Calvinism Part 1: Total Depravity and Free Will

Right now I will be looking at the first point of Calvinism which is Total Depravity. I have been heavily influenced in this and many of the upcoming posts by R.C. Sproul’s book “What Is Reformed Theology?” Although it covers Reformed Theology it has an entire portion dedicated to the doctrines of grace. The name can be misleading in some ways because it suggests the idea of utter depravity that we as humans are as evil as we can possible be. This is not what total depravity means, Sproul suggests that Radically Corrupt might be a more accurate title. What this doctrine really means is that sin has radically corrupted human kind that there is no part of our being that has not been completely and utterly effected by sin, the body, mind, will and more. Sin has invaded every aspect of our lives. Sin has not affected us in a small way but sin itself arises from the very center of our being. We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. We are born with a sinful nature and all our acts flow from this.

Paul I think gets at the heart of our sinful nature in Romans 3:9-18:

“9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? [b] No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;

11     no one understands;

    no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

    no one does good,

    not even one.”

13 “Their throat is an open grave;

    they use their tongues to deceive.”

“The venom of asps is under their lips.”

14     “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”

15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16     in their paths are ruin and misery,

17 and the way of peace they have not known.”

18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Our day to day experience would say however that pagan people can perform good deeds, this is what has long been called Civil virtue. Civil virtue refers to deeds that conform outwardly to the law of God. When God evaluates the actions of people, he considers not only the outward deeds, but also the motives behind these acts. The supreme motive for everything we do needs to be love of God.

Most Arminians would agree with the doctrine of Total Depravity, I personally feel that they must partially rewrite the bible and this doctrine to do so. Within Calvinism, man is lost to his sin unable to choose what is right unable to choose God; we are only saved by the complete action of God. Arminian thought would say that we are depraved except for a small part of our will that can choose God. I find the Arminian revision of the doctrine to really be a rejection of it. I think at the heart of the debate over this teaching is the idea of Free Will. People would ask do you believe in free will. I would answer yes, however in a much different way than most people would assume. Most people would define free will to be the ability to choose, the ability to choose right or wrong, the ability to choose God or to reject him. This I do not believe, nor does the Bible. I believe we were created with free will and in that perfect state our desire was to do what was good. The fall did something in that our will became slaves to sin. In the present we have been created with the ability to choose good or evil but our desires are to do only that which is sin. It’s like if you have a bird who can fly around, it was created to do so, but it breaks its wing. Can it fly? Yes it certainly can it was created too, but it’s unable to because it has a broken wing At its core it was designed to fly but something has happened that changes its ability to fly. If given the choice between accepting or rejecting salvation left to our own will we always choose to reject it. Can we choose God, certainly, do we desire to, most certainly not.

Total depravity is really the lynch pin that Calvinism is built on. If you reject this than you cannot really hold to the other points, and if you hold to this point but reject the others your being inconsistent. Below are a few verses that I think teach the doctrine of Total Depravity. Please feel free to leave comments or ask questions. Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Numbers 15:37-39; 1 Kings 8:46; Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3, 51:5, 94:11, 130:3; Proverbs 4:23, 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20, 8:11; Isaiah 6:5, 53:6, 64:6; Jeremiah 10:14, 13:23, 17:9; Matthew 7:11, 15:19; Mark 10:18; Luke 17:10; John 2:24, 3:36, 6:44, 15:5, 16; Acts 3:16, 16:14; Romans 1:18-2:16, 3:9-20, 23, 5:12, 7:18-20, 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:5, 4:3, 11:3; Ephesians 2:1-6, 4:17-19; Colossians 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:25, 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:5; James 2:10, 3:2, 8; Revelation 9:20, 16:9.

Calvinism Intro: The Great Disconnect

Calvinism has for a long time been broken down into the acronym TULIP, which together make up the 5 points of Calvinism, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Perseverance of the Saints. Allot of people reject these tenets because they don’t like having the label of a man. I actually prefer to call it the Doctrine of Grace, which is what it was historically called. John Calvin at no point penned some doctrine that he thought would be cool to name after himself; Calvin was only echoing the teachings of Augustine from 1000 years previously. The term Calvinism is did not come about until the Arminian (after Jacob Arminius) controversy in the church, which led to the Council Dort. The Arminian's were a bit irked to call the opposing side the Doctrines of Grace, and so the term Calvinism came to be.

I personally for much of my Christian life considered myself a Calvinist; if the topic came up I would defend it.  A few years ago I started studying Calvinism at greater depth and I found as I did so that as much as I said I was a Calvinist on paper in practice I was very much an Arminian. I think this is a big problem  in the Church among those who claim to adhere to the doctrines of grace, a great disconnect from knowledge and practice. I believe that there is no theology that does not affect us in a practical way, it’s for this reason I think all believers need to know what they believe and why, you are either ruled by your bad theology or your good theology. I said I believed in Calvinism but spoke like a Arminian, I evangelized like an Arminian. If you say you are a Calvinist yet support altar calls, the idea of “everyone close your eyes and raise your hands if you want to accept Jesus.”, then you are not a Calvinist. So many of the token cliché evangelistic sayings have to be thrown out like: “God loves you, and has a plan for your life”, “Jesus died for you.”, “accept Jesus into your heart and make him your Lord and Savior.”

If you say you’re a Calvinist then it need be more than just a distant theological concept it should be effecting all aspects of your Christian life, as the famous Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon once said “ It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else” At the core of both Calvinism and Arminian Theology is the question “What did Christ’s death do?” The Arminian would say that Christ death made salvation a possibility, he made a way for us to be to be saved. Calvinism says that in Christ’s death he saved those whom the father had given him.

One last myth of Calvinism needs to be addressed, many people would sum up Calvinism as the idea that God chooses who goes to heaven. In reality it’s not quite this it actually that God chooses who has faith and who does not.

Miracle or Providence

Something I think is sorely lacking within the church is a true and proper understanding and distinction between providence and miracles. In fact few Christians I find have ever heard of the providence of God. What is providence? Well it is God acting and working his care and provision through ordinary means of creation. After the Colorado Shooting a few months ago I read of a young woman who was shot in the theater, taking a bullet to the head. Doctors were skeptical of her survival but when they went into surgery they discovered that she had a slight deformation of the brain that left her with a small channel of fluid running from the front to back of her brain. Under normal circumstances this would never have been noticed or caused any trouble. But when she was shot the bullet traveled through this channel of liquid leaving little damage and saving her life. Is this a miracle, I don’t think, instead its Gods providence. In his loving care he created this woman with this defect that would save her life. Providence in essence is divine coincidence that is not really coincidence but God in his sovereign all knowing all powerful action. I had a professor in university who once said “Sometimes providence  like Hebrew letters, must be read backwards..” That everything that happens to us is part of his plan. In question and answer 27 and 28 of the Heidelberg Catechism addresses providence:

“Q&A 27

Q. What do you understand by the providence of God?

A. The almighty and ever present power of God1 by which God upholds, as with his hand, heaven and earth and all creatures,2 and so rules them that leaf and blade, rain and drought, fruitful and lean years, food and drink, health and sickness, prosperity and poverty—3all things, in fact, come to us not by chance4 but by his fatherly hand.5

1 Jer. 23:23-24; Acts 17:24-28

2 Heb. 1:3

3 Jer. 5:24; Acts 14:15-17; John 9:3; Prov. 22:2

4 Prov. 16:33

5 Matt. 10:29

Q&A 28

Q. How does the knowledge of God's creation and providence help us?

A. We can be patient when things go against us,1 thankful when things go well,2 and for the future we can have good confidence in our faithful God and Father that nothing in creation will separate us from his love.3 For all creatures are so completely in God's hand that without his will they can neither move nor be moved.4

1 Job 1:21-22; James 1:3

2 Deut. 8:10; 1 Thess. 5:18

3 Ps. 55:22; Rom. 5:3-5; 8:38-39

4 Job 1:12; 2:6; Prov. 21:1; Acts 17:24-28”

This is in contract to a miracle which is God acting outside of natural means. Providence can be explained by our physical minds because its Gods action using the means of the natural world. Miracles are God working outside of the natural system like one loaf of bread feeding 2000 people. I think what we contribute to miracle largely in our day and age is better understood as providence.

Yesterday at church I was talking with an elderly man, we talk quite often He fought in the Korean War and visited there recently when his grandson who lives in there married a Korean women. He knows I have spent time in Korea and his favorite topic of conversation is that. He mentioned that this same grandson and his wife just found out they will be having a baby, and this will be this man’s first great-grandchild. At this I was taken aback by Gods providence. Here is a man who almost 63 years ago put a lot on the line to fight in a war, put his own life on the line.  Little did he know all those years ago that he was fighting for his great-grandchild to be born 63 years later? I think that’s God’s providence.

William the Baptist

One thing I forgot to mention in yesterday’s post on mode is the book William the Baptist by James M. Chaney. I highly recommend it for wanting to learn more about the Reformed position on baptism mode. What is great about this book is that it’s written in a novel format centered on a man named William who incidentally is a Baptist. William marries a Presbyterian and begins to call on the local Presbyterian minister in order to learn the “peculiar” beliefs of his wife. It can actually found for free here.

Baptism Part 4: Immersion, Pouring, or Sprinkling?

The question of baptismal mode is as big a question as the question of who is to be baptized. There are basically three modes of baptism, immersion, sprinkling and pouring. Most credos hold to immersion only to them it is not a valid baptism unless the person has been completely immersed within water. The issue between this side and the Reformed is the word “only”. The reformed general say that any of these 3 modes are a valid baptism, in other words baptism is not about quantity. Immersion-onlyists would generally encourage anyone not immersed to be baptized again. I think it should be noted that to the Reformed any baptism performed in the name of the Trinity is a valid baptism. So a person baptized as a Roman Catholic (despite major differences) seeking to join a Presbyterian church would not be required to be baptized in our church, the same goes for Baptist, Pentecostal, and so forth. I myself was baptized as a child, later on when I become a Christian being heavily influenced in the Baptist church I was baptized by immersion. I now believe that my original baptism as a child was the valid one and my “second” baptism was merely an unfortunate dip in a small pool. Again my rejection of my second baptism is not because immersion is an inferior mode but because baptism is a onetime only thing.

We hold this conviction from Ephesians 4:4-6 “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” No Presbyterian or Reformed Christian would say immersion baptism is invalid only that is is unnecessary.

Many immersion-onlyists use Romans 6:4 as a proof text for Immersion but Baptism signifies not only our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, but also a cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ (Sprinkling):

"And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field." Leviticus 14:7

"Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves." Num 8:7

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you." Ezekiel 36:25

"For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify[a] for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our[b] conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Hebrews 9:13-14

"For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Hebrews 9:19-22

"let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Hebrews 10:22

"according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:

May grace and peace be multiplied to you." 1 Peter 1:2

Baptism also signifies the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit who is poured out upon us:

“And it shall come to pass afterward,

that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;

your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

your old men shall dream dreams,

and your young men shall see visions." Joel 2:28

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,

that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,

and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

and your young men shall see visions,

and your old men shall dream dreams;

18 even on my male servants[a] and female servants

in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." Acts 2:17-18

"Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing." Acts 2:33

I think through this cursory glance that baptism is also used in the context of pouring and sprinkling as well. What is important to grasp here is the classic distinction between the sign and the thing signified in baptism. The sign is the outward element, while the thing signified is the spiritual reality being portrayed. So what is the sign in baptism? Is the sign of baptism the water or the way the water is applied? We can answer this question by asking another what does our Lord Jesus Christ's institution of the sacrament of baptism in Matthew 28:19 have to say about the mode of baptism. Jesus says nothing. The sign of baptism is the water, not the mode of the waters application. The quantity of water does not matter what matters is that water which is the sign be used.

Most immersionists will say that the NT clearly teaches immersion but this is simply not true, all instances that are used immersion is implied. Take for instance Matthew 3:16 “ And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,[a] and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;” this verse does not say that those baptized were immersed, but this is assumed by immersion onlyists. Francis Schaeffer in his Article on Baptism says this concerning this passage:

“The Baptistic argument that "Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water" means nothing. One year we took our vacation at the seashore. one of my little daughters went down into the water and came out of the water every' day, but she would not put her head under for all our coaxing. The simple fact is that the meaning of this passage is altogether fulfilled if Jesus went down until His feet were in the Jordan.”

One other passage is Acts 8:38 which tells of the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch: “And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” the phrase "and they both went down" simply means that they stepped down from the chariots to the water below. As well, Acts 8:38 says both Philip and the eunuch "went down into the water." This cannot mean baptism by immersion, or else Philip baptized the Eunuch and himself! This would mean that when we baptized, if we are to follow this example, both the person being baptized and the Pastor baptizing would have to go under the water.

Immersion-onlyists will fall on the Greek word for baptism, "baptismos" which translates to mean immerse/washing. However if we look at times when "baptismos" is used immersion certainly can’t be meant. Take for instance “washing" in Mark 7 which uses the word "baptismos"

"And from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, the washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." - Mark 7:4

Are we then to fully immerse our furniture in the swimming pool? This passage follows directly after discussing the Jewish ritual of hand-washing. Such hand-washing is not immersion, but pouring. This practice has been preserved in Judaism until the present, here is a video demonstration:

All that being said I think the case against immersion only baptism can be heavily made, and is not as cut and dry as credos might make it seem. Although all modes are fine I personally prefer pouring or sprinkling, I think most cases of baptisms in the New Testament can be argued to be this. Also the universality of baptism in this matter I think speaks for itself. If we are to only immerse what then do we do with those that become Christians in deserts or glaciers like regions, or those on their death bed. Are we to turn them away? Pouring and sprinkling allows baptism to all people everywhere. I could go on more about different things I find compelling but this post has gone on long.

Baptism Part 3: What Does Baptism Do?

What is baptism, what does it do? I think this is really a core question that is the main point of confusion between credo and Paedobaptists. Many credos approach the paedo position by trying to understand it through the framework of their own view of baptism, this ultimately fails, of course it does not make sense, it is like trying to make sense of gravity in space. The Credo understanding of what baptism is and does is basically “Baptism is what I do when I come to believe, it says to God that I’m for him and not against him.” In essence its a salute to God and most credos would say that nothing goes on in baptism except this declaration. If you take this definition then and hold it up against Paedobaptism of course it does not hold water. If I try to understand credobaptism using the definition of paedobaptism, I’m going to be just as much missing things. But what is the paedo understanding of baptism?

I think  R. Scott Clark in his article A CONTEMPORARY REFORMED DEFENSE OF REFORMED INFANT BAPTISM  has a good definition:  “Baptism is a means of sanctifying grace and a gospel ministry to the people of God. It is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace illustrating what Christ has done for his people and sealing salvation to the same. Therefore covenant children of believing parents as well as unbaptized adult converts should be baptized.”

I think one of the startling differences about how credos and paedo view baptism is that, to the credo baptism is us speaking to God saying I believe and follow you. To the paedo baptism is God speaking his promises to us. Baptism is the gospel made visible; it points us to Christ and his work and promises on our behalf.

Nor does nothing happen in baptism, when the congregation views a baptism and sees this Gospel made visible, through the mystery of the Holy Spirit we receive sanctifying grace or as I like to call it spiritual nourishment, a kind of grace that God gives his people only in the context of his sacraments, for our growth and nourishment We do not believe that the infant child who is baptized is saved by the act itself, they are only saved by the grace of God through faith. But that we constantly point them towards there baptism, and that glorious moment when God spoke and said “I extend salvation and all the promises therein to you, now repent and believe.”

I think one last thing needs to be said in that Paedobaptists hold a view called the “visible, invisible church distinction. The visible church is the church you see the church down the street your own church. Not everyone who is part of the visible church is saved. There is then the Invisible church which is the church that all believers are part of it’s the church we cannot see. The sign of entrance into the invisible church is Baptism of the Holy Spirit (the point in time in which God saves you and gives you faith.). The sign of the entrance of the visible church is water baptism. So when we baptize baby’s we are baptizing them into the visible church with our hope and prayer being they one day they be baptized into the church invisible. And just as in the OT not all that received the earthly sign of circumcision believed so to not all baptized with water believe, yet they are born into the covenant of God, they share in the blessings of being part of the church and within a believing family.

Why Baptize Children: Part 2

I must note that much of the knowledge on this subject has come from Francis Schaeffer's article “Baptism” as well as a wonderful book by Daniel Hyde called “Jesus Loves The Little Children: Why We Baptize Children” a very easy to understand and simple book on the subject and short at about 80 pages long, I could not recommend it more for anyone wanting to learn more on the subject.

 Some might ask “were in scripture does it say to baptize the children of believers?” I would equally ask “were does it say not too?” Modern Christianity has centered itself largely on scripture proofs, which are specifics books, chapter and verse used to support a position. When you limit yourself to this you end up throwing so much scriptural teaching of the last 2000 years out the door. Infant baptism has no verse that is used to defend itself from which is rises or falls on, instead Paedobaptists use the complete and total continuity of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and it is by reading scripture as whole that we come to the conclusion we do on baptism. You might disagree that this is not right, I must stop you and point out that you most likely use this type of method for many different views on scripture. I’m assuming you believe in the Trinity, well the Bible does not say “and you shall worship the Trinity.” But a reading of the entirety of scripture points out that although the word is not used the concept and the idea is completely there, a complete reading points that God is most certainly Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or commonly called the Trinity. So this is how Paedobaptists reach the conclusion infants of believers should be baptized.

See it all starts with Genesis; God made a Covenant with Abraham that God would be his God, and his descendants God as well. The sign of this covenant was circumcision of the male children. I ask the question: for Abraham what came first, his believing in God or his circumcision. The answer is believing, he was circumcised because he believed, but God also commanded that Abraham’s children be circumcised. So here we see that in the Old Testament the sign of the covenant was given to those who believed and their children. Paedobaptists believe that the continuation of this covenant of Abraham is Baptism, and that naturally this means that the sign of the covenant continues to be applied to Believers and their children. Furthermore it would be the natural assumption by any Jewish convert to Christianity in the early church that children receive the sign.

Schaeffer I think puts it best when he says: “These questions would be further aggravated by what this saved Jew himself would have heard taught in the New Testament time. For example, he would have heard Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 38, 39: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Remember, Peter said this to Jews, Jews who were used to having the outward sign of their faith applied to their children.

With all these things in his mind, he would expect his child to be baptized. If it were refused, what would you have done in his place? You would have asked the Apostles the reason why. So would the thousands of Christian Jews in that day. The question would have been asked in a hundred meetings; and Peter, John. Paul, and the others would have sat down and written in their Epistles to clear up the matter, just as they answered other questions that arose. The New Testament would have contained the clear answer as to why in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the infants of believers, but in the New Testament it was to be withheld from them.

The only reason possible for the New Testament not dialing with this problem is that the problem did not exist. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews' minds was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.

In the light of the teaching of the whole Bible, for not to baptize babies there would have to be a clear command in Scripture not to do so. Instead of that, the emphasis is all the other way. Of the seven cases of water baptism mentioned in the New Testament, three were of families. Someone may say, "But it does not say that them were infants involved." I would point out to you that in the light of the natural expectancy of the saved Jew, if babies were not baptized, the Scripture would have made it clear that such was the case. God deals with families in the 0. T. and in the N. T. too. The promise made to the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:31b, "And thou shalt be saved, and thy house," adequately shows this. No matter what interpretation we, individually, may hold concerning this passage, certainly God here does show that He deals with families not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well.”

We know that children were baptized early on Origen born 180AD claimed to be baptized as a infant. Polycarp who was born in 69AD and was a disciple of John the Apostle was also Baptized as a infant. It seems to me that baptism of infants was a natural assumption to Jewish converts plus historically it existed relatively early. If Credobaptists are right in that infant baptism is not Biblical then why did Paul and the Apostles who were vocal on so many heresies and false teaching on the subject remain completely silent.

So we have just gone through the scriptural reasoning of why children of believers are baptized. This by far is not been an exhaustive explanation but simple a brief primer on the subject, the next post will focus on what baptism is.

Why Baptize Children: Part 1

      Today will be the introduction of several posts talking about who is to be baptized highlighting the Presbyterian view that Believers and their children are to be baptized. Later on I will be looking at the other side of the issue of baptism which is the mode or more commonly known the debate of full immersion, sprinkling or pouring.

     One of the first things I must mention is that too often there is a misconception that there is only 2 views on baptism, believers’ baptism and then infant baptism. In actuality there are actually 3 different types of infant baptism, each with their own defense and reasons as well as understanding of what happens.

1.       Roman Catholic: Believe in what is called Baptismal regeneration, which basically says the act of baptism saves.

2.       Reformed: This is the view I hold and is what I will be discussing in this post.

3.       Lutheran: Basically fits between Catholic and Reformed. I have a basic understanding of this but not enough to comment properly.

      For simplicity’s sake I will be referring to the 2 views I will be talking about by their formal names. Credobaptist, (credo means “I believe” in Latin) which is the believers baptism as held by Baptists, Pentecostal and so forth. Then there is Paedobaptist, (paedo is child in Latin) again in this context this means specifically the reformed view held by Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, and some Congregationalists.

      Most Credos start with “I don’t believe in infant baptism because I think you have to believe to be saved.” At which I would say “good so do I as would any well informed Paedobaptist.” I think also it’s good to note that Paedobaptists are also Credobaptists. Let’s say a person raised in a home where he was never ever baptized, they then grow up and attend a Presbyterian church were they come to believe. Then that person would baptized on the fact that they believe (credo) however we would also understand scripture to teach that baptism is also meant to be for the children of believers as well (paedo), so we believe both.

Next time I will go more into detail about what Paedobaptists believe Baptism does as well as the reason why we believe children of believers are to be baptized.

Abandoning Evangelicalism

       This is my first post for my new blog Abandoning Evangelicalism. I hopefully will be trying to post regularly on here. It will mostly be my theological thoughts and observation of Christianity present and past. I have gone through allot of theological changes the last several years, I went from being a theologically broad Baptist to a Confessional Reformed Presbyterian, and some people might notice that I’m now in favor of things that I once was strongly against. Looking back I see myself as being liberal on a lot of theological topics in my past, people who know me will notice I have a very specific statement of faith now. I certainly love my Baptist brethren but I hope they can respect that my Biblical conviction's have led me to where I now am.

       So why is this blog called “Abandoning Evangelicalism” you might ask. Well it’s because evangelicalism I have observed is departing from the Bible, added to the fact evangelicalism really has no meaning anymore. Everyone claims to be an evangelical you have the liberal postmodern emergent liberals like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Rachel Held Evans and on another side you have Mark Driscoll, John Piper and then every degree in between. It’s now easier to find a needle in a hay stack then it is to define evangelicalism. It’s a word every Christian wants to claim, but what is it?

     The radio program “The White Horse Inn” has dubbed evangelicalism the new liberalism and the more a watch the modern church the more I have to agree. This is not to claim anyone who calls themselves an evangelical is a liberal, I know many who are far from it, but through the years evangelicalism has put more and more emphasize on theology and being able to articulate the faith. The end result is a boiling down of Christianity to all lowest common denominators. As time goes on this erodes most truth of the Bible the authority, inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. “As long as we love each other who needs theology”, “who needs theology I have Jesus”. This is the tangled road that I see evangelicalism going down, I was part of a liberal church for a while and it unnerves me when I see less and less of a difference between Liberal Christianity and modern evangelicalism.

     So I have abandoned modern evangelicalism, but what for? Well I have abandoned it for Confessional Reformed Christianity which is really the historic evangelicalism, I now hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith as a wonderful summary of what scripture teaches, Catechism is the way to go, I believe in baptizing baby’s, and in the Sacraments, that when I take the Lords Supper every week there is more than a memorial going on. Yes I still believe in Jesus, yes I still read my Bible in fact more so.  Really I have abandoned modern evangelicalism for the real evangelicalism and the real historical and biblical Christianity.