Why I Am a Catholic

The truth is that I’m a Catholic, I’m tired of hiding it. Perhaps it’s because of all the shame generated by all those sex scandals. Or perhaps at the same time its fear about what my friends and family will say. There is just something special about being connected to 2000 years of unbroken tradition that ancient faith delivered to us once and for all by the apostles. I have a particular love of being able to partake in the Lord’s Supper and receiving the real presence of Christ every week. Alas it is about time that everyone be aware that I, Justin am a Catholic.

Wait… I should probable let you know that when I use the word Catholic I do not mean Roman Catholic. I regret that Roman Catholics have somehow received the monopoly on the word Catholic because Catholic they are not. What Catholic simple means is universal.  So really Roman Catholic is a bit of an oxymoron, it would be like referring to the Universal Church of Long Island. I remember in High School when I underwent confirmation in the United Church of Canada I received a form referring to the Catholic Church. This was confusing for me and several other people, as we recalled not being in a Roman Catholic Church but a United Church. When most people hear the word Catholic they automatically think of Rome and Popes and smells and bells.

What is mean when I use Catholic is that there exists a link of affirmation with 2000 years of faithful Christianity. That what the Apostles believed and taught is what I believe and teach, that what the Church Fathers believed and taught are what I believe and teach. What the faithful believers in the medieval Church believed is what I teach and believe.

It is at the Reformation that the road divides a bit. I think many are often mistaken into thinking that the protestant Reformers were trying to reform the church to its original form as we see it in Acts, rather the Protestant Reformers were trying to reform the church back 300-400 years when much of the corruption and false teaching in the church started. Now before I go on it is perhaps important that I define what I mean by Protestant, since it too is often misconstrued. Often Protestant is used to mean someone who is not Roman Catholic. When I use it I use a more precise definition of those original groups in conflict with Rome, the Lutherans and Reformed/Presbyterians. I think this is a good definition as the majority of Christians who think they are Protestants believe very different things from the Protestant Reformers.

The Reformers were very much well read in the Early Church Fathers and Medieval theologians. Most of their theology came from them and for that reason they saw themselves in harmony with the true Catholic Church going all the way back to the Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church and its teaching was an innovation that was simple a couple hundred years old. In the reformation and specifically at the Council of Trent in 1545 the Roman Catholic Church broke away from the Catholic Church in order to follow a 300 year innovation. So one of the big differences is that the Catholic Church is ancient the Roman Catholic Church on the other hand is a relatively young sect.

It’s for these reasons why I’m a Catholic, perhaps Reformed Catholic is a better term. You will seldom see me refer even to the Roman Catholic Church, I might call them the Roman Church, Romanists, or Papists. But Catholic I cannot call them because Catholic they are not.

What Do Early Scottish Settlers and Internationals Have in Common

I have recently been doing some reading on early Canadian Presbyterianism, mixing several of my favorite topics (dangerous I know). Something has stood out to me and that is the general struggle that early settlers to Canada had in forming churches and finding pastors to lead them. You see the Scottish were coming in droves, Nova Scotia virtually had no Presbyterian ministers, and really no Christian pastors to oversee there spiritual needs, the Canadian colonies were a spiritual wasteland. They petitioned Churches in Scotland to send ministers to combat what seemed like a spiritual famine. The motherland often replied no, but most often simple would not even reply back. In their mind they had to worry about Scotland, Nova Scotia the colonies was not there problem. Few if any responded to the call, one stands out James MacGregor a Presbyterian pastor who arrived in Nova Scotia in 1786 after being sent by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland. MacGregor become known as the Apostle of Nova Scotia. He traveled when roads had not yet even been considered. Originally visiting Scottish families, this quickly changed as he saw that the need was felt by all regardless of where they originated. It was not until the Glasgow Missionary Society was formed in 1796 by the efforts of Lord Dalhousie who had previously been Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia that the Church of Scotland really even turned an eye to the need to send minister and establish churches in the colonies.

This bit of information stood out to me because it reminded me in some ways of the current status of internationals who find themselves overseas. I spoke more at length about this in my post "Strangers in a Strange Land: A Plea for the Planting of International Churches Overseas" Much like these early settlers people who find themselves living in China, Japan, Thailand, Germany etc. are in spiritual wasteland where there is no option for Church and then options they do have are questionable at best. In some ways North American churches can have an attitude much like Scotland to the early settlers, thinking they might be there but, we are concerned with reaching our people in North America not reaching our own people in Asia, or Europe. The truth is that as the world becomes more global the need to reach out to these Global Wanderers will only become more. Statistics show that this group of people is on the rise. I truly believe that people often called Internationals, expats, or Global Nomads are one of the most unreached people groups. Now I know that is a weighty statement. What I mean simple is that the need is great, the need is increasing but the knowledge is little to none and there is a certain amount of apathy. But just like the needs of the early settlers did not go away they simply became greater. So too the spiritual needs of the international looms over the Western Church. The question is will we turn a blind eye like the Church of Scotland or start doing something about it.

Strangers in a Strange Land: A Plea for the Planting of International Churches Abroad.

Most of us have probably known or met someone who has lived abroad. Whether they studied in Europe for a year, or there family moved to Japan for a job, or relocated overseas because they serve in the military, or any number of reasons that cause people to uproot themselves across the world. No one can deny that living abroad is not something that does not exist especially as our world become more global. Some live overseas for a semester, others for a few years, others longer and even some for life. Some our students some are professionals, some are families and some are retired. They come from all different walks of life, age, nationality and color. What I would like for us to think for a moment is: for those who live abroad who are Christians, what do they do for church? How do they receive the preached word and the sacraments? What I want to suggest is that there is need for church planting overseas, to provide Word and sacrament to those who are strangers in a strange land and further that the planting of such churches is a international ministry, I hope what I write might encourage people and churches to involve themselves in planting Bible believing Reformed Churches in international cities around the world.

Let me begin by telling a bit of my own story, several years ago my wife and I moved to South Korea to teach English. It was during this time I became involved with a English speaking international church. It was here that I began to see the important place that such churches have. Internationals move thousands of miles away from there family and friends, into a strange land, those who are Christian then have issues because often there language skills are not good enough to attend national churches. In Korea we would meet people who would be completely isolated from any Christian teaching or fellowship because there was literal no viable church options in there area. International Churches become very close knit because they act as a surrogate family when your continents away from your own.

However these churches are not always the easiest to come by, some areas have more then others. The heavy majority of these churches are very broadly evangelical, and have dwindled down there beliefs to as little as possible in order to appeal to every person who walks through the door. The city we lived in Korea had 8 million people a huge international English speaking population and only two English speaking churches, the broadly evangelical church and the very charismatic revival style church. Finding Reformed churches oversee is very hard if sometimes impossible to come do. Allot of charismatic, prosperity gospel churches have also set up shop in these areas. In many cities around the world international have the choice between the highly interdenominational churches the prosperity gospel churches, some times even maybe a mix of both. As well as liberal denomination such as the ELCA, United Methodists and others have also started international churches overseas.

Now international churches have an incredible opportunity for ministry to global. These churches often have numerous nationalities represented. At a church in Germany you might have a American soldier sitting next to a Japanese businessmen and the other side students from India and Brazil, we can help shepherd the nations, to care for people from all around the world. It also gives the opportunity to preach the Gospel to the nations. I once met a man in Korea, he was a Pakistani cricket player who had been drafted to a South Korean team. He did not know Korean well and was one of the only non-Koreans on his team. He was far from home and become very lonely, He was fluent in English and after awhile desired interaction with other internationals, going through the culture shock he experienced. So he did something he would never have done in Pakistan and he went to a International church. While there he head the gospel and trusted in Christ. There are people living overseas who find themselves in churches when you would never have never thought about going to church in there homeland.

Often you will find allot of nationals attending international churches, sometimes they just like the church. Others because they spent time as a international themselves, you often find cross-cultural families there, families in which one parent is a national and the other is international. If through international churches we can teach and disciple these groups, they are in some ways more able to reach nationals then foreigners sometime are. IF we can disciple and train national men for leadership, Our international churches can plant national churches or provide a bilingual services, and not only minister to internationals but the larger community. I feel that international churches truly have untapped potential to reach countries with the gospel.

Now I have tried to paint a picture of why I think International Churches should be planted overseas. Often when I try to explain to people my passion for this type of ministry I feel like people are wondering if I have a brain injury. Planting expat churches is not something that has really caught on especially in Reformed circles. Now what is interesting is there is a historical precedent for starting English church in foreign countries, the Church of Scotland has an entire Presbytery of Europe and a Presbytery of Israel. The presbyteries consist of English speaking international congregations. The Church of Scotland Geneva began in the days of John Calvin as a outreach to English speaking refugees from Britain, and then was adopted by the Church of Scotland, and still a place of worship for English speakers today. There is also a Church of Scotland congregation in Rome which began in 1862. Also the Church of England has a Diocese of Europe consisting in English speaking Churches, this has existed since 1633. They have dozens of churches that span from Iceland and Portugal all the way to Mongolia, Many of the congregations having been planted a hundred or more years go. Now both of these denominations are quite liberal, I have visited some of there websites and there theology and beliefs are problematic. Yet these are again some of the options that Internationals from around the world have for Church. If Liberal Christians are making this kind of impact should not conservative Reformed Churches also be filling the need.

There are people living in Germany without a sound church right now , Dusseldorf has 11 Million people and is one of the most international cities of Europe. Yet it has only a two churches a liberal church and a watered down interdenominational church. 50% of Geneva carries a foreign passport and yet it so only has three churches two liberal churches and an evangelical church. There is need for Biblical churches in these areas and many others across the world. We don’t think twice about a Spanish church setting up shop down the street in California, because we can see that Spanish speakers are here. We must realize that we have people out there, people that are starving for pastoral care, and those who are in a opportune place to hear the gospel. These people are in Germany and Italy, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Argentine and more. Church planting in our own cities and nations is great, and I thank anyone who does it, however I think it hinders us when we see our church planting boundaries ending with our national borders, maybe we would be better off if we pushed them to our linguistic borders.

This type of ministry is hard to peg, I have approached missions committees to talk about this topic who have said this does not cover missions, go to the session. I've talked with sessions who have said, you need to go to the mission committee, one thing that I’m certain is that as the world becomes more and more global and people live more and more outside of there passport countries the need will only become greater. As Reformed Christians its time we start now, because people in your congregation who live abroad are forced into liberal, Charismatic or watered down churches or are left with no church at all.

Is Worship A Matter of Personal Preference?

Is how we worship a matter of preference? Do people who want upbeat and happy worship go to a Pentecostal church or a church that might have that. Maybe you just want a nice rock band type of atmosphere were you want to go to church and feel like your at a concert. Maybe if you like something liturgical then you go to a church that can give you that. Is how we worship God the some kind of decision as shopping at one grocery store over another, or how some like country but others like rap. Let me say I think we are doing something horrid when we say that how we worship the God of the universe the one who creates everything and holds things together is the same as whether we like ketchup or mustard on our hot dog, or is it just a matter of preference like whether you use a PC or MAC.

Its about time we stop confusing what we want with what God wants. There in no other time in history other then our own in which the preference card has been played in worship. I have been around the block as far as “styles” of worship go I have been in just about any kind of style. I was once the first person the pull the whole preference card. What I would often say would be “I’m glad you can get something out of that style of service but I just don't get anything from it.”


Let me be blunt, this type of outlook, which is common and what you would typically hear argued is an idolatry. What your saying is you cannot worship God because of the music. That your own personal preference means so much to you that unless you get what you want God is not someone you can worship. Not only does it confuse the music in worship as something that is done for you. For your own spiritual high and enrichment. I’m sorry to break it too you, but your worshiping yourself and your own tastes and not Jesus Christ.


So let me ask you if your ultra hip church that really caters to your preferences this Sunday announced that they would now be only singing unaccompanied psalms from now on, would your response be sorry guys this stuff just does not hit my sweet spot and give me warm fuzzy's and emotional highs which I mistake for God. So I am going down the street. Sorry but if that’s what you think the problem is with you, and you need to repent because you are worshiping an Idol.


I think one of the greatest drawbacks to how the modern church sees worships is that we have condensed the definition of worship to mean the 34 songs that are sung at the beginning of the service, rather then worship being the entire service from beginning to end with all its parts.


As I mentioned I used to be the poster boy for the worship is a matter of preference argument. I now get rather insulted when someone tries to tell me that how God is worshiped is a matter of personal preference. I go to what some might call a traditional church or a liturgical church, I don't go there because hymns really hit my sweet spot and the order of worship just makes me feel like God is cuddling or hugging me. I go to the church I do because I think that it is Biblical worship and how worship should be done, because there is a right and wrong way to worship God, so next time please don't say that worship is a matter of preference because my preference is the last thing I take into account. Has anyone asked God his opinion? It seems that God nor scripture has even consulted in the preference argument, the judge on how God is to worshiped is made to be man rather then God. I mean it seems to me if one reads the Old Testament that God is very particular about how it is that he is to be worshiped the detail that goes into how he is to be worshiped is vast. Let me ask this question can we worship God in anyway we deem fit as long as he has not said not to? Or are we to only worship God how he has commanded he to be worshiped? Its not a unimportant thing, its has deep far reaching consequences one that we would do well to contemplate because if it is God who dictates how he is to be worshiped then our churches might be dramatically changed.

How Church Culture Differs Between California and Maritime Canada.

 

I realize its been a long time since I wrote on here, and honestly I was never like I was really very good at posting to begin with. So full disclaimer, during this post i will look at my observations in comparing the church in California and the church of Maritimes. Now keep in mind these are my own observations and rather then talk about America and Canada I have chosen to look at two particular area I have spent the most time in, rather then make broad generalization that may not even exist if we are talking about British Columbia and Wyoming. Now its worthwhile to note that Christianity between these two places have similarities butt there is also strong differences, just as both are on opposites sides of the continent and separate countries so to the Christian culture between the two really varies.

• I notice that in California the church is politically charged, you might be thinking that  did not have to leave Canada to notice that. Its something that Canadians have noticed for years. Canada has never had a religious right within politics like America. Even respected brothers who otherwise are grounded and knowledgeable in the faith a will often seem to talk as if the ten commandments and the U.S Constitution are the same thing, when you talk about gun control or free health care
• I find that I have found that in the Maritimes the Social Gospel tends to have more of a predominant role within evangelical churches then in California. As someone who has no love for the Social Gospel this is one thing I like about America over Canada, I find churches in California more concerned with evangelism and church planting while my interaction with churches in the Maritimes tends to lean more towards social justice.
• Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has taken more of a dominant role in California probable because Los Angelos was the hot bed of that movement 100 years ago. The Maritime Pentecostals seem to have always struggled in some area, even mistrusted as not having the kind in historical connection other churches have. That being said the movement has had a big effect in subtle ways such as modern worship music with many baptists church really being unofficially Pentecostal.
• Spring boarding  a bit off my last comment in California there tends to be a dislike to denominations. I have heard of people who refuse to go to a church unless they are independent and non denominational. A friend told me about a friend of his who said there was not church in his area, despite the fact he lived next to a fairly descent Presbyterian church, his argument was he could not go there because it was a denominational church. I have found in the Maritimes almost the opposite in that unless your Baptist, United, Presbyterian, Anglican then you lack allot of trust and credibility. I do think this is changing in some ways. Whether that is good or bad, I will not cover now.
• Generally speaking the church in the Maritimes has strong roots culturally. Many people despite never stepping in a church since there baptism at 6 months identify strongly with a denomination. Entire families identify and hold deep loyalty to there churches despite never going to church and frankly not even believing in God. Depending on the family watch out if a Baptist goes Presbyterian or vice versa. In that same vain the Maritimes tend to still carry strong echoes of the conflict of Romanism and Protestantism. Growing up not really in the active church I always knew we were Protestant, the thing was I knew I was Protestant  long before I ever knew what a Christian was. I remember growing up my Nanny telling me stories about street wars between the Roman Catholic kids and Protestant kids growing up in North Sydney, this however may not be the same time honored tradition in every Maritime family.
• You do not need to go far to find traditional churches in the Maritimes but many of these cannot begin to tell you why, they will tell you its whats always been done and why change it now. (I get weird looks here when I tell people I have been to liturgical baptist churches were the pastor wears a robe.) I have been part of and currently a member of a church that is both traditional and liturgical but the refreshing difference is that they can tell me why they do what they do and do to so in a scriptural and biblical way. Its really my prayer that my people can experience this same thing.
• As I have observed it Dispensationalism tends to be more of a strong force in California, perhaps its because the Masters College and John MacArthur are just down the road. Maritime Christians and churches either are apathetic and do not know what it is nor how to spell it or by historic default hold to a basic form of Covenant theology. Yet there is still very much pockets here and there and its most popular in its eschatology form.

Refusing to Learn About God is Like Refusing to Know Your Spouse.

I once was talking to a Christian friend and as it sometimes happens our conversation turned theological in nature. His questions had to do evangelism and calvinism. I gave him a pretty simple honest and strait forward answer. His response after hearing my answer was a short pause and then he said, “I’m sure glad I am a Christian, so I don't have to care about theology.” Now what is theology? Well the word itself means the study of God. In other words theology is learning about God, who he is, what he has done, what he is doing and what he will do. A Christian cannot do much with out running into theology. Saying “Jesus, is the Son of God”, “Jesus died for me.” are all theological statements, the very gospel itself is theology. A Christian cannot be a Christian without theology, theology is knowing God and his Word.


Theology is not independent of scripture, if my theology is not based off of scripture then I should not be believing it.

Some Christian's I talk to think theology is a cold sterile science that seems to bring up things that hold no relevance but just creates division. Good theology is the most relevant thing you can imagine. Theology is knowing our Creator, using the very thing he has given us to understand the Bible, God's divine revelation to us.

Back to my friend who said he was glad he was a Christian so he did not have to care about theology. Could this phrase work in any other situation. Could I say to my wife, “I’m glad I married you so I don’t have to know who you are.” How then is it acceptable for us as Christians to say that knowing our Creator, knowing who our God is, is not important. If this is the case theology is the most relevant, thing for our Christian lives. A rejection of theology is to refuse to know the God who loves us so much that he would send his Son to take the punishment that sinful humans deserved.

The Myth of Non-Denominationalism

Its been awhile since my last post, I'm not always the best at keeping up on this blog thing. I've been thinking about the topic of denominationalism/non denominationalism lately and I wanted to write down some of my thoughts here.  I'm sure we have heard people say things around the lines of “Get rid of denominations, we just need to all be one.”  or “I'm anti denominational, we just need to follow the Bible.” I happen to agree with the anti denomination crowd. We should just get rid of denominations and follow the Bible which will make us all Presbyterian.

Now im being facetious when I say that but I mean some truth to it as well. If we are with the denominations that we in for  reasons other than it has the most rocking worship team in town. Then i would fully expect to hear someone say: “We should just get rid of denominations and follow the Bible which will make us all Anglican.” supplant Anglican with Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic as your denominational affiliation requires. The truth is when we say we should get rid of denominations, what we really are saying is they need to end so that my denomination can shine through, and take its rightful place as the one true church in the world.

 I find nothing wrong with this, in fact I would respect someone because at least there honest. I respect someone who is firm in there belief even when I think there wrong. When I meet a Baptist who knows what he believes and why, I assume for him  a perfect world of no denominations would have all Christians beings Baptist, and I can have allot of respect for that. And i hope that he would assume that to me in a perfect non-denominational world all Christians would be baptizing there baby’s, teaching them the Catechism singing the psalter and going to Presbytery meetings for fun. Lets stop living the anti-denomination delusion and come to grips that it is only a  attempt at seeming pious, that is really just a hidden form of denominationalism.

 Even if your one of those Christians who hold to the “Beetles Theology” (All We Weed Is Love) and want us all to stop caring about denominations so much, and to sit around a camp fire singing kumbaya and braiding each others hair. Even then what your really saying is “My denomination (even if its not a official one) is the right one  and you all need to join me, or you will be going against the Bible.” The anti-denominational ruse is really just a veiled way of trying to impose your denomination on someone else, at least back in the day people were honest about the fact they were trying to convert Catholics into Protestants and vice versa.
Now I understand that those that are against denominations are not deceptively and maliciously trying to convert others to there line of thinking. I hope though that I have shown how non-denominationalism is really  not possible.

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.