tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.comments2024-03-16T17:41:05.139-07:00Rational Christian DiscernmentJesse Albrechthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comBlogger465125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-86750560155083366022024-03-16T13:30:02.760-07:002024-03-16T13:30:02.760-07:00(Part 2)
"Are we to say that if he wouldn...(Part 2)<br /><br />"Are we to say that if he wouldn't have died years earlier in an unexpectant car crash on his way to help the poor, he wouldn't have ended up in heaven? I could be wrong, as you said God knows the heart, but I think he probably would've been saved."<br /><br />The timing at which we do works of charity or moral failings happen in our lives does not change the fact that God is merciful. We simply do not know the eternal status of an individual such as the one that you describe.<br /><br />"Even Augustine in The City of God speaks of the end times theorizes that there will be those who die before the hard times (spoken in Revelations) who if they had lived then would have abandoned God, but as it stands lived in an easier time and so had faith that saved."<br /><br />We can speak to the nature of perseverance in a general sense, meaning that one who endures to the end proves that he is indeed a child of God. But this is not the same as knowing the entirety of the facts about each and every person.<br /><br />"And as Paul says, we have been grafted on and can be grafted off. He wouldn't say this if those who would be grafted off were not actually ever grafted on."<br /><br />Romans 11 speaks to the issue of God temporarily setting aside Israel to include the Gentiles in His plan of redemption. His focus is not the boundaries of a country, but includes us being grafted in as spiritual descendants of Abraham. This passage is not talking about the salvation status of individuals, but His overreaching plan for humanity.<br /><br />"Salvation is not always changing. I didn't say that. Our relationship with God is always progressing or weakening."<br /><br />But you did by likening it to the things of this world which "are never stationary."<br /><br />"Peter says the devil prowls about like a lion seeking to hunt us. Everything in this world tries to snatch us from God's arms."<br /><br />Of course, Satan is going to try to devour us in the manner of a lion toward unsuspecting prey. He hates God and everything that is good. In the end, however, he will not succeed. The one who is in us is greater than the one in this world (1 John 4:4).<br /><br />"Our salvation is constantly being attacked and can be stolen from us if we don't hug close to God."<br /><br />That is ridiculous. The Bible nowhere asserts that our salvation can be "stolen" from us by any part of the created order. What you say flatly contradicts everything that the Apostle Paul affirmed about the love of God in Romans 8:32-38.<br /><br />How can you call this gospel message that you present "good news?"<br /><br />"Salvation is never certain until we die, because we are always at risk of losing it before we pass."<br /><br />Salvation can never be certain for the one who depends even slightly on his own good works to get right with God. He can never know if he has done a good enough job to please Him. I am betting that you cannot adequately explain a passage like Luke 18:9-14.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-66421434094640692962024-03-16T13:22:49.440-07:002024-03-16T13:22:49.440-07:00Sean,
(Part 1)
"We are not passive in this i...Sean,<br />(Part 1)<br /><br />"We are not passive in this initial step of justification."<br /><br />We are indeed "passive" in the initial stage of salvation in that we did nothing to earn or deserve a righteous standing before God in Christ.<br /><br />"You also said that we have a role in sanctification, which you continue to differentiate from salvation."<br /><br />The first part of your statement is correct, but I distinguished justification from sanctification. Both are different aspects of salvation.<br /><br />"But sanctification can't be differentiated completely from salvation. It is a necessary part of salvation."<br /><br />We maintain a distinction between justification and sanctification in order not to create a system of self-righteousness, which robs God of His glory. We are reconciled to Him by Christ's life (Romans 5:10). Justification by faith alone eliminates boasting before God (Romans 4:2; Ephesians 2:9).<br /><br />"I am saying that if we aren't cooperating with God's grace and continually choosing each and everyday to trust in Him and His sacrifice (and so doing growing more holy), we don't actually believe."<br /><br />"Cooperating with grace" involves becoming righteous before God on the basis of keeping the commandments, sacraments, and works of mercy. That is not how we get right with God. Christ obeyed the Law perfectly in our place. He fulfilled all righteousness. We obtain righteousness through faith in the preaching of the gospel.<br /><br />"Faith is not a one time deal, it is something that is lived out each day."<br /><br />Our salvation is both a present tense possession and something to be completed. We have both a judicial and experiential righteousness. Only God Himself is absolutely holy.<br /><br />"You are trying to separate this into sanctification, but it can't be."<br /><br />Justification and sanctification are intimately related, but cannot be equated with each other. <br /><br />"On the Armenius note, I agree with Armenius then as I said in the paragraph above. We can't merit a right standing before God."<br /><br />Roman Catholicism teaches that man merits a right standing before God in part by good works. Grace and faith are necessary for salvation, but not sufficient to achieve such a purpose.<br /><br />"I do agree false conversion is a real thing, and good thing I wasn't talking about God's view on things. I was talking about ours."<br /><br />No one here suggested that we can determine who specifically is a part of the saved or the damned. That is none of our business and my argument does not at all hang on that point. While you were not talking about God's view of things, I introduced that to put things into their proper context.<br /><br />"If we look over a person's life and we see his fruits and they are good. They are holy, but at the end of his life he falls short, perhaps under an extreme trial, are we to say that this person never had a real faith because he gave up on God at the end?<br /><br />I cannot answer that question because I do not know the condition of such a person's heart. The Pharisees no doubt lived in such a way that outsiders would never have questioned their piety, yet Christ rejected them as wicked and vile. Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-64643025709449950572024-03-16T09:03:06.062-07:002024-03-16T09:03:06.062-07:00The question then is what kind of predestination? ...The question then is what kind of predestination? We are not passive in this initial step of justification. Christ did all the work for us, now we do need to accept this work. You also said that we have a role in sanctification, which you continue to differentiate from salvation. Of course we have a role, where we are completely subservient to the grace of God in becoming holy. We must continually lean on and accept this grace. But sanctification can't be differentiated completely from salvation. It is a necessary part of salvation. I am not sure if you misunderstand me or what, but I am not saying that we must get to a certain level of sanctification to be saved. We will never achieve that. I am saying that if we aren't cooperating with God's grace and continually choosing each and everyday to trust in Him and His sacrifice (and so doing growing more holy), we don't actually believe. Faith is not a one time deal, it is something that is lived out each day. You are trying to separate this into sanctification, but it can't be. Reacting to the grace God gives us after our initial conversion is just part of having a real faith that saves. It requires our will and doesn't just flow from an initial faith. And most of all, it is only possible through grace.On the Armenius note, I agree with Armenius then as I said in the paragraph above. We can't merit a right standing before God. However, if we aren't continually working with God's grace to be sanctified, we don't actually have faith, and so we aren't actually saved.<br />I do agree false conversion is a real thing, and good thing I wasn't talking about God's view on things. I was talking about ours. If we look over a person's life and we see his fruits and they are good. They are holy, but at the end of his life he falls short, perhaps under an extreme trial, are we to say that this person never had a real faith because he gave up on God at the end? Are we to say that if he wouldn't have died years earlier in an unexpectant car crash on his way to help the poor, he wouldn't have ended up in heaven? I could be wrong, as you said God knows the heart, but I think he probably would've been saved. Even Augustine in The City of God speaks of the end times theorizes that there will be those who die before the hard times (spoken in Revelations) who if they had lived then would have abandoned God, but as it stands lived in an easier time and so had faith that saved. This just seems to be further mercy of God. And as Paul says, we have been grafted on and can be grafted off. He wouldn't say this if those who would be grafted off were not actually ever grafted on."If my salvation is always changing and I have to wait until physical death to know my standing before God, then that does not sound like a reliable source of hope."Salvation is not always changing. I didn't say that. Our relationship with God is always progressing or weakening. If we allow it to weaken so much be lost, we are lost. Peter says the devil prowls about like a lion seeking to hunt us. Everything in this world tries to snatch us from God's arms. Our salvation is constantly being attacked and can be stolen from us if we don't hug close to God. Salvation is never certain until we die, because we are always at risk of losing it before we pass. These are not reasons to give up on God, but to hold close and hope in Him more, because it is only through Him and His grace that we will make it through this thicket.The Men of Usuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346836332232384777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-13297834472103713032024-03-15T15:32:25.108-07:002024-03-15T15:32:25.108-07:00Hello Sean,
"You seem to fall into a sort of...Hello Sean,<br /><br />"You seem to fall into a sort of deterministic view when it comes to faith and salvation."<br /><br />Before the foundation of the world, God decreed that Christ take on flesh to save sinners and conform us to Him in terms of character. We become part of the elect of God by faith and repentance from sin. The Bible does teach predestination and election, just not the variant in which the eternal destinies of people are already selected for them by God before birth.<br /><br />"I know you believe that sanctification will be the fruits of belief, but this seems to ignore the hardship and the will necessary on the side of the believer, the "cooperation with grace" that Trent Horne and even the protestant Jacob Arminius would suggest."<br /><br />Salvation is not just forensic but also has a transformational element involved with it. We are passive in the initial step called justification. Sanctification involves both God working through a person and him choosing to do good works on his own accord. It is not merely a matter of waiting for them to flow from faith itself, but something that we actually participate in.<br /><br />Arminius would not have accepted the notion of "cooperating with grace" if it involves one meriting a right standing before God. By the way, there are schools of thought that lie somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism.<br /><br />"We also can't say that if a person fails these trials or eventually ends up in hell that their faith wasn't ever real. This is affirming the consequent."<br /><br />False conversion is very much a real thing, so some people can indeed be spoken of as never having been saved to begin with. While we cannot know all the facts concerning what takes place in the hearts of others, God Himself can and does. It is not a logical fallacy to say that He knows whether or not one's faith was ever real. God does not share the limitations inherent to our being.<br /><br />"When it comes to the world, it is never a stationary. We are either progressing or returning. We are either growing closer to God or drifting further away."<br /><br />Justification before God is not based on how things work in this world. For example, people expect to get rewarded for what they do while God bestows grace to us in spite of our unworthiness (Romans 4:4-5). While the world is always changing, God never does. He is beyond time. Salvation does not change daily like the events that you read or hear of in the news.<br /><br />"When we are pursuing sanctification, we do have our sins paid for, but we are also ensuring that it stays that way, because it is never confirmed until we die."<br /><br />If my salvation is always changing and I have to wait until physical death to know my standing before God, then that does not sound like a reliable source of hope.<br /><br />"We must continually lean on the grace of Christ to hold onto that salvation and that faith as everything in the world attempts to snatch it from us."<br /><br />If the powers that be in this world have the power to take my salvation from me, then I must not serve all that powerful a God after all.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-30525016636753136762024-03-14T19:19:41.266-07:002024-03-14T19:19:41.266-07:00So I agree with both of you guys to a certain exte...So I agree with both of you guys to a certain extent. I think Trent Horne is wrong in his definition or at least hazy in explanation but not his sentiment. Christ did pay for our sins once and for all. It was "finished" on the cross. There was no more sacrifice needed to atone for sins. To put ourselves under the law again would be to admit Christ's sacrifice futile. No more sacrifice needed. However, I do agree with Trent Horne in some of explanations of the ramifications. <br /><br />You seem to fall into a sort of deterministic view when it comes to faith and salvation. When we believe Christ is Lord and died for our sins, we receive that sacrifice of the cross, we die to ourselves so we may rise with him (Romans). But what does all this mean to die to self and to believe? I know you believe that sanctification will be the fruits of belief, but this seems to ignore the hardship and the will necessary on the side of the believer, the "cooperation with grace" that Trent Horne and even the protestant Jacob Arminius would suggest. We don't just accept Christ and everything just flows down without effort. It is not wrong to say that the following sanctification and good works are the fruits of faith and the result of faith, but this faith is confirmed also through these ensuing trials, trials that we can fail. We also can't say that if a person fails these trials or eventually ends up in hell that their faith wasn't ever real. This is affirming the consequent. Paul says that we were grafted on and can be grafted off. Some people truly have faith in Christ. If they were to have died in faith they would have lived, but they fell away. <br /><br />When it comes to the world, it is never a stationary. We are either progressing or returning. We are either growing closer to God or drifting further away. When we are pursuing sanctification, we do have our sins paid for, but we are also ensuring that it stays that way, because it is never confirmed until we die. We can be grafted off. We must continually lean on the grace of Christ to hold onto that salvation and that faith as everything in the world attempts to snatch it from us. After rereading the article I actually have less qualms about Trent's comments.The Men of Usuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346836332232384777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-60582449790170357762024-03-13T17:16:48.288-07:002024-03-13T17:16:48.288-07:00Hello Jesse,
Great points. You know what they sa...Hello Jesse,<br /><br />Great points. You know what they say, "There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see." Common sense (as well as Scripture) screams that Jesus was speaking figuratively, but they will insist till the end that is is literal simply because Mother Church says so. Then they are forced to fabricate all sorts of weird explanations to defend her.<br /><br />Keep up the good work, Jess!Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-38231112199321782282024-03-11T20:38:02.210-07:002024-03-11T20:38:02.210-07:00Nicely done, Jesse. Nicely done, Jesse. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-39654386338964677842024-02-26T08:25:13.165-08:002024-02-26T08:25:13.165-08:00Well said, Jesse!Well said, Jesse!Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-21759681501464590232024-02-10T18:10:06.830-08:002024-02-10T18:10:06.830-08:00I would answer in the negative because Jesus Chris...I would answer in the negative because Jesus Christ would still be undergoing sacrifice voluntarily. The matter of atonement was done on His own accord as opposed to being threatened and coerced into doing so. I would also add that, if Christ were not God, it would not make much sense to say that He could even atone for our sins. He would be a part of the created order so how would He be much different than us? Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-85012231194667349712024-02-10T17:37:19.368-08:002024-02-10T17:37:19.368-08:00Love the posts!😃Love the posts!😃Justin Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12897865188657160551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-13780367610030738472024-02-10T17:30:51.137-08:002024-02-10T17:30:51.137-08:00I like the article Jesse but as you may know i wou...I like the article Jesse but as you may know i would view the passage on healing as literal in light of mat 8:16-17. Im sure you agree that God does heal people today in some circumstances even if it isnt by the way of spiritual gifts.Justin Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12897865188657160551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-48704428555364430982024-02-10T17:26:04.383-08:002024-02-10T17:26:04.383-08:00There is a guy i work with who is non trinitarian....There is a guy i work with who is non trinitarian. He acknowledges Jesus as the son of God though. So under his understanding wouldn't it be child abuse?Justin Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12897865188657160551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-69015945351619238402024-02-09T15:47:20.378-08:002024-02-09T15:47:20.378-08:00Hi Derek,
I appreciate you having left this feedb...Hi Derek,<br /><br />I appreciate you having left this feedback. It further strengthens my conclusions about the altars and eucharistic sacrifices of Roman Catholicism being ahistorical.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-11136534316069872072024-02-08T13:51:21.057-08:002024-02-08T13:51:21.057-08:00"According to Radulphus of Oxford (Prop. 25),...<i>"According to Radulphus of Oxford (Prop. 25), St. Sixtus II (257-259) was the first to prescribe that Mass should be celebrated on an altar, and the rubric of the missal (XX) is merely a new promulgation of the law."</i><br /><br />On that claim, the New World Encyclopedia <a href="https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Sixtus_II" rel="nofollow">has this to say</a>:<br /><br /><i>"A legend cited by Saint Ambrose of Milan says that ... the altar of sacrifice ... The story is dismissed even by such sources as the Catholic Encyclopedia as "probably a mere legend.""</i><br /><br />The reference in the Catholic Encyclopedia is <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14031c.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />So Radulphus of Oxford (d. 1403) repeats what appears to be a legend stated by Ambrose—late 4th century—regarding a supposed belief in the use of the alter in the 3rd century.Derek Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13732999916006370814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-27091323992823936442024-01-22T15:11:31.909-08:002024-01-22T15:11:31.909-08:00Love the article Jesse. At first glance i thought ...Love the article Jesse. At first glance i thought you would be addressing supposed contradictions like how many women were at the tomb. I think i covered that supposed contradiction on my blog.Justin Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12897865188657160551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-82112842551494084902024-01-20T18:06:44.197-08:002024-01-20T18:06:44.197-08:00Great article Jesse. Loved it.Great article Jesse. Loved it.Justin Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12897865188657160551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-29113343220979429222024-01-19T07:59:07.189-08:002024-01-19T07:59:07.189-08:00Great article Jesse you made some interesting poin...Great article Jesse you made some interesting points things like new thought Christian Science and Word of Faith movement definitely needs to be exposed I'm also not a fan of Joyce Meyer Joel Osteen and they like. It's true that there's no thing wrong with having with having money as long as it's not our primary focus in this life. Although I believe she is still heals and answers prayers today this doesn't mean that a Christian's will always have perfect health the Bible speaks much about suffering for Christ's sake and tribulation and trials Etc it would be hard to imagine persecution suffering trials and temptations and tribulation without disease or other strugglesJustin Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12897865188657160551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-85938747032409797652024-01-18T14:21:30.472-08:002024-01-18T14:21:30.472-08:00Nice article, jesse. I was talking to someone who ...Nice article, jesse. I was talking to someone who thinks we have to keep the sabbath and was trying to explain to him we are not under the mosaic law.we keep the sabbath symbolically now through Jesus. Hes our sabbath. Justin Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12897865188657160551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-50221277703966343342024-01-17T17:23:27.584-08:002024-01-17T17:23:27.584-08:00Anonymous,
I am conscious of the fact that the Ro...Anonymous,<br /><br />I am conscious of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church perceives different "senses" of biblical interpretation, but do not accept your approach as valid. The purpose of this article is to simply demonstrate that "Protestant" views of Matthew 16:18 are not without historical precedent. There are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars who have recognized this point.<br /><br />I doubt that the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 is a twofold or threefold reference. For example, it does not describe Peter's confession of faith and Christ as the rock upon which the church is built at the same time. He is described as the builder rather than a foundation in this context. Christ is called the rock (1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:7-8), just not so in Matthew 16.<br /><br />Even if we interpret the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 as being the Apostle Peter himself, it does not follow that he was made the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. We are not required to believe the claims to authority and infallibility made by Rome. I think that the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter's confession of faith in Jesus Christ as the promised Jewish Messiah.<br /><br />The church fathers were anything but perfect people. There were several passages from the Old Testament and four gospels allegorized beyond recognition as to their meaning. The church fathers were not always right in their beliefs. Different interpretations of Matthew 16:18 did not just fall from the sky. They presuppose the existence of debate as to its meaning.<br /><br />The Roman Catholic Church is guilty of the same error as the scribes and Pharisees of the Law who elevated ancient human traditions to the authority of Scripture. How dare anyone dispute the tradition of the elders! "Tradition" in Rome has been emphasized to a point at which the Bible cannot be studied in its own context.<br /><br />I could approach Scripture and allow my imagination to go berserk with the complex system of hermeneutics that you bring up.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-17391001566600305202024-01-02T21:53:21.817-08:002024-01-02T21:53:21.817-08:00The troll knows no Christian manner. He is a raci...The troll knows no Christian manner. He is a racist who hates his own race, which makes him mentally disordered as well. Just another person best ignored, especially since he brings nothing of value to the discussion.<br /><br />As to your post, that's arguably a less than comprehensive representation of the false claims of the anti-Semites and pro-jihadists. At some point I would love to see some reliable info regarding how many within Gaza and the West Bank oppose the elimination of Israel and its people. What we know for sure is there is no one within that region who is acting in opposition to Hamas or the PLO for that matter, who isn't simply vying for power over the rest of the "palestinians"...few of whom over the age of 5 are truly "innocent" or "oppressed" by anyone not islamic.<br /><br />The defense of Hamas or the Gazastinians is a true example of someone thrilled to see people suffer and die, since all the suffering and dying of civilians in that region are victims of the people they put in charge. Only a vile, self-loathing fake Christian white modern progressive would pretend these people are victims of Israel. <br /><br />I wish no harm to anyone. But I shed no tears for those who invite their own suffering and death. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-61655495926619422922023-12-14T08:12:08.841-08:002023-12-14T08:12:08.841-08:00With war, no one should be worried about civilian ...With war, no one should be worried about civilian losses; if we worried about that then we would have lost WWII!<br />Gaza belongs to Israel and should never have been given to HAMAS in the first place. So if Hamas wants to attack Israel, Israel has every right to eradicate Gaza from the map--after all, Hamas wants to remove Israel from the map.<br />Hamas is who is preventing supplies from going to the "civilians" while they keep everything for themselves.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-3449696811537534392023-12-06T17:30:30.473-08:002023-12-06T17:30:30.473-08:00"In fact given we are now using dichotomous r..."In fact given we are now using dichotomous reasoning here, I propose that without the Sacramental logic of Luther’s view of Baptism, you cant really be saved by faith but instead literally by your own works as one is relying on some emotive inner state and its presence in the soul, not trusting what is given in the Sacraments."<br /><br />Who cares what you have to propose about the nature of sacraments? People most certainly can be saved without the sacramental logic of Luther's view of baptism. The New Testament tells people what to do to get right with God in the simplest of terms. That is our source of hope. You sound like a hardened legalist like the scribes and Pharisees of the Law were.<br /><br />"Claiming my description of the nakedly symbolic view of water baptism is “reductionistic” is a mere assertion, especially when nothing clarifying your own position is given at all."<br /><br />You employ seemingly derogatory language like it is an "empty testimonial" or a "bare washing." It is very much full of meaning because of what it revolves around (i.e. Christ's death, burial, and resurrection) and should be treated seriously. You have not been fair to me at all in this. Do not lecture me about "mere assertions" when you make several of those yourself.<br /><br />"So you are adding another extra sentence that adds no value to what we discern from your own statement."<br /><br />Yawn. I have got better things to do with my time than to engage some strange windbag like yourself. I am not interested at all in talking to someone who is condescending like you are.<br /><br />"Lastly, just because St Augustine believed in Baptismal Regeneration (as all Patristic figures who mention Baptism) does it make my mention of him superflous. Anyone familiar with his standard reply to the Donatist can see similarities in reasoning with this earlier 3rd cent author on the issue of rebaptism. So again, a bad excuse."<br /><br />This article is not about the beliefs of Augustine. Period. You are in no position to come to me with a complaint about my post and then dictate how I discuss my reasoning. Very, very haughty of you. Disgusting.<br /><br />Whatever patristic figures believed on any subject is an open question. You are obviously a fanatic who just accepts the teachings and traditions of your church.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-89586907062068400762023-12-06T17:29:17.243-08:002023-12-06T17:29:17.243-08:00"After all if Jesse do believe this treatsie ..."After all if Jesse do believe this treatsie on Re-Baptism really espouses his Zwlinglian view then he can show it from text, context or basic scholarship done on the subject."<br /><br />What the heck is a treatsie? An ice cream sundae? I assume you mean treatise, but that does not reflect positively on your attention to detail.<br /><br />A person does not have to agree with everything that a source says in order to find parts of it useful or profitable. I never said the Anonymous Treatise on Re-Baptism corresponded exactly to Zwingli, nor was he the only Reformer who disagreed with baptismal regeneration.<br /><br />The article already has the reasons listed as to why the author "seems" (the word I used in my introduction) to contradict baptismal regeneration.<br /><br />"And on Jesse’s final note one can see how rather than clarify his view on water Baptism, he simply asserts without any explanation that the view I ascribe to him does no justice to his understanding. One can only ask how?"<br /><br />Baptism is not a mere formality. It serves as a reminder of our new identity in Jesus Christ. It is a powerful picture of the transformation of the heart by the Spirit of God that takes place in the Christian life.<br /><br />"If Baptismal regeneration is false, then clearly nothing Divine is to be conjoined, attached with or even be at the spatial location of the washing by water. It’s just symbolic."<br /><br />There is nothing "mere" or "empty" about a symbolic view of baptism. You seem to lump everyone who disagrees with you into this one stupid category in which they essentially view baptism as unnecessary or unimportant. It is myopic of you.<br /><br />"For one Baptismal Regeneration doesnt deny one is Saved by Faith. Luther’s own Catechism and Luther scholars like Philip Cary has stressed this point."<br /><br />Those who teach justification by faith alone and baptismal regeneration are doing so inconsistently. They are wrong. Baptism is a work.<br /><br />Baptismal remission of sins and baptismal regeneration are both false doctrines based upon a misreading of the New Testament text of John 3:5.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-45071253313024540112023-12-06T17:28:00.256-08:002023-12-06T17:28:00.256-08:00"After all why does water baptism function as..."After all why does water baptism function as part of Divine Grace being administered for the baptism of glory if Baptismal Regeneration is false?"<br /><br />He could have held to a view in which baptism is seen as the entrance of being included into the people of the New Covenant just like Jews viewed circumcision (which never saved anyone). Baptism in some way would be a catalyst for the administration of divine grace but not as a means of salvation.<br /><br />"So in conclusion, we see that either Jesse is ignorant of the very text he is quoting given the incongruity between the author himself and Jesse’s presentation of his words, or he is being dishonest and misrepresenting him."<br /><br />You are not more informed about things than I am. You are not more careful or honest than I am. You are not better than me as a person. You really need to get off your soap box.<br /><br />"I let the reader decide and as a bonus offer, I ask that if Stein or this anoymous author do indeed contradict what I have written then by all means, explain with proof from their own writings without being triggered."<br /><br />I cannot help but wonder whether you are projecting your own emotional state on to me. You are reading way too much into the tone of my comments, although I do find you annoying.<br /><br />"Quickly, Jesse has replied only to beat around the bush."<br /><br />Meh. I unwittingly stumbled across your website which is a mound of garbage and then had to immerse myself in over one hundred gallons of Clorox bleach just to rid myself of its stench.<br /><br />"Instead what the text means is based on what one wants to see or in this context “my understanding”<br /><br />This is ironic since that is how you treat my own words. Hypocrite.<br /><br />"Now of course people can have their own understanding of what a written text says, but that doesnt change the fact that there are always good ways to interpret it and bad ways to interpret it."<br /><br />You may pretend like you are some kind of a scholar but prove yourself to be shady.<br /><br />"In Jesse’s case, we see a textbook example of a bad approach to interpreting any text where basic context or the concept of “Letting the author explain himself” is not utilized at all."<br /><br />You are probably the type who would eat the spines out of your own textbooks.<br /><br />"Rather than demonstrate why what I posted is wrong and inaccurate, there is a progressive and liberal level appeal to subjectivism here where there are no longer standards and clear themes or meaning that is embedded and intended by the author."<br /><br />That sounds very much like what you have done in regards to what I have said. You put words in my mouth and go all out on the offensive with irrelevant details. Too funny! It is no wonder that other people have banned you from their sites.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-24976423785488181052023-12-06T17:27:21.905-08:002023-12-06T17:27:21.905-08:00Jordan Cooper,
"On the surface, the quotatio...Jordan Cooper,<br /><br />"On the surface, the quotation by itself alone without regards to the rest of the text seems to prove Jesse’s point, there’s no regenerative or salvific quality to water baptism at all."<br /><br />I cited other excerpts from the same work in this article. I did not provide a stand alone quotation.<br /><br />"Of course for those who honestly read the text, we know better than to attribute distinctions between the material or physical aspects of any sacrament and its Divine reality to entail radical separation, as if the two cannot be conjoined together or that as if when water baptism happens, there is practically nothing else but bare washing taking place."<br /><br />Of course, the mere fact that something is possible or can happen in a certain way does not actually make it so.<br /><br />"Our anoymous author here also makes this very clear for us."<br /><br />The author still does not say that baptism is necessary for salvation. Your excerpt still does not necessarily undermine how I presented excerpts from his treatise.<br /><br />"...there is no indication that water baptism does nothing or it is merely just an empty testimony or symbol detached from what God is doing."<br /><br />That is because no one here is actually saying the things you are saying. You merely regurgitate a garbled caricature of the symbolic view of baptism.<br /><br />"Instead the author is merely affirming that God isnt restricted by the material sacrament itself which, even Catholicism believes."<br /><br />The author clearly seems to convey that the baptism of the Spirit can take place without the ritual of water baptism. The former is what actually saves a person.<br /><br />"So ironically, by using this to deny Baptismal Regeneration, Jesse is showing he is unfamiliar with Early Christian primary sources which is the most charitable mode of assumption to go by here, or he is actually being dishonest."<br /><br />You are reading past me without understanding what I have written or the meaning of the text I cited.<br /><br />"After all, one doesnt invoke a very similar argument that St Augustine will later use against the Donatists where the immoral minds of the cleric invalidates the efficiacy of the sacrament if the point is that Baptism by the Spirit is completely separate from Baptism by water."<br /><br />You are muddying the waters by changing the subject. This has nothing to do with anything Augustine said or did.<br /><br />"This is practically what Baptismal Regeneration affirms, the Word joined to the visible Sacramental signs as Luther notes in his Cathechism."<br /><br />Luther and his Catechism is not relevant to anything that I said in this article.<br /><br />"Water Baptism here is considered instrumental in attaining the Baptism of Salvation and Glory. Not exactly a good way to phrase things if one’s point is that Baptism by water avails to nothing at all and is completely detached from the operation of the Holy Spirit."<br /><br />You make a lot of assertions without actually showing that he held baptism was essential for salvation.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.com