|
At first I didn’t
even see it. I saw a reference to it on Dave Armstrong’s blog,
of all places. Good ol’ Alexander the Coppersmith (AtC), who
has the amazing ability of joining hands with anyone, no
matter what their beliefs, as long as it means he can get into
print insulting me, had posted on l0g0s’ blog regarding the
“Reformed Catholic” issue. I suppose we should give him some
leeway: when you hate someone as much as this man hates me,
you lose all perspective and end up saying things that really
do not reflect well on you. But then again, what we will
document here, while fully consistent with the personal
insults AtC has sent me over the years in private e-mail, is
also fully consistent with the diatribes of other “Reformed
Catholics” as well, and anyone familiar with the rhetoric of
those in positions of political power who used that power to
attempt to suppress Baptists in centuries past knows it is
really nothing overly new. The irony, of course, is seen
plainly in the fact that while they are the first to scream
out “schism,” ranting about how Baptists are opposed to
Christian culture, and hence enemies of the gospel itself,
what happens when they see us making common cause, and
standing shoulder-to-shoulder with paedobaptists on the issues
of the gospel? Well, that’s easy: those are not real
Presbyterians, of course, but “wet Reformed Baptists” or some
other such insulting moniker. The reality today is the same
as it was in the 1700s: to be part of “the true church” is to
agree with them. True ecumenism, I believe, is one
based upon truth, not upon tradition or power.
And so I started reading through AtC’s comments. Of
course, he begins with the obligatory assertion that anyone
and everyone who disagrees with him is, of course, ignorant.
After this came the standard one-sided representation of
Calvin and “the Reformers,” but all of this is really just a
lead-in to the real heart of the matter. Reformed Catholics
detest Baptists, period.
The heart of the
problem is the unbiblical sacramentology of Baptist
schismatics. Baptist schismatics do not see the proper
covenantal function of Trinitarian baptism, and hence they
render asunder the visible unity which unites Protestants
with their Roman Catholic brethren.
There’s the real
issue. Anyone who has read Verduin’s Reformers and Their
Stepchildren will be going, “Ah, indeed, I’ve heard that
rhetoric before.” To hold a biblical sacramentology one must
believe that Trinitarian baptism places one in the new
covenant, gospel or faith notwithstanding. I have missed the
phrases “sacramentology” and “Trinitarian baptism” in my
reading of the Scriptures, so, of course, I reject the
addition of the term “biblical” to these terms, and point out
that this is the very issue that we seek to bring to light:
whether such a belief is in fact biblical. That’s why we are
debating the issue in November. It will be nice, we trust, to
have a discussion that does not simply assume the end of the
argument as its beginning. But in any case, to not hold this
particular view is to make oneself a Neo-Donatist (as l0g0s
had said), or a schismatic, as AtC and TGE like to put it.
Now, some of you might be wondering why this issue has
been coming up on my blog of late, and might be tired of it.
I understand. So am I. But you see, one of the most
perplexing questions for many today is why those who at one
time, it seemed, were with us in seeking to proclaim the
gospel of free grace to those who need to hear it are now
doing anything but making that proclamation. How does
one go from evangelizing by proclamation of the truth to
seeking to call people to “faithfulness to their baptism” as
if this somehow is the same thing? Well, consider the words
above: AtC thinks Trinitarian baptism creates unity with
Roman Catholics: a visible one, no doubt, and one that he
might wish to nuance, but unity nonetheless. See how
important this is? The false brethren of Galatians 2 had been
baptized, too. So, there was a “visible unity” with them, or
was there? Paul clearly indicated that they were enemies of
the gospel, false professors who wished to enslave the people
of God, and that Paul had opposed them and their attempts to
pervert the gospel of Christ. So, was Paul a schismatic for
anathematizing those who shared with him the
properly-administered form of baptism? Or is there something
missing in AtC’s theology that is present in Paul’s, and, I
hope and pray, mine? Might it just be that Paul knew that the
gospel is what defines the faith, not a “proper sacramentology”?
It sure seems so. But AtC was not done. Nooo, he was just
warming up:
They turn what is
intended primarily as a God-centered sign of the divine
commitment to the covenant community into a man-centered
sign of the "faith" of the individual. Hence they exchange
the objectivity of baptism as God's pledge to us for the
subjectivity of baptism as our "sincere" pledge to God.
Of course, to
properly unpack this issue one needs to engage the text of
Hebrews 8 so that we can ascertain what the biblical
definition of a “covenant community” is, and what the nature
of the covenant in the blood of Christ involves. For those
interested, I have written a two-part article for the Reformed
Baptist Theological Review (www.rbtr.org)
on this very subject. The first half will appear in the July
issue this year, the second in the January issue of 2005.
Suffice it to say that a very strong, very robust case for
seeing the covenant community of the New Testament as defined
by grace, faith, the atonement, and the forgiveness of sins,
can be presented from the biblical text itself. One need not
embrace this “either/or” false dichotomy: baptism is both a
personal confession of one’s union with Christ (doesn’t the
WCF say the same?) as well as the common experience of the
community as a whole.
Because Baptist
schismatics hold to a Marcionite interpretation of the Old
Covenant, they fail to see the continuity of covenantal
structure within the progress of redemption.
Or, for the serious
minded person, because we recognize both the continuities and
discontinuities, and are convinced by the exegetical evidence,
we see those elements of continuity that are biblical, and
those elements of discontinuity that are biblical.
Hence, they
reject the baptisms of those whose individual confessions of
faith are deemed suspect because of a failure on the part of
Roman Catholics to articulate with hair-splitting precision
the precise mechanism of their justification.
Re-read that
section again and consider what it means. Evidently, if these
words mean what they say, the difference between AtC and Rome
on justification is mere “hair-splitting” regarding the
“precise mechanism.” This says volumes, does it not? The
anathemas of Trent are merely over “hair splitting.” The
difference between forensic imputation and Rome’s impartation
(which includes in it all the elements of sacramental
distribution of grace, partial forgiveness, merit,
supererogation, purgatory, indulgences, and the like) is mere
“hair splitting” for this “zealous Reformed Catholic.” Well,
it should not be overly surprising, then, that such folks
hurry to identify themselves as our opponents when we are so
clear about proclaiming that Rome’s gospel is no gospel at
all. How schismatic of us! See why this is important?
As if the
validity of baptism as a sign of the unity of the New
Covenant church (Eph. 4:5) depended upon an individual's
theological precision!
This has become
such an oft-repeated straw-man that some are in danger of
thinking it an accurate representation. Consider just a
moment: is there not a difference between recognizing the
difference between true and false Christs, true and false
Spirits, and true and false gospels (all biblical phrases, are
they not?), and “an individual’s theological precision”? Of
course! Anyone can see this, but the rhetoric of these
“Reformed Catholics” cannot stand if they allow that kind of
precision to exist. How about we compare AtC’s comments above
with the following:
The person who is
called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ
to baptize, shall
go down into the water with the person who has
presented himself
or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him
or her by name:
Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize
you in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen. (Doctrine and Covenants 20:73)
Now, should someone
say, “Oh, but wait, Mormons are not Trinitarians,” I would
have to reply, “Oh, but are you not asking of them ‘individual
theological precision’ on such a difficult subject as the
Trinity? Aren’t you being a schismatic here?” Ah, that knife
is sharp, and cuts both directions, does it not? Upon what
consistent ground could our zealous Reformed Catholic friends
stand here, outside of the blatant embracing of their own
tradition? One wonders.
Trinitarian baptism
continues to mark out Roman Catholics as God's covenant
children, just as cirucumcision (sic) continued to mark
out Israel as God's covenant children even in their desparate
(sic) condition of apostasy and judgment (Gen. 17:7, 10
cf. Deut. 32:18-20).
If I believed
Christian baptism exists apart from the gospel of Jesus
Christ, I might be able to make sense of that claim. For some
odd (and I think biblical) reason, I do not believe Christian
baptism can exist apart from the Christian gospel.
The theology of
the Baptist schismatics stinks. Its fumes offend any
biblically balanced person like the smell of a contruction (sic)
site porta-potty at a fancy wedding.
It is hard not to
think of the post-modern liberal running about, “You must be
tolerant!” showing all the time they are utterly intolerant of
anyone who is intolerant. Now, don’t get me wrong. AtC has
every right to separate himself (umm, isn’t that ‘schism’?)
from me and believe my theology stinks. And since he is the
true scholar, this kind of analogy must be more scholarly than
how I would express the fact that I have just as strong a
dislike of AtC’s beliefs as he has of mine. I just channel
that dislike into the demonstration of its error in light of
the truth. Not nearly as flashy, I admit, but in the long
run, possibly a better route?
It is a subtle
form of legalistic justification by works.
In case you just
lost touch with reality, let’s review this. AtC says Roman
Catholics are unified with us by Trinitarian baptism in the
new covenant as the children of God. They may anathematize
anyone who believes in sola fide, and promote all sorts
of additions to the gospel, but that one action creates
unity. But if you insist that the new covenant in the blood
of Christ is perfect, so that one is joined to it by the
sovereign grace of God through faith, and not by any human
action, you are promoting a “form of legalistic justification
by works.” Yes, well, reality can become quite skewed in the
heady halls of academia.
God's ability to
save me is contstrained (sic) by the purity of my
theological precision.
If you have no
idea who he could be talking about, it means you have failed
to be properly over-awed by the rhetoric that came before.
Obviously, this kind of straw-man is again quite popular,
despite how obviously fallacious it is upon a moment’s
reflection. But there is an important error lying behind this
kind of rhetoric. One is not saved by ones “theological
precision.” But, does it then follow that when one is renewed
by the Holy Spirit and made a new creature in the image of
Christ, that one will lack a love of the truth? Will one
desire “theological precision” as a means of honoring one’s
Lord, or will one show disrespect for the truths of the gospel
by ignoring the clarity of the revelation provided to us in
Scripture? Does the Holy Spirit lead us to be more, or less,
concerned about truth? The answer seems too simple for
comment, but much of the rhetoric of the “Reformed Catholics”
evaporates in its light.
The god of
Baptist schismatics sends people to hell for failing to
accurately "exegete" all the relevant passages selected from
a list of favorite proof-texts.
This sounds very
much like the standard arguments used by atheists, or, maybe
by some radical Arminians against Reformed theology. When I
use the small “g” form of “god” about someone else, I am
clearly indicating that I worship a different God than they
do, and that is surely AtC’s intention here. He is obviously
far more at home with someone who shares his correctly-parsed
view of baptism (and yet likewise embraces transubstantiation
in the Mass, purgatory, priestly absolution, the Marian
dogmas, and Papal Infallibility) than he is a dreaded Baptist
(but remember, I’m the schismatic). If you cannot figure out
how that works, please do not feel badly. I cannot either.
But whatever it is that motivates such an viewpoint likewise
motivates simple dishonesty, for AtC is surely bright enough
to know the falsehood he here places before others. Unless he
is willing to say that the issue of the nature of the gospel
is nothing more than a list of proof-texts correctly exegeted,
he knows that neither I, nor anyone else, believes such a
thing. Now, I’m sure even the former Baptists amongst his
fellow RC’s will not call him on the carpet for such rhetoric,
for one thing I have learned over the past number of months:
while every effort will be made to read Roman Catholics or
Mormons or anyone else in the best possible light, if you are
a Baptist, any old insult or straw-man will do. I would
dearly love to be proven wrong, but I doubt I will be.
No matter how
sincerely one clings to the saving mercy of the Triune God
for eternal life, a confusion of justification and
sanctification, or a misunderstanding of the nature of free
will is sufficient to condemn a person to eternal misery.
Again, one is left
to wonder who AtC is talking about? No one knows, since this
is obviously not meant to be taken seriously.
Thanksfully, (sic)
biblically grounded Christians will reject Baptist schismatic
heresy for the inarticulate, clumsy, historically clueless
drivel that it is. Speaking as one zealous Reformed Catholic,
I am frankly sick of this sectarian nonsense.
Ponder well the
attitude displayed by AtC, and then realize that in his mind,
he does not see how utterly and fully sectarian his
position truly is. “Reformed Catholicism” breeds this kind of
insulting, condescending rhetoric. What it doesn’t breed is
clarity on what really counts in this day and age. Is the
gospel you read of in Scripture reduced to Trinitarian baptism
properly administered? Does this kind of writing clarify the
gospel, or muddle it? Let the reader decide. |
