Metamorphosis: Reflections 1

Here are some of my reflections on my experiences in the Metamorphosis Student Conference.

The conference was run from the 26th Dec (Tue) to the 30th Dec 2006 (Sat). Throughout this conference, we the conferencees spend time worshipping the Lord, attending various workshops, having fun and bonding with each other. As for me, I had a fun time fellowshipping with my fellow brothers and sisters in my Community Group (CG), all from NUS Science region, and getting to know them better. I took the workshop on Christology as I thought it would be interesting and I didn't know a lot about Christology before this. With that said, I would like to share what I have learnt in my 6-hour Christology workshop.

The Christology course was taught by Amy Lau, a lecturer at EAST (East Asia School of Theology) and a graduate from Dallas Theological Seminary. It started off by emphasizing the importance of theology in general and Christology in particular. Following that, it goes through some of the names and titles of our Lord Jesus Christ (which is in itself a name and title), especially with respects to what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God (see my prior short explanation here). The explanation given by Amy was that the title 'Son of God' refers to Jesus partaking of/ having the same essence and character as God the Father, which is similar to my prior view except mine was a bit more technical and philosophical.

After this, we went through the Deity and Humanity of Christ. For both parts, we went through a bit of the historical controversy behind both concepts, then we see the scriptural evidences for both; that Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man. As such, we also looked and refuted the errors of Arius (Arianism), Apollinaris the Younger (Apollinarianism), Nestorius (Nestorianism), and touched slightly on the errors of Monophysitism and Monothelitism. Just FYI, Arianism denies the deity of Christ and His per-existence, Apollinarianism denies the full humanity of Christ (Christ only seemed human), Nestorianism denies that Jesus was phyiscally born of Mary, Monophysitism denies that Christ has two natures (human and divine), and Monothelitism denies that Christ has two wills (human and divine).

After going through these two important areas, we looked at how did God became Man in Jesus Christ, as seen especially in Phil. 2:1-11, as seen in the Greek word Kenosis (κενοσις). We went through what does it mean for God the Son to have emptied Himself — not that He ceased having the attributes of God, but that He did not utilize (set aside) some of these attributes when He was on Earth. We then finished off with an overview of Jesus' life while He was here on Earth.

The main thing that I liked about this course was the way Amy linked Christological concepts with Soteriological ones. Soteriology is my forte, as of now, so I greatly appreciated the linkage, since it makes defending the faith and seeing the relevance of what I have learnt so much easier. Basically, if Jesus was not 100% God, He can never atone for Man's sins, since only God can satisfy divine justice and properly propitiate for our sins. As an addition, only God can impute to us the perfect righteousness required for us to stand holy before our Most Holy God by His active obedience. It is simply not enough for our sins to be atoned for, but for us also to be declared holy before God, and Christ provided us with the merits to be so sanctified when we will meet Him in Heaven.

Now, conversely, if Jesus was not 100% Man, He can never be our perfect substitute to die on our behalf. Christ must be our perfect representative (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:46-47), perfect substitute (Heb. 2:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:46-47), perfect mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), perfect pattern for our redeemed bodies (1 Cor. 15:23, 42-44, 49; cf Col. 1:18), and perfect high priest (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15-16), and all these can only be accomplished if He is indeed 100% Man. As an additional thought on Jesus being our perfect substitute, the idea of federal headship can be brought in; that just as Adam was our head in the Fall which leads to death, so also Jesus is the head of the New Covenant which leads to life (which requires Him to be fully human).

With that said, I have learnt quite a lot from my Christology course. It was truly a good time of learning God's Word and appreciating who He is, glorifying God with our thoughts of Him who is the Sovereign Lord of all.

[to be continued]

The forked tongue of Rick Warren: How Rick Warren deals with external opposition

Here is an interesting article regarding the ministry philosophy of the entire seeker-sensitive/ purpose driven paradigm, as exemplified by Warren himself in his various actions. No wonder Warren can be so popular; he behaves exactly like the devil — telling people what they want to hear (unless people cannot be bought, like Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily).

Emerging leaders....

Here is an article regarding the 'new breed' of emerging leaders. Guess 'being authentic' knows no bounds...

Song: Hosanna

I will be posting my reflections on the Metamorphosis camp 2006 soon. In the meantime, I would like to share with us the theme song for the camp, entitled Hosanna by Paul Baloche:

Hosanna
(c) 2006 by Paul Baloche

Praise is rising, eyes are turning to You, we turn to You
Hope is stirring, hearts are yearning for You, we long for You
'Cause when we see You, we find strength to face the day
In Your Presence all our fears are washed away, washed away

Chorus:
Hosanna, hosanna
You are the God who saves us, worthy of all our praises
Hosanna, hosanna
Come have Your way among us
We welcome You here, Lord Jesus

Hear the sound of hearts returning to You, we turn to You
In Your Kingdom broekn lives are made new, You made us new
'Cause when we see You, we find strength to face the day
In Your Presence all our fears are washed away, washed away

Bridge:
'Cause when we see You, we find strength to face the day
In Your Presence all our fears are washed away
'Cause when we see You, we find strength to face the day
In Your Presence all our fears are washed away, washed away

I will address any issues regarding worship (especially the regulative principle) in later posts.

Article: Debating unto the glory of God

Here is an article on the topic of debating with respects to theological controversies and disagreements. Ever heard of these sentiments:

You are not going to convince anyone by debating.

When Christians argue, the whole Church suffers. They will know we are Christians by our love for each other, not by how well we beat each other up with the bible.

Oh well, seems like quite a lot of Christians need to be a little more thick-skinned nowadays, and follow the commands of Scripture rather than just trying to be 'nice', as if one's 'niceness' primarily determines whether someone will turn to Christ and/or embrace sound doctrine or not. And by the way, this is not promoting being 'nasty for Christ', but that we would not shy away from loving confrontation when it is called for.

[HT: Calvinist Gadfly]

On the heretic Dan Corner

I have just heard Gene Cook's radio program interview with Dan Corner of Evangelical Outreach. I cannot believe what I heard, or perhaps it is because I don't normally hang out with such people. Here is a nice cartoon on the Aomin.org website regarding Dan Corner and his ilk.

Straw man argumentation indeed! As you can hear from the radio interview, this modern-day Pelagian heretic denies the doctrine of Original Sin. Furthermore, he holds that Jesus' prayers, especially His High Priestly prayer in Jn. 17 are not answered, which make the role of Jesus as our great High Priest into a mockery (Heb. 9:11-28), and violates Scripture which states that Jesus' prayers and supplications are heard (Heb. 5:7).

With regards to his stand on 'conditional security of salvation', it can be seen firstly that he compartmentalizes various aspects of theology, as if the doctrine of 'Eternal security' can be seperated from the purpose of Christ' intercession to the Father on our behalf (Rom. 8: 34). Consistent with his denial of Original Sin, he claims that there are various degrees of sin, of which some sins do not deserve hellfire, quoting 1 Cor. 6:9-10 to illuistrate which sins when committed would made one lose his/her salvation. Such categorization of sins into 'sins that makes one lose salvation' and 'sins that do not make one lose salvation' violates Scripture which states that ALL and any sins deserve the wrath of God (Jas. 2:10; Rom. 3:23) in hellfire. This reeks of Roman Catholicism with its terminology of 'Venial sins' and 'Mortal sins'. Anyway, even using the 1 Cor. 6:9-10 criteria, together with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount exposition in Mt. 5-7, especially Mt. 5:21-30, can Dan Corner honestly say that he does not lust? I myself do not dare to make such a claim, knowing full well the depraved nature still inherent in me. Oh wait, he claims to have not lust. Oh well, I guess I am more sinful than him ...

Do hear Gene's conclusion though. It is a summary of a biblical analysis of Dan Corner's heretical theology.

Anyway, I pity Dan Corner. He has and can never have any assurance of salvation, contra to 1 Jn. 5:13. As a Pelgian heretic, he promotes a different gospel of 'legalism' and is under the anathema of God pronounced in the Scriptures (Gal. 1:8-9), being no different from the Judaizers of Paul's day. It is indeed a fearful thing to wake up to the wrath of God poured out against heretics! May God have mercy on him and bring him to salvation in Jesus Christ alone.

[Update: Here is James R. White's update on the issue here.]

[HT: Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries; Calvinist Gadfly]

Metamorphosis Student Conference

I am now in a camp organized by Campus Crusade for Christ — Metamorphosis Student Conference, for this entire week. God has been good so far, and I have in the last two days finished a 6-hour course on Christology by Amy Lau, one of the theologically trained staff here. Quite interesting.

Article: Why many of today's evangelical pastors are cult-like

This is a good article by Brannon Howse on the reality of the nature of many of today's church leaders in general, and the gullible sheep who follow them. May God save us from such leaders.

Regulative principle and baptism: The fallacy of total concept transfer

I have just realized I miss out one of the fallacies committed when I offered a rebuttal of Wenxian's post here and here. This is the logical fallacy of total concept transfer, in which the conclusions of a concept from one area is applied similarly onto another area en toto, without consideration of the differences between the two areas.

This logical fallacy belongs to the same class as the logical fallacies of equivocation and amphiboly, as all three fallacies are based on some type of equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the meaning of one word used in two different contexts are equivocated, the fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the meaning of one phrase used in two different contexts are equivocated (or when one phrase can have two different meanings), and the fallacy of total concept transfer occurs when the meaning and application of one principle/ theory from one discipline/area is applied in the same manner (equivocated) to another discipline/area. The different fallacies are ilustrated as shown:

Fallacy of equivocation:

My wife drove me up the wall yesterday. Therefore, my wife can drive the car. (Equivocation of the word 'drive')

Fallacy of amphiboly:

I want to study ants in my car. (So is the person studying ants while he is in his car, or is the person studying ants which are found in his car? — Equivocation over the phrase 'study ants in my car')

Fallacy of total concept transfer:

Objective truth exists, since the statement 'there is objective truth' is either true or not true. If it is true, then objective truth exists; if it is not true, then it is objectively true that 'objective truth does not exist', which is a contradiction and thus absurd. (Consequentia mirabilis) Therefore, objective truth exists and relativism is wrong.

Now, I have tasted and am convinced that this cake is nice. Since there is objective truth, the fact that this cake is nice must be objectively true, and therefore no one can say that this cake is not nice without denying the truth.

OK, so what exactly is the fallacy committed in Wenxian's post? In that post, the principle of the regulative principle of worship, which is only linked to worship by the way, is taken out of its doctrinal context and applied in the same manner onto the doctrine of baptism. Worship and baptism are two different areas of the Christian life, and each of them have specific passages from Scripture addressing them both. As both of them are scriptural practices, the practice of both of them must be found within the pages of Scripture, and thus the principle of Sola Scriptura must be applied to the practice of both of them, as with any other practice which Christians do. The regulative principle, however, is something which is only liked with worship and therefore, to take this principle, rip it out of its biblical area of application, and applying it to baptism is to commit the fallacy of total concept transfer.

In closing, let me give one last example of the fallacy of total concept transfer, courtesy of Dr. James R. White as stated in his blog here:

Roman theology is Arian. Why? Because its man-centered sacramental system denies the Lordship of Christ, hence his deity, in providing perfect salvation for the elect. While the Scriptures emphasize Christ's ability, man-centered religious systems like Rome emphasize man's ability and reduce Christ to a mere helper, one who tries, but often fails, to accomplish His intentions. Since God cannot fail, and Rome presents a Savior who tries, but fails, to save, then Rome is Arian. (The fallacy is committed when one applies a concept in Christology and applies it to the area of Soteriology)

Christmas special: Are you sure you really want to celebrate Christmas?

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. (Lk. 11:47-51) (Bold added)

Before I forget, Merry Christmas to one and all. In this holiday season, I would like to ask ourselves one important question: Are you sure you really want to celebrate Christmas?

Christmas as a festival is meant to celebrate the incarnational birth of Jesus Christ, the God-man; 100% God and 100% Man, who came down to Earth to die as a propitiation for our sins, so that we can have fellowship with God once again. During His ministry, Jesus did various extraordinary things, and in this post, I would like us to concentrate on the above-mentioned passage, specifically the part in bold.

In the context of this passage, Jesus was pronouncing woes on the Pharisees and the scribes, because of their hypocrisy; for neglecting the weightier issues of the Law while focusing on the minor outward aspects of it. In the middle of all these woes, Jesus mentioned the following statement:

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs.

Notice what Jesus said. Jesus said that the Pharisees are on the surface honoring the prophets of old (by building their tombs, and also especially in treating their writings as Scripture — the OT), but that they are actually consenting to the killing of God's prophets. In other words, the Pharisees are accused of consenting to the persecuting and killing of God's prophets (Acts 7:51-52), and after they are dead, to mourn and honor them. Such hypocrisy! For them, the saying holds true: A good prophet is a dead prophet.

What does this have to do with Christmas, you may ask. Well, do we treat Jesus the same way the Pharisees of old treat the prophets? As we celebrate Christmas; to celebrate the incarnational birth of our Savior and Lord 2000+ years ago, do we treat Him like how the Pharisees treated the ancient prophets — to say with our lips that we honor Him, to sing praises to His name, to even witness for Him, but NOT to obey His commands and teachings? Will we embrace Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord as how He has shown Himself in the Bible, including all the so-called 'offensive' parts? Have we 'sanitized' Jesus of all the rough-edges, such that He is so nice and comforting to us — a friend of sinners, instead of the friend of sinners who is the Truth who will call us to holiness in Him and thus more than likely offend us by telling us what parts of our lives are not pleasing to Him? If Jesus were to be among us now, do you think that we would still embrace Him even though He may rebuke us and chatise us for our sinfullness, and definitely offend all our sensibilities, like what he did to the Pharisees? Or are we going to be just like the Pharisees, who pay lip service to the prophets of God who came before them, since these prophets are now dead and thus cannot directly rebuke their waywardness?

Therefore, as we come together this holiday season to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, let us ponder in our hearts whether we really want to celebrate this festival. Duruing His time on this earth, He offended the sensibilites of all the religious people and even some of the common folk, which precipitated His death by the way (No one gets hated and crucified for no good reason). Are we sure we want such a man to rule over us, one who is not politically-correct, one who calls people to holiness and rebuke the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, one who is loving and is in fact Love, yet one who condemns the religious leaders to hell for blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:31-32)? Think and meditate on these things, and may we submit ourselves to the Lordship of Christ in every aspects of our lives this Christmas.

Prayer: Lord, even as we celebrate the incarnational birth of our Lord Jesus Christ this Christmas, may you open our eyes to see Your Truth, and to see Your light. May we not try to tame Your Son Jesus Christ and reimagine Him according to our whims and fancy; our likes and dislikes, but to accept and honor Him as He truly is. Let us learn to accept Him as He is portrayed in the Bible, and let us remove all false perceptions of Him that we have ever embraced in our lives, so that He will once again have the preeminent position in our lives.

Reply to Wenxian on the orthodox & reformed doctrine of Infant Baptism (part 2)

[Continuing on with my rebuttal of Wenxian's post.]

3. Roman Catholicism is linked to protestants by the ritual with the same name. This is obvious. Insomuch as we explain ourselves to be different, to new believers, it does not seem so.

And the point is? I can just as easily point out the fact that Roman Catholicism practise adult baptism, and what does that prove? Certain charismatic word-faith churches practise believers' baptism only (In fact, most if not all charismatic and pentecostal churches do that), so does this prove that Baptist churches are therefore indistinguishable from the charismatic word-faith churches, since they are linked by the same practice with the same name? Of course not!

The fruits are also very much the same: a church filled to the brim with unbelievers, although we should not see things for the fruit alone.

Proof? The fact of the matter is that historically, historic Reformed churches in general fare rather well in terms of keeping the faith, at least no worse than baptist churches. Guess which denomination Rick Warren is from? The Southern Baptist Convention, which believes in believers' baptism only. Thus, this statement is manifestly not true.

A road back to rome...

Baptists are also involved in the ecumenical movement, of which the most prominent is Rick Warren.

4. Infant baptism provides false security to young believers and to their parents.

... who do not know what infant baptism is about! And if they are not taught, people who profess to be believers and are baptized as adults could also have a sense of false security with regards to their salvation. This is not limited to infant baptism alone!

Hence many, confused by the evil one or by other means, will take tha [sic the] baptism of the infant as the real thing: they will assume the child is saved and will be lax with their teachings with the child - after all, who is gonna render the child unsaved when the child is already baptised and 'saved'?

Similarly, how many people in nominal baptists churches are assured by the pastor that they are saved because they have at one time or another said the 'Sinner's prayer' (i.e. Decisional regeneration)? How many people who have only made a 'decision for Christ' in a baptist church continue to live in sin, because they believe in a twisted form of 'Once saved, always saved', and thus they can sin as much as they like since they are saved no matter what happens? False assurance of salvation and misunderstanding of doctrine does not only happens in paedobaptist churches; it is common to both!

But my point of contention is: why create an opportunity to create confusion? Why make understanding for the lay masses so much more difficult with all the convental (sic) theology and the far-fetched convenant (sic) of grace?

The doctrine of the Trinity could be said to similarly be 'an opportunity to create confusion', since it is not easy to understand. A Jehovah Witness could use this same form of reasoning against it, so this form of reasoning is moot. As I have said, it would be better to read up more before comments are made about concepts which are hardly grasped (covenental theology and the convenent of grace).

The method of inferrence for infant baptism, is most contradictory with sola scriptura. This is leaning closely to hypocrisy, because some are reformed but in this case they seem to ignore the principle of scripture only.

This is a serious charge, and I challenge you, Wenxian, and anyone for that matter to substantiate it. This only shows the ignorance of the person making the charge to anyone who reads this. Does anyone really wants to make the charge that the Reformers who loudly proclaim Sola Scriptura do not see this 'contradiction' with their doctrine of infant baptism? Who dares claim to be smarter than the Westminster divines, the multitude of Reformed pastors, evangelists and theologians of the Reformation and Puritan ages? If so, prove it! Even Baptist scholars worth their salt do not make this sort of charge against us! They may disagree with us, but nobody would say that we violate the principle of Sola Scriptura, for the simple reason that we derive the doctrine of Infant baptism from Scripture! Whether Infant baptism is implied in Scriptures is disputed between historic Reformed and Baptists, but the fact of the matter is that we believe and can show proof from Scripture for the doctrine of Infant baptism, and as such it is not a denial of Sola Scriptura (which includes all implications from Scripture as well). I have shown this in my previous refutations of the 'evidences' presented that infant baptism is not ruled out from consideration of these passages and the doctrine could in fact be probably derived from some of those scriptures quoted, so the Credo-/Paedo-baptist issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura.

Now, after showing forth the fallacious reasoning in these so-called evidences, some people may noticed that I have not as yet proven the doctrine of Infant baptism from the Scriptures. Yes, I have not done so, and that was not my intention. What I have intended to show is that these so-called evidences cannot be taken to prove or disprove infant baptism or credobaptism. The credo-baptist may be correct, and we wrong, but the proof must lie elsewhere, not in this type of superficial reading of the Scripture and fallacious reasoning. This is why I would ask people who are interested on the topic to read and think more before coming to their own position on the issue, and to think about the relation between the Old and New Covenents. Dr. James R. White, himself a Reformed Baptist, is moving in the correct direction when he defends his baptist position by looking at the relation between the Old and New Covenant. Whether he is right or not remains to be seen, but the fact of the matter is that his position at least engages the position correctly, unlike this type of superficial reasoning which has been refuted here.

P.S.: Since Wenxian came out from Anglicanism, I can probably understand a bit where he comes from, and thus his desire for a pure church is a mitigating factor in his case. But doctrine must be derived from the Scriptures, not from our personal preferences or previous church experiences.

PPS.: For especially Wenxian's benefit, and also since he does not allow comments on his blog on the topic anymore, the person whose website he learns the regulative principle of worship from, Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, is a former Reformed Baptist turned Presbyterian. Here is a page from his website on the topic of infant baptism. Also, looking at his last comment in reply to Vincent here, I would really ask him to exhibit more humility and stop acting so ... , for lack of a better term, juvenile. Stop condemning your borthers in Christ, for a start, by using less polemics and addressing the issue proper.

Reply to Wenxian on the orthodox & reformed doctrine of Infant Baptism (part 1)

OK, this is not what I particularly want to do, but after talking to my brother Wenxian over the phone on the subject of credo- vs paedobaptism for more than one hour, and then reading his recent post on this topic, I feel I need to offer a rebuttal to his post on the subject. As I have mentioned before to him, I am not an expert on this doctrine, and I am personally amiacable to (Particular) Baptists and their distinctive doctrines. Not speaking for all or any other historic Reformed folks out there (as distinct from Reformed Baptist), but I am willing to let Christians hold on to their different views on this topic since in my opinion it is not that vital (as opposed to doctrines such as Calvinism). However, one thing which I do not like is straw man argumentation and the committing of various logical fallacies in argument. That is why I would and have advise anyone who wants to study the subject to read more into the subject, and form your own conclusion slowly and carefully. Also, since this is not that vital a doctrine, using polemics against the other party is NEITHER needed nor warrented, and whoever does so is inviting trouble; and I will make sure they will get the trouble they ask for.

In this and subsequent posts, therefore, I would analyze Wenxian's arguments against Infant Baptism and test them for logical consistency and Scriptural backing.

The first argument given against Infant Baptism is given as:

1) There is no real clear biblical command for infant baptism. This alone is sufficient.

This commits the logical fallacy of argument from silence. Just because there isn't an explicit command for Infant baptism doesn't imply that Infant Baptism is wrong. True, we need to follow Scripture and Scripture alone, but then Scripture alone includes not only the explicit commands of Scripture, but also the implicit commands of Scripture, and furthermore the application of Scripture. To see why this argument is fallacious, let's substitute the term 'infant baptism' for something else, like ... immersion only baptism, which is what Baptists practice. Show me one verse in Scripture whereby Jesus or the Apostles explicitly commands that baptism must be done only via immersion. You can't! It is the most implied in Scripture, not explicitly commanded.

As an aside, there is an assumption in this argument that baptism and infant baptism are two seperate distinct things, instead of them being overlapping entities. Infant baptism could very well be spoken of in the NT as being under the subset of baptism, and thus to infer from the fact that just because infant baptism is not mentioned specifically in the NT so it is not done nor commanded is fallacious.

While there are examples of households being baptised, there was no effort made to show that the households contain infants.

Judging by the prevalent Roman, Greek and Jewish cultures of that time, such information would definitely not be given unless there is something special about the infants. In fact, why should the infants be mentioned since they are not someone special and just part of the household, if there were any? This thus commits another fallacy of argument from silence. In fact, the texts indicating that entire households are baptized could be used as a strong text to support infant baptism, since in those ancient cultures, how many people are there who practise birth control methods etc during that time? Probably none, in fact! Most families then would have lots of children of various ages, and to suppose that they just decided to stop having children after a certain age is rather far-fetched.

With regards to the household issue, perhaps it would be good to look also at Acts. 2:39 where it is specifically stated that the promise is to ... the children of believers! Yes, it is stated after that that the promise it is to everyone to whom the Lord calls to Himself, but why the assumption that the children of believers are among those to whom the Lord does not call to Himself?

Faith marked the entry into the salvic (sic Salvific) promise in [the] OT.

No. Faith does not 'mark' the entry into the salvific promise in the OT. Faith is the pre-requisite, but it since it is unseen, it does not visibly mark the entry into the salvific promises. The visible mark of entry into the promises of the OT which are fulfiled in Jesus Christ is via circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14), since the promise was made to Israel as the visible Church of the OT. Of couse, only those of the elect in Israel would appropriate the promises by faith, but such faith is not exactly visible except in the obvious cases of certain people like the prophets and judges, and this we know through Scripture only. Just because one shows forth external piety does not show one is truly saved, just like the Pharisees and the Sadducees whom Jesus condemned (Lk. 11:39-52).

But now for paedobaptism, where is the command? Should not God make it clear if he wants us to do it? God is not stupid. If he wants something done, he will state it clearly so that we will have no excuse. The converse is true.

And who defines what is clear and what is not? If the command is in the OT, and the New Covenant does not abrogate the Old but instead it shows forth the true meaning of it, then the command is stil valid in some form. If one assumes the continuity of the Old and New Testaments, and the Old and New Covenants (which I do), then there will be some implications on whether something stated in the OT continues on in some fashion in the New Dispensation of Grace. Yes, if God commands us to do something, it will be clear. However, just because you can't discern something does not mean that thing is NOT clear! To object to infant baptism because you can't see it being commanded in Scripture has the same apologetic value as the Jehovah Witness who objects to the eternal sonship and deity of Jesus Christ because he can't see it stated in Scripture.

in absense of the biblical warrant, we are in danger of instilling a human tradition and forcing people to do it.

As I have said, just because it is not stated explicitly does not imply that it is not stated in Scripture implicitly.

As mentioned by some of [m]y friends, they claim that paedobaptism is a liberty issue

Wenxian got that from me, or rather it was supposed to be from me, but no, this is NOT what I said. I said that I regard paedobaptism as an issue over which individual Christians should be allowed to have liberty to embrace or not (without using the H-word). It is not something which is on the level of eating meat or esteeming certain days etc (Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8), but is regarding doctrine, and a rather important one at that. Due to the complexity of the issue, and the fact that it is important but not vital, individual Christians in my opinion should be allowed to have the liberty to decide which position they would like to embrace.

But the problem lies that since there is NO biblical warrant, they would be guilty of a great sin if they, in the name of Christ, were to force people to do things that God himself did not command. For they would be breaking the command in Exodus 20:7 when they misuse the Lord's name. In fact they are in danger of making God out to be a liar.

I believe that there is biblical warrant for infant baptism. Anyway, what I would like to focus on here is the polemics which is used against us historic Reformed folks. As one of them myself, I find this type of polemical statements offensive and definitely not warranted, since this issue is NOT relating to heresies etc. There is a place for everything, including polemics and rhetoric, but one place where they shoudn't show up is in disagreements among brethren when the issue involved is not a soul-endangering one.

2. Infant baptism confuses the real church and the unsaved. Infant baptism is a confusing concept that seems to 'come into effect when a child confesses his faith'. This brings out many controversies. Firstly, at what age? who defines the age that makes the 'confession of faith' real and valid? Could the child be confused?

It 'does not come into effect when a child confesses his faith'! I said that it is validated as a true baptism when the child confesses his faith. With regards to the age issue, this is not something which is specific for paedobaptists. May I counter-question the credo-baptists: at what age can the child be considered suitable for adult baptism? Could the person be confused? Do you think certain baptist churches in the US who conduct children evangelism are correct? If these children confess Christ at such an evangelistic meeting, since they are supposed to be believers then (as they were not Christians beforehand), should they be admitted for believers' baptism? Think before you answer.

For credobaptism, the opposite of paedobaptism, God did define it. He defined in NT, unarguably, ALL baptism to be of people who confess faith, repent and believe. Age and sex no longer matter.

Just for the record, credobaptism is NOT the opposite of paedobaptism! We historic Reformed folks DO baptize adults on the same basis as credo-baptists do! And sorry, I disagree with the statement that all baptism in the NT is to be of people who confess faith, repent and believe. This commits the logical fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question, in which the conclusion is smuggled into the premises. There is NO passages in Scripture whereby baptism is said to be ONLY for those who can willingly confess their faith! Showing passages of people being baptized who do so does not prove that baptism is exclusively for those who do so. (i.e. 'If p, then q' does not imply that 'If not p, then not q'!)

What happens is that paedobaptism will create a church with many unbelievers who are baptised. This makes the baptism to NONbelievers less important that it should be, no matter how much we explain to them.

There are unbelievers in all churches! Jesus Himself said that in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13:24-30), and only at the Final Judgment would they be totally seperated. Is there any church anywhere who can claim that their membership is 100% regenerate? No! Even the most stringent criteria for membership does not preclude that heretics would arise from within the flock (Acts. 20:30), which occur even during the Apostolic Age. What makes anyone so sure that their membership criteria would weed out all the non-believers? How can anyone know the heart of any person to see whether that person is truly regenerate or not? We can only see the external; whether the person professes true doctrine and behave accordingly, but we can never know the heart. If there be a membership criteria which is able to remove the true unregenerate from the church, is is bound to create lots of false negatives (i.e. true believers who are shifted out using those same criteria - c.f.Mt. 13:29), which God forbids (Mt. 13:30)! Yes, we try to screen people so that only regenerate Christians are inside, and we throw out heretics who deny the faith, but that does not imply that we are to do more than Scripture allows us to, and attempting to read the heart of the person whom we are considering for membership is one of such practices which add to God's Word and in fact violates it (Ps. 44:21; Jer. 17:9).

That being said, do any Baptist churches dare to likewise proclaim that their membership is 100% regenerate, since they only baptize those who make a valid confession of faith and live according to it? I would hope not! In fact, one just has to look down church history to see that Baptist churches have apostasized before. How can that be if Baptist churches have 100% regenerate membership? Oviously, Baptist churches try to have 100% regenerate membership, and try to make sure that the people joining them are truly regenerate, but this process was and will never be foolproof.

Since such is the case, this objection to paedobaptism by saying that it would be filled with unbelievers is false. This could occur with Baptist churches as well! If one says that paedobaptism would give rise to a higher probability for the church to be filled with unbelievers, then that would be more valid. This obviously has happened to Presbyterian and Reformed churches before, where there is laziness in enforcing proper procedure and church discipline for children born to believers who are actually not born again. However, this problem is not unique to paedobaptist churches. Aren't Baptist churches also susceptible to the problem of a formerly admitted member who later apostasized? And how many Baptist churches actually practice church discipline against recalcitrant sinning members? And do Baptist churches sometimes practice more leniency when examining the membership application of the children of members, and especially the pastor's children? I rest my case.

The Lord does not want to do a repeat of Israel, where many were circumcised but many turn away.

Wrong. Verses to support your stand please.

If the Lord wanted a repeat, there would be no need for the NT baptism. The Lord does not 'change' terms for fun.

This is a misunderstanding of the relation between the Old and New Testament, and the Old and New Covenant. The changing of the terms is not because the Lord wanted to somehow make a church whereby all members in it are regenerate, but because the Old Covenant was in types and shadows, whereas all is clear in the New Covenant, therein the changes.

[to be continued]

(Note: All comments are to be posted on the second and concluding post)

Reflections on The Nativity Story - (Warning: Spoiler)

Today, after doing some experiments in lab, I went out with my crusade friends to watch the movie The Nativity Story. I know there is some concern over the film, especially from people who are concerned over Hollywood's presentation of Jesus and their addition and possible alteration of Scriptural truths. Definitely, we should not let Hollywood define Christianity for us, nor Catholicism for that matter (in the Passion of the Christ movie).

Anyway, I decided to go and check it out critically, since it is a good time to get together with my friends also. Overall, it was a good movie and rather true to Scripture, with artistic license applied to a few minor details. However, I do have some bones to pick:

Firstly, the way the Magi were portrayed more like comedians rather than true wise men. The director took liberty in portraying the Magi as coming from ancient Persia, whereas the Bible only mentioned they were from the East (Mt. 2:1). Thirdly, and rather seriously, the Magi were portrayed as mystics who followed the 'star' to Bethelem, with the star actually being a supernatural light source (which was good), which however appeared only after the unique event of the alignment of three bright lights in the night sky; Jupiter, Venus, and some other star. Therefore, the Magi 'discovered' Jesus' birth through the combination of Scripture and astrology, which is definitely NOT a good thing to put in the film.

A slight alteration of the text of Scripture was also done in the Magi's offering of the gifts, where the gift of myrrh was being offered to Mary instead of Jesus (Mt. 2:11). The other two were all right, with gold being offered to Jesus as He is the 'King of kings' and frankincense offered to Him who is the 'Priest of priests'. Another slight alteration, or rather omission, was that the movie did not show the magi receiving the warning not to return to Herod in a dream from God, which Scripture mentioned (Mt. 2:12).

One addition to the film lay in the addition of the snakes in certain parts of the film. The Magi saw lots of snakes when they entered one of the cities in Judea, and during a stream crossing, a water snake tried to attack Mary and her donkey, precipitating a mini-crisis. Judging by the significance of the snake (Gen. 3), and its use in the Passion, I don't see the rationale behind the addition of the snake, as though it was cool to put such a scene in.

Besides these concerns, the movie in general follows Scripture rather closely (and is thus not so 'exciting' as the Passion). Additionally, since the movie has been criticized by Catholics for being 'factually incorrect' since it does not promote their non-historical and heretical doctrines of the 'Immaculate Conception' and their version of the 'Virgin Birth', that by itself is a plus point for the movie. This movie is thus much better and more Scriptural than the Passion ever was.

This said, however, I would like to caution against using this movie as an evangelistic tool. Definitely, using sermons based on this movie rather than the actual biblical text is wrong, as it using 'evangelistic' tracts and materials based on or associated with it. Watching the movie with an non-believing friend is NOT a session in witnessing to him/her! Evangelism can only be done through the preaching of the Gospel which alone saves (Rom. 10: 14-17), and only preaching and witnessing in words is the medium by which God will bless our evangelistic efforts. Movies/ Skits, Music etc do NOT play a role whatsoever in evangelism, since it is not ordained by God for that end. Therefore, this, and any other movie for that matter, is not meant to be used for evangelism of any sort. Also, since discernment is always needed since Hollywood would always need to add material to the subject in order to make it long enough to become a film, such Christian-themed movies should not be watched by young Christians (both Christian children and those young in the faith).

For this, and similar themed movies, Christians are to treat it as like any other movie, with the only difference that this is a religious movie which require more discernment. By all means, if it is treated as such, Christians may watch those movies just like any other secular movies which are not immoral or ungodly in any way.

Some people may object that movies which show the face of our Lord Jesus Christ violate the second commandment of Scripture. Definitely, this is true, and we should thus ommit showing the face of Jesus, since although he is fully Man, he is also fully God. By this standard, this film is mostly ok, since the only time you will see Jesus is for a little while as a baby, and honestly almost all babies look alike (at least to me).

Book recommandation: The Feminist Gospel by Mary Kassian

I have just finished reading The Feminist Gospel: The Movement to Unite Feminism with the Church by Mary A. Kassian, after finishing reading Warren Smith's Reinventing Jesus Christ: The New Gospel, which I had reviewed ealier. This book by Mary Kassian focuses on the evolution of contemporary Feminism and then evaluate it according to Scripture.

As I do not know much of the complex socialogical issues revolving around Feminism, I would therefore refrain from reviewing the entire book, only looking at some of the various issues which is within my capacity to review. Anyway, this book is found online here (which is where I found the book; I downloaded and printed it). Since it is being promoted by the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), I would assume that the research is properly done. Definitely, the book itself is very well researched with the author quoting various feminists to show the evolution and the direction of growth of Feminism. What I mean when I say that I assumed that the book is properly researched is whether the sources the author quotes to prop up her thesis are representative of Feminism as a movement. Since CBMW promotes Kassian's book, I would assume that it is.

As it stands, this book is well researched. As it covers the evolution of feminism and its impact on the Church, and the biblical response to Feminism, this book is highly recommanded for believers who want to find out more about Feminism but don't exactly have the time to read up mountains of material to do such a thing. Also, though this point is not stressed so much in the book, the idea of women pastors, elders etc is refuted in this book since they came about through the influence of Feminism.

For readers who may want a more updated bok (this book was published in 1992), you may be interested in getting the updated and revised book The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture, which is published in 2005 and can be found here.

In the next couple of posts, I would be reviewing and commenting on various sections in this book, which show the utter unbiblical and even nonsensical theory that is Feminism (be it secular, religious or biblical).

Book review of Reimagining Jesus Christ by Warren Smith

I had finished reading the book by Warren Smith entitled Reinventing Jesus Christ: The New Gospel, which can be found here. I had then reviewed the book here on my website. I would like to recommand this book to those who are interested to know more about the New Age movement and how it evolves and infiltrates society, and also in part those who call themselves churches.

Addenum: Here is an update for chapter 10 of the book of his, where he showed how Rick Warren is the conduit by which the New Age ideas are infiltrating the church.