Friday Night Potpourri

A wild week in weak:

• I had a term paper due and final this week in my American history class.  Whew, it's over.
• Plundering the movers: In the bible, the Hebrews plundered the Egyptians when they exited the land.  Well, we've scored a bit ourselves from others we've known who have moved.  Some friends moved out of state, and we picked up a few things.  A family member downsized so a few more things gained.  And a neighbor just moved overseas, some more.  Included are furniture, a few good prints, and even a pet frog for the kids.
• Our garden hose recently blew up.  It was from the previous people, and one of the bubbles in the outer skin finally gave out.  So we got new hoses.  Then the hose caddy we bought had mal manufactured threads on the reel, so the new hose can't be attached.  Time to go back to Home Deopt.
• In several places around the yard there are underground drain pipes with leave traps at the surface, so that water can be drained off.  Well, our three year old has decided to collect all the leave traps and fill the pipes with dirt and balls.
• That makes me wonder just how many whiffle balls are up in the rain gutter in the back yard?
• Our eight year old refused to believe that his brothers saw a turtle close to the nearby duck pond.  But they did.  Then just last week he saw two of them himself.  Now he's a believer.
• I realized tonight that I've been doing the FNP song for a year now.  Well, to celebrate, here's a clever little song just for FNP.

Baptism: Another View (Part 2)

Read Part 1

In Part 1 of this series, I gave a basic outline as to the two dominant views on water baptism in Protestantism as I have heard them. There are more views of baptism than these two, such as the Roman Catholic and certain cult views, with ideas of baptismal regeneration, but I'm addressing dominant protestantism here. Another view I propose here and I will follow with explanation as to why.

Water baptism isn't necessarily the sign and seal of the new covenant, Scripture isn't detailed in any prescription as to mode of water baptism (whether sprinkling, pouring or immersion), nor is it detailed in any prescription as to who are proper subjects of water baptism (adults only, professing believers of whatever age, children of covenant believers, etc.).  I will explain this further in future posts in this series.  Scripture isn't even absolute in describing proper timing of baptism in relation to either profession, conversion, discipleship or birth. Not only this, but Scripture isn't always clear as to which type of baptism it speaks about in a certain passage, whether water baptism, baptism of fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, I have decided that a wide array of modes, subjects and times of water baptism upon people throughout Christian history are not contrary to scripture, and therefore scripturally valid, and I am determined not to hold most of these in contempt or nullification simply because any particular church, denomination or theological circle says so.  In short, I recognize various people's baptisms as they come from differing traditions.

I realize that what I just said could start excommunication proceedings in many churches and denominations, or it could prevent me from becoming a member in certain churches, and also potentially stands as fuel for intense cyber flaming (which I have experienced on this very topic in the past). So be it. But that is the sad part, in my view. Why is such a thing necessary?  In my next post, I will give my personal story as I have interacted with each of the two views I explained in Part 1.

Read Part 3.
Read entire series in a single post.

The Commandments of Men

Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: "These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7-9 NKJV

I stumbled across a blog by a man named Lewis Wells titled, Commandments of Men. After a bizarre situation where a fundamentalist family removed their daughter from marrying this man just prior to their wedding date, Wells takes a painful look at hyper-fundamentalist groups and the strange teachings they hold and act upon. Especially examined are the Patriarchy, Quiverful and Courtship movements. Wells demonstrates the emotional and spiritual abuse common in these groups and links to other sources dealing with similar things.

In my own Christian life, I have been exposed to similar types of groups, and have been directly involved with legalistic groups who have mastered the art and science of promoting men's commandments with equal or greater emphasis than God's word. So, Wells' site strikes a chord with me, and I can to some degree emphasize with him, his experience, and the experience of so many others who are trapped inside destructive religious systems, whether the victims know it or not. If you have an interest in learning about the dark side of fundamentalism, I encourage you to give Wells a read.

Friday Night Potpourri

A week in the life:

• My eight year old, who is the virtual Crocodile Hunter of the insect world, held a tiny spider in his hand and it started making a web from his finger to the porch swing.
• I'm announcing a new blog for those who are interested in baseball cards. It's called "1974 Topps Set" and is about my collection from that year during my childhood. I post scanned pix of each card I have in the set and tell a little about each one, with some stories or info along the way.
• The dryer in our house has one of those buzzers that jolt you out of your chair at about 120dB. It looks to be a late 70's or early 80's model, and there's no setting to turn it off like on today's models. I'm guessing a Phillips screwdriver and wire cutters are in order.
• I've noticed a trend in the last ten years maybe. I don't know of any 24 hour grocery stores any more. They all used to be, except for the one closest to the large retirement community, which closed at 9pm for obvious reasons. Now I feel fortunate to find one open until midnight.
• Our doorbell goes "dong." For some reason the "ding" doesn't work. The little girl next door often rings it twice, so we hear "dong dong."
• Steve Scott stays well adjusted at Bachmeyer Family Chiropractic.
• Racked my brain trying to think of the lyrics these last several months. I knew the melody, but couldn't hear words concrete enough to Google, until Mrs. Scott guessed a few and found this on YouTube. They just don't make music like this anymore. Dig the brass.

Rotating Subtitle

My latest:

From the Pew:
Because it's my turn to talk.

Book Review Update

It's a slow process for me to read a book, but I'm about 3/4 the way through both John Armstrong's Your Church Is Too Small and the late Michael Spencer's Mere Churchianity. Once done, I'll review each book on this blog.

Blog Plug: Islam and Christianity

What I originally found to be an interesting blog that shed some facts on Islam, has turned out to me to be a very fascinating slice of real life in the real world. Abu Daoud writes on his blog, Islam and Christianity, which is subtitiled, "This blog is written by a Christian living in the Middle East. My desire is to discuss Islam and Christianity in ways that will be helpful for people of the other religion."

Abu's blog isn't some warmed-over extension of the post-9/11 image of Islam that we have courtesy of the mainstream American media. He is an intelligent, articulate, educated, well blog-read, passionate Christian who actually lives in the Middle East, and gives a depth to his topics in a way that few Americans can even imagine, much less experience. He writes not only about Islam and Christianity, as separate religions, but about the entire history of their interaction. Also, he writes much about the Koran, Islamic theology, Sharia law, folk religion, Muslim influence in Europe, Africa and America, unreached people groups, and personal interaction with Muslims where he lives.

A must read for anybody interested in Islam or Middle Eastern culture.

Friday Night Potpourri

Another week, another dollar or less:

• I've noticed an eternal truth. A bag of regular potato chips lasts two weeks. A bag of BBQ potato chips lasts two minutes.
• A little Hollywood and TV secret I learned from my retired CHP dad. All California license plates used in a movie or TV show are not real numbers. The DMV has its own license plate rules for the placement of letters next to numerals. Letters that resemble numerals, like "Q," "O," and "I" cannot be used next to numerals. So, the plates used are ones that have those arrangements.
• It's surprising just how often the side gate has to be tweaked in order for it to close properly by itself.
• The National League won the All-Star game. So that means, let's see...I forget, but it has political ramifications in an election year.
• A neighbor's fig tree is dropping figs over the fence. I wouldn't have a clue how to eat figs.
• I was driving through Bakersfield just a couple of weeks ago. Don't know if I ran any red lights, but I'm surprised it took me so long to think of this for my FNP song.

Adding Links

I'm adding a few links to my sidebar that I read often. First, Arthur Sido's the voice of one crying out in suburbia. Arthur writes from a reformed Baptist position on many things, and always seems to check that idea out against scripture. Next, Bob Spencer at Wilderness Fandango. Bob has a slightly different way of looking at church. Finally, Bobby Grow at The Evangelical Calvinist. Bobby digs deep into Calvinist history to look at Scottish theology's different angle on Calvinism. Just for fun, he's occasionally seen stirring things up in the comment section of Pyromaniacs (insert favorite emoticon here).

Rotated Subtitle

My latest rotating subtitle:

From the Pew:
Because sometimes that's where it needs to come from.

Baptism: Another View (Part 1)

Since I have been a Christian, there has been an ongoing debate about baptism, and it has gone on for centuries before me. There are two major views I have been exposed to, and the debate is about the meaning of, reason for, mode of, time of and recipients of baptism. The debate I have been exposed to has been in Protestant circles between those who believe in paedo-baptism and those who believe in believer's baptism.

Paedo-baptists believe that children of believing parents (including infants) are to be baptized because they are members of God's covenant people. Those who believe in believer's baptism (sometimes called "credo-baptists"), on the other hand, believe that only those who make a credible profession of Christ should be baptized. This is usually limited to adults, or minors who are old enough to know of their conversion and can express and show their repentance, and it is these who are included in the covenant.

I think that there is room for another view of baptism, different from the two popular views, and I will be writing more parts to this in the form of a blog series. It will be similar to my old "Baptism: A Third View" series, but with some revisions and other information. This new series will be titled "Baptism: Another View" and will appear in the blog series list in the margin. Any input from readers will be welcome.

Read Part 2.

Read entire series in a single post.
.

Friday Night Potpourri

Sometimes weeks go fast. Other things do too:

• Our first signs of ripe fruit on the apricot tree. Another few days. But, the squirrels beat us to it, and devoured the entire tree's worth of almost ripe in just one day. All the damage was lined up on top of the back fence.
• Our youngest recently turned three. He suddenly plays in the street, talks about how he's bigger, and recently had his first unchaperoned date. The four year old girl next door came over and asked if he wanted to play.
• Watched fireworks on the 4th at the marina park in the last town we lived in. It was a tradition that started before we even moved there. One can see four different fireworks shows - ours, the town across the water, a town up the straights and one at a theme park. Being on the shores of San Francisco Bay and it's connected waterways means cooler and windier weather within a mile of the water.
• I've discovered a way to get my daily jogging in while I'm with my kids. Take them to the park, let them play in the play area, and jog around the perimeter or close enough to it to keep an eye on them.
• I hope the riot situation in Oakland doesn't last long as I'd like to go to an A's game sometime soon. Is this a national news story?
• We're scheduled for roasted chicken tomorrow. Mmmm, one of my favorites.
• Does this still apply in today's digital world? I'm not sure it does. Brings back memories, though.

Ongoing Blog Series

The ongoing blog series that have been such a staple to From the Pew - and the ones that can be found as links in the right margin - are undergoing change. Several of these series are being deleted, some are going to be re-worked in a different way, and some - well, I just don't know yet. Stay tuned for more...

Legalism And Liberty, Pyro Style

Last month, Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs fame wrote a post on legalism and Christian liberty, and said he desired to write on this topic again in the weeks to come. He asked commenters to ask questions they would like answered. So, I chimed in with a couple of questions I would consider not the act of lobbing softballs:

I agree with what you've had to say about legalism and liberty in these two posts. An observation: I've never heard a legalist admit to being a legalist. Legalists always seem to claim their legalism comes directly from Scipture, even if it takes twenty successive logical fallacies within a greater slippery slope fallacy to make their claim. Do you see the same thing?

Also, could you give your view on "offending" the "weaker brother"? Do you think that somebody inducing indignation within their own heart over an activity they see another engaging in constitutes offense, or do you think it has to do with actually inducing somebody into an activity contrary to their conscience? In between?

Oh, and would you see somebody as "weak" because they abstain, or because their conscience hasn't been fully persuaded?

I look forward to hearing Phil's take on legalists, conscience and the weaker brother. If he gets around to this topic, I'll post more.

Friday Night Potpourri

Days, weeks, months, years...

• The older I get, the more difficult it is to know which day of the week it is and which date of the month.
• Weeks are easy and easier to track, partly thankful to Friday Night Potpourri.
• Months generally follow the calendar page on the fridge, but sometimes the rent check makes it to the landlord on a "oh, my goodness" trip over there. Whew.
• Years are so long, yet so short. Gee, just this time last year is easily remembered.
• Our youngest just turned three. Each of his birthdays is easily remembered as happening not too long ago, yet multiply just a few years by ten, or a hundred (which are small numbers) and I realize just how fast history happens.
• 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. The decades pass as well, and our parents remember several more than we. What was 50's music really like outside of oldies stations on the radio in the 70's?
• Say what you want about quality, it's just this type of song is the type you remember the very first time you hear it.

Baptism: Another View (Entire Series In A Single Post)

Each title below is a link to the original post for that part.

Baptism: Another View (Part 1)

Since I have been a Christian, there has been an ongoing debate about baptism, and it has gone on for centuries before me. There are two major views I have been exposed to, and the debate is about the meaning of, reason for, mode of, time of and recipients of baptism. The debate I have been exposed to has been in Protestant circles between those who believe in paedo-baptism and those who believe in believer's baptism.

Paedo-baptists believe that children of believing parents (including infants) are to be baptized because they are members of God's covenant people. Those who believe in believer's baptism (sometimes called "credo-baptists"), on the other hand, believe that only those who make a credible profession of Christ should be baptized. This is usually limited to adults, or minors who are old enough to know of their conversion and can express and show their repentance, and it is these who are included in the covenant.

I think that there is room for another view of baptism, different from the two popular views, and I will be writing more parts to this in the form of a blog series. It will be similar to my old "Baptism: A Third View" series, but with some revisions and other information. This new series will be titled "Baptism: Another View" and will appear in the blog series list in the margin. Any input from readers will be welcome.

Baptism: Another View (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series, I gave a basic outline as to the two dominant views on water baptism in Protestantism as I have heard them. There are more views of baptism than these two, such as the Roman Catholic and certain cult views, with ideas of baptismal regeneration, but I'm addressing dominant protestantism here. Another view I propose here and I will follow with explanation as to why.

Water baptism isn't necessarily the sign and seal of the new covenant, Scripture isn't detailed in any prescription as to mode of water baptism (whether sprinkling, pouring or immersion), nor is it detailed in any prescription as to who are proper subjects of water baptism (adults only, professing believers of whatever age, children of covenant believers, etc.). I will explain this further in future posts in this series. Scripture isn't even absolute in describing proper timing of baptism in relation to either profession, conversion, discipleship or birth. Not only this, but Scripture isn't always clear as to which type of baptism it speaks about in a certain passage, whether water baptism, baptism of fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, I have decided that a wide array of modes, subjects and times of water baptism upon people throughout Christian history are not contrary to scripture, and therefore scripturally valid, and I am determined not to hold most of these in contempt or nullification simply because any particular church, denomination or theological circle says so. In short, I recognize various people's baptisms as they come from differing traditions.

I realize that what I just said could start excommunication proceedings in many churches and denominations, or it could prevent me from becoming a member in certain churches, and also potentially stands as fuel for intense cyber flaming (which I have experienced on this very topic in the past). So be it. But that is the sad part, in my view. Why is such a thing necessary? In my next post, I will give my personal story as I have interacted with each of the two views I explained in Part 1.

Baptism: Another View (Part 3)

Now for my explanation and personal history of my views of baptism. I've held to both the paedo-baptist and believer-baptist views, and have attended at least one church that held to each, and have been part of more than one theological circle that held to each. I have switched from each view to the other, and held to each view at least once. I admit much confusion over the issue throughout my first 10 plus years as a Christian. I've listened to fierce debaters on the subject from each side, always seemingly one-upping the other in terms of clever arguing, and have read numerous articles, as well as book chapters and systematic theologies on the topic. About five years ago I realized why the subject was so difficult for me, and once I realized why, I gained peace before God for the first time ever. I had a reason for "another view."

The reason is that for all the views I have ever heard or believed, doctrines of baptism have relied so heavily upon systematic views of the new covenant. These views vary wildly, and as a result, so do views on baptism. Baptismal distinctives that I've been exposed to, I believe, are based more on man's theology than on Scripture, with Scripture used to proof-text the view. But one thing is clear to me, believers in Jesus Christ should (at some time and in some way) be baptized in water.

Some views of baptism nullify or partially nullify other views. For example, many believer-baptist churches will require re-baptism of newly professing believers that were baptized as children and raised in Presbyterian or other Reformed churches, but who believe themselves as never having previously come to faith. Some paedo-baptist churches require the same thing. Some Baptists will accept the infant baptisms in paedo-baptist Protestant churches, but at the same time reject infant baptisms in Roman Catholic churches, as will some paedo-baptist Protestants. This last group of modern paedo-baptists, who decry "the error of the anabaptists" of centuries ago, do the same thing they reject. Early reformers generally viewed baptism within the Roman church as valid. Some protestant churches I've been familiar with have lists of churches, cults and movements whose baptisms won't be recognized when considering a believer new to their church. Some views not only hold other views in contempt, but reserve the harshest charges of sin in the practice of those views. I'll discuss this in future posts.

In trying to be consistent with my statement of "another view", I've decided that if a Christian (whether Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Pentecostal, etc) is individually satisfied with his own [reasonable] circumstances under which he was baptized, I will allow him that liberty and view his baptism as valid. I will have more to say about this in upcoming posts.

Baptism: Another View (Part 4)

Shortly after writing my first several posts on another view of baptism a few years ago in a different blog series, it dawned on me just how I should characterize the divergent sectarian views of baptism: as traditions.

These are traditions which don't have enough Scriptural warrant to pass as binding law, but there are many defenders of these traditions that seem to think the bible mandates their view. This has, I think, been my problem. I've been asking this question: "Which view does Scripture mandate?", when I should have been asking, "Does the bible mandate a view at all?" Defenders of each view have taken to proof-texting, polemics, and a vocation of anathematizing their opponents. Confusion is often the dominating industry in the baptism debate with plenty of minimum wage, entry level positions. The following is a mock argument, the type of which I'm all too familiar with: (P=paedo-baptist, B=believer baptist)

P: Baptism is the NT equivalent of OT circumcision, so infants should be baptized.

B: There's no evidence in the NT of children being baptized.

P: But the households of new converts were, so there must have been children in those households.

B: You're making assumptions. It could just have easily been believers old enough to know.

P: Well history is on our side, because there's archaeological evidence that infant baptism was practiced as early as the second century AD.

B: But no earlier, of course. It was a Roman Catholic doctrine introduced to soothe the fears of parents who wondered if their unbaptized children would go to heaven if they died. The Reformation was a good thing, but they didn't go far enough in dealing with Rome's doctrines.

P: Well, let's just see what the Westminster Confession has to say.

B: Huh? This is a Scriptural issue, so we should limit our conversation to the bible alone and not bring history into it.

P: "XXVIII, IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized."

B: You're off course again.

P: "XXVIII, III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person."

B: Well, you and they both obviously missed the meaning of the Greek word, baptizo, which means literally "to immerse." The writers of the King James bible, through built-in fear of the dominant Catholic church, neglected to translate the word as "immerse," but instead transliterated the word as "baptize." The result is that the English speaking world is in confusion about even the biblical mode of baptism.

P: Say, you're bringing enough of your own history into this as well. You miss all the biblical references to sprinkling in the OT, and how Col. 2:11 ties baptism and circum...

On and on this goes. Jesus had a lot to say about traditions. He really didn't condemn those who held to traditions, but had a problem with those who held tradition equal or above the word of God. I'm afraid many throughout church history have done just this with their arguments about baptism. I know I did. Forgive me, Lord.

Baptism: Another View (Part 5)

In this post I'd like to offer my opinion of the effects (or lack thereof) of Christian parents or churches having baptism administered to their children. In other words, just how "effecatious" is infant baptism?

Each side in the Protestant baptism debate has its criticisms of the other with respect to the baptizing of children. Paedo-baptists often make the claim that Baptists' refusal to baptize their children has negative results. Because children are not baptized in Baptist churches, Baptists are sometimes accused of neglecting would-be elect children and are denied the very sign of the covenant itself. The failure to baptize children is then viewed as the worst thing that one could do to them. God's blessings come through obedience to the covenant, so Baptists are cutting blessings off from their children. Because Baptists sometimes view their children as unregenerate until a profession of faith is made, parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being not yet in the covenant; in other words the presumption of unregeneration until proven false through profession of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun with worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in paedo-baptist churches.

Baptists, on the other hand, often criticize paedo-baptists for baptizing infants because these infants include all future false professors as church members from birth. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun by worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. This supposedly explains to some degree the problems with theology in mainline denominations. The conclusion is sometimes that baptizing infants is the worst thing one could do to them. The baptizing of only professing adults (or children old enough), safeguards the church from these problems because the non-professing are never allowed heavy influence in church matters. Also, paedo-baptism can lead to a false assurance of salvation because of the "covenant promise." I've heard from Baptists who happen to have attended paedo-baptist churches (maybe because it's the only good church in the area) that a covenant smugness can take over and parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being already in the covenant; in other words the presumption of election until proven false through denying of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in Baptist churches.  The argument each side levels at the other is essentially the same.

But I've had enough experience with both types of churches to know that neither has the corner on their children growing up to be true Christians. Baptists are just as good at placing their children as recipients of the blessings of the covenant, i.e. teaching, bible memorization, church attendance, prayer, education, and the rest, as are paedo-baptists. Paul takes up the argument in Romans 2 that when Gentiles do the law, their uncircumcision is counted as circumcision. "If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" Rom. 2:26. Both sides see that their children are to be discipled according to the Great Commission.  So, then, I don't think that whether children are baptized or not is the real issue, but whether the parents and churches raise their children in the fear and instruction of the Lord.

I've certainly heard of many wayward paedo-baptists who were not born again until adulthood, after straying from the faith, give testimony to God's remembering them because of the promise through baptism, because their parents had them baptized. Well, there are many wayward born-again-as-adult Baptists who make the same claim with respect to their parents raising them well in the faith as children. I believe it's about adherence to the New Covenant itself, and not a supposed sign, that God honors.  Not that baptism isn't important, as both sides agree that it is, it's just when children are to be baptized that is closer to the center of the argument.

Baptism: Another View (Part 6)

One problem I have with both Baptist and paedo-baptist theology regarding baptism is the lack of clear scriptural descriptions of their views. It seems to me that if baptism is supposed to be administered to only adult believers after conversion, then I think the bible would say so in no uncertain terms. If it is to be administered to infants, then the same should be true. It's that way with circumcision. It's that way with church discipline. It's that way with how to pray, how many times to forgive, who to visit in their distress that describes true religion. It's that way with all duties of man before God. Man's duties are spelled out relatively clearly so that most of us can either "get it" or have somebody easily explain it to us.

Take circumcision for example. In Genesis 17:11-12, a great deal of information is packed into less than two verses:

And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.

What, where, how, to whom and when are all answered. No guesswork. No thousand page systematic theology volume. No ecclesiastical traditions. It is named "circumcision", it is to be "in the flesh of your foreskin", it is called "the sign of the covenant", it is to be administered to "every male", "who is eight days old." Not seven days, not nine, not in the flesh of your knee, and it's not called "surfing." Church discipline is "if your brother sins" and is "in private", then with "one or two more", then "tell it to the church", then excommunication.

Okay, it's true that many points of theology are quite arduous in their developments and have been hammered out over millennia, and the wisdom necessary to live everyday life is constructed line upon line, precept upon precept and isn't even complete by the time we die. But the basics of our religion are simple, to the point and spelled out by God. Baptism, I think, is no different. The great commission commands that disciples are to be made of all the nations, and they are to be baptized. But...
 
All the information we need about baptism is spelled out. It is to be done with water, believers should be baptized, it should be done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Liberty as to mode (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) and subject (infant/adult/professor, family/household member/church attendee) I think is allowed for the simple reason than none of these things are clearly spelled out. What is clearly spelled out with respect to children is instruction in the Lord - educating them in the Word, obedience to parents, not provoking them to wrath, etc.
 
It is interesting that claims of these baptismal things being spelled out are really nothing more than sectarian theological conclusions of non-baptismally specific passages applied to baptism. Theological presuppositions about other doctrines are brought to baptism. When Jesus said, "suffer the little children", he was not speaking about baptism specifically. Only a theological leap in logic does this. Also, nowhere in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as either the sign or seal of the New Covenant, even though circumcision is spoken of as a sign to Abraham (Rom 4). Colossians 2:11-12 doesn't equate circumcision and baptism either. Only the same theological leap does this.
 
A final word for this post. I'm not against baptism at all. We should be baptized with water. What I'm saying is that Baptists and paedo-baptists should learn not to condemn each other for their non-biblical (I'm careful to not say "un-biblical") traditions of baptism.

Martin Luther Plus Semper Reformanda Equals More Martin Luthers

Martin Luther was a hero of the Protestant faith. His beliefs that the church was engaged in theology and practice that was not biblical led to its reforming; hence the Protestant Reformation. One of the rallying cries of the Reformation was "Semper Reformanda," or "always reforming."

Today in "Reformed" circles, this slogan is not given near the weight that the five solas are. Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone) are champions of the day. In my opinion there seems to be a line of thinking in Reformed circles that the Reformation was a one-time thing that solidified everything to be believed for all time. All reformation stopped at The Reformation.

Of course, reforming for the sake of reforming isn't in mind, as Michael Horton points out in this piece about the real meaning of the slogan. The original phrase was, “The church is reformed and always [in need of] being reformed according to the Word of God,” indicating that the reformation in view is passive; the Holy Spirit working in reforming the church. Horton also points out:

As Calvin argued in his treatise “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” the Reformers were charged with innovation when in fact it was the medieval church’s
innovative distortions of Christian faith and worship that required a recovery of apostolic Christianity. Rome pretended to be “always the same,” but it had accumulated a host of doctrines and practices that were unknown to the ancient church, much less to the New Testament.

Now for some questions. Could the same thing be said, at least in some things, about the Reformed church? Did the Reformation deal with every single problem with Rome? And if Martin Luther led the way for the church to be reformed, couldn't we say that along with the slogan of Semper Reformanda there should arise even more Martin Luthers?