
So you’re saying parental representation is absolute whilst the child is so young and all, until the child grows up a bit?
I wanted to mention that Eric Stampher is asking John Barry some excellent questions. Barry needs to take them very seriously. Eric Stampher wrote: So you’re not convinced babies need to have their own “distinct infant faith.” I’m guessing what you haven’t yet said — babies aren’t capable of possessing their own faith. I’m guessing you think this because you perceive “faith” as requiring cerebral capacity & maturity. I’m not convinced that babies must have their own distinct faith in order to be represented in the faith by a believing parent. But I’m not arguing that babies are incapable of… Read more »
katecho,
How about a zygote child, one minute made, in the fallopian tube, not even descended to the womb?
Will you allow that such a tiny one can be given faith by His creator right there and then?
Eric Stampher wrote: “So you’re saying parental representation is absolute whilst the child is so young and all, until the child grows up a bit?” No. A parent’s representation is objective and real, but not absolute. For example, if a crack mom chooses to represent her unborn child in drug abuse, the unborn child may objectively be born with a real addiction/withdrawal problem. However, parents do not have an absolute claim to representation since the civic magistrate can intervene to represent the interests of the unborn child as well. There are layers of representation and authority. God is the only… Read more »
I wanted to add that it is because parental representation is not absolute that we reject “freedom of choice” abortion arguments, and we appeal to the civic magistrate to ban abortion on demand. Eric Stampher asks: How about a zygote child, one minute made, in the fallopian tube, not even descended to the womb? Will you allow that such a tiny one can be given faith by His creator right there and then? Faith isn’t something that we can measure scientifically, and I don’t know of any Scripture passages that clearly assign faith at that stage, but there could be… Read more »
Bro Katecho wrote: “To be born of a believing parent is to be born to God, born in the house of the covenant family.” This is where the train goes off the rails. Baptism is for the believing parent, that they might not only be a godly parent, but godly in every area of life. When the disciples brought the children to Jesus, who was the baptised one? It was Jesus (and the structure of the text, in Matthew at least, puts Him in contrast with Herod, who could not be trusted with babies). News flash: The birth of your… Read more »
Eric, you ask: “please first do explain how it is you came to have faith, while others don’t or haven’t or will not? I was raised knowing the facts of the gospel–which include Jesus dying for the sins of the world and rising from the dead three days later. At about age 14, the Holy Spirit (and/or my conscience) convinced me of my sinfulness and my need to be reconciled to God. I confessed Jesus as my Lord and so was saved. In hindsight, my experience fits the teaching and pattern I see throughout scripture. That is, God furnishes evidence… Read more »
katecho,
So your defence of infant baptism is not based on even the possibility that the child is a believer?
John, my friend,
Not even a little uncomfortable saying it might have been the work of your conscience alone, without the Holy Spirit, that got you going to God?
Doesn’t stick in your craw just a teeny tad to say “I willingly yielded?”
It sounds to the peanut gallery like “John just got it together. Good on him!”
But I promise to answer your question …