I am going to interrupt my current postings because of an event that has just popped up. For those of you who don’t know what is going on this will be quite a bore, and I don’t intend to clarify the happenings for you.

Recently, I added my comment to a posting (which already had 30 some comments) on another blog I visit at times. For reasons of my own, I am not going to link to it here, but those of you who know what I’m talking about will of course know what I am talking about (and everybody says, “ooookkkkkaaaayyyy.”).

Some of the layout goes like this:

An anonymous commenter posted a comment to a blog, and he posted only scripture references. It was of course obvious what his implications were. But still he posted only scripture, knowing it would provoke a response (I wish the response would have been something like, thank you for the wonderful scripture, but it wasn’t). So when the response came, as it was sure to in this case, he said as much as, “See, I only posted scripture and you reacted. It is the spirit convicting you, your beef is with God.” Many other unkind things were said, and it should be noted that I had my disagreements with all who posted. And then of course I had to add to it my own unkind words to the anonymous poster. While I didn’t always agree with what the original poster of the blog, and some of the regular commenters said, I can’t stand anonymous critics and accusations. And I also didn’t agree with anything he said after he posted his scripture. In my opinion, this anonymous poster was a troublemaker and coming forth in the wrong spirit.

However, my own unkind words were not necessarily justifiable, and I probably should have avoided posting on the matter because there are much bigger battles to face. However, in the issue that arose, if the anonymous poster had any ideas of convincing the blogger and regular commenters that they were wrong, he was going about it in the entirely wrong way. All he managed to do is convince them, myself, and most likely anyone else, that he was a troublemaker looking for a fight. But then, I probably looked like I was looking for a fight also because of my ungracious attitude. I apologize to all for that.

I still do not, however, agree with anonymous mainly because if he had anything to say, he should identify himself and say it like a real human being and not as someone who skulks in the shadows. Skulking in the shadows certainly gives him an advantage. I mean, what if this person were holding a personal grudge against the poster and just wanted to stir something up?

He also made many false assumptions and accusations.

However, it was still unwise of me to post there and I hope I can stay out of these small skirmishes in the future. Again, to those of you who have no clue what I am talking about, I apologize. I hope we can now move on to other subjects.

Distinctive Marks of Reformed Theology
Rev. Marcus J. Serven, Th.M
(part 2 of 14)

The Doctrine of Holy Scripture:
Historically, the Reformed have always held to a high view of Holy Scripture – the full verbal plenary inspiration, total infallibility, and complete inerrancy of the Bible, Scripure alone, or Sola Scriptura, is the Reformation’s affirmation that the Bible is man’s sole source of authority (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).  There are some in the Reformed world who have sought to avoid a Reformed Scholasticism by adopting a view of inspiration called limited inerrancy (Bloesch, McKim, Rogers).  This effort has failed and has led, instead, to advancing the views of Neo-Orthodoxy and a truncated view of inspiration (Barth, Brunner, Jewett).

I am sorry I haven’t posted more from the Distinctives Marks of Reformed Theology yet. I’m hoping to do that soon (maybe tomorrow, but we’ll see).

Continuing my posting of the refreshing things we heard at our Church Last Thursday…

Distinctive Marks of Reformed Theology
Rev. Marcus J. Serven, Th.M.
(part 1 of 14)

The Doctrine of God & the Trinity:
Reformed theologians place a resolute emphasis on the holy, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, eternal attributes of God. The Lord has Chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not a portrayal of three individual gods (Tri-theism), but of three persons by whom God is fully revealed (Monotheism). The make-up of the Trinity is such that each of the persons is equal in in substance, glory, and power---yet different in function, role, and activity. Each divine person seeks to serve the wishes of the others.

Our church recently had a visiting pastor from another reformed church share with us on Wednesday and Thursday evenings. I greatly enjoyed what he had to say and it was very refreshing. He handed out some literature that he wrote that, while it is certainly not anything new, and not earthshaking, and while it is what I believe and have believed for a little while, I thought it would be profitable to post it here on my blog. I will post it by bits at a time so it will be over the next few days.

The Rallying Cries of the Reformation
Rev. Marcus J. Serven, TH.M.

It is appropriate for Christians to remember the significant heroes of the past. This is especially true for Protestants, since there have been so many truly great champions from the Reformation era (c. 1517-1650) who made a major impact upon the present day church. Men such as:

Theodore Beza, Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Hus, John Knox, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Pierre-Robert Olivetan, Caspar Olevianus, Nicolas Ridley, Samual Rutherford, Menno Simons, William Tyndale, Zacharias Ursinus, John Wycliffe, Ulrich Zwingli, and many other lesser known persons. Each of these Reformers, despite some of their individual differences, greatly influences the Church in their own particular region to hold to right doctrine (orthodoxy). This is why taking the time to remember these men on reformation day (October 31st), the very day that Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral, is good and right and proper. Consider the following “rallying cries” as hard won blessings which have been “bought with blood” for the benefit of Christ’s Church during this current era in which we live.

1. “By Christ Alone” (Solus Christus): Jesus Christ is the only name by which we may be saved (Isaiah 53:1-12; John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
2. “By Scripture Alone” (Sola Scriptura): The Bible alone is the source of God’s revelation; it contains the Law, the Gospel, the principles for how we should live and worship and think (John 10:35; II Timothy 3:14-17; Hebrews 4:12-13).
3. “By Grace Alone” (Sola Gratia): God’s grace alone is the ground of our salvation, and this is received by faith alone (Psalm 31:1; Ephesians 2:4-10; Titus 2:11-14).
4. “By Faith Alone” (Sola Fide): God-given faith is the only way to receive the imputed righteousness of Christ, which results in our justification (Romans 1:16-17, and 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9).
5. “In the Presence of God” (Coram Deo): Christians are exhorted by the Bible to live all of life in the presence of God. This implies that there is no area of life where we do not “business with God” [Negotium Cum Deo] (Proverbs 15:3; Ephesians 5:1-14; Colossians 3:1-17).
6. “To God Be the Glory” (Sola Deo Gloria): God alone is the proper recipient of our gratitude in the matter of salvation and the Christian life (I Corinthians 10:31; Titus 3:5-7; I Peter 4:10-11).
7. “The Priesthood of Every Believer” (Communio Sanctorum): Every Believer is exhorted by God to live out the Christian life as a “holy venture” that pleases God (I Peter 2:9-10). Our sanctification and assurance of salvation are based solely upon the finished work of Christ on the cross (Romans 12:1-2; I John 1:9; I Peter 2:21-25).
8. “After Darkness Light” (Post Tenebras Lux): This was the motto of Geneva, Switzerland during the time of the Reformation. It reflects the wonderful deliverance from their former way of life that the local population came to feel as they lived by the doctrines of the Bible (John 3:19-21 and 8:12; Colossians 1:13-14).

It seems to me that people have a mixed up perception of vows these days and so they have a mixed up perception of baptism. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Maybe people have a mixed up perception of vows because they have a mixed up perception of baptism. Allow me to explain.

You see, when someone is baptized, there is a vow made to the Lord. But somehow we think that if the person’s heart wasn’t right with God that that vow was not valid. To make my point, I am going to use an illustration.

Suppose I decide to buy a house. I meet with the realtor, I meet with the owner of the house, I sign a contract. I have now made a vow saying that I will buy the house. If I now decide a day or so later that I wasn’t sincere when I signed the contract (made that vow) that I am somehow not obligated to that contract? Of course this not the case. I am still obligated to that vow. Now suppose that the person who sold you the house decided that they weren’t sincere. Does that make the contract any less valid? Of course it does not. THAT IS WHAT A CONTRACT IS ALL ABOUT. To say a contract can be broken because a party is not sincere DEFEATS the purpose of the contract.

Now lets apply this to baptism. Suppose I become a Christian, and decide to be baptized (buy a house). I repented of my sins, and now I go to an elder of a Church and say I would like to be baptized (meet with the realtor and owner of the house. Of course in a perfect world I would already have had explained to me that I am by my baptism entering into a Covenant/Vow, and become a part of God’s covenant people). So I am now baptized. I have become a member of God’s visible Church here on this earth, A visible member of God’s covenant people (signed a contract). Suppose I decide that I was not sincere when I made that vow and become baptized. Does that make my vow, and thus my entry into the visible Church of God invalid? I should think not. I have obligations now. To whom much is given, much is required, and I now have much given to me. Now suppose the person who baptized me turns out to be a fraud in some way, or has decided that he is not sincere in his faith. Does that make my part in the vow of none effect? Not even. And why is this? Because he was a visible part of God’s church and he also had that obligation. It all goes back to what a vow is. A vow is just that, a vow.

All this is not to say that vows can’t be broken. But that they apply and are obligatory. If I break my vow, there are consequences.

Now, I would also like to point out a problem with today’s thinking of vows in regards to who can make them, and for whom. Take Samson for instance in the Bible. Consecrated from birth. He had no choice in the matter. He couldn’t grow up and simply say, I had no choice in my vow, therefore it doesn’t apply to me. The same way, that no Israelite in the Old Covenant could say, I didn’t choose to be born an Israelite, or to be circumcised therefore I am not obligated to the Covenant God has made with His people (Israel at that time). There is no way that could happen. If he did that there were consequences to his breaking of the Covenant. A vow he had no control over.

If you are a Christian, your children are YOUR children. They have no choice in the matter. And as such, they are disciples of Christ. They are members of God’s covenant. How do we know this. Because Peter said in Acts that the promise was unto us and our children and to them that are afar off. Well wait, he said “the” promise. He didn’t say “the new promise” It is obviously a continuation, a promise that is referred to. A promise that has been and is being fulfilled.

As circumcision in the Old Covenant, which the apostle Paul references, so baptism in the New Covenant is the means by which we, and our children visibly enter in to the Covenant. And just because our children didn’t make a choice doesn’t mean that they are not obligated. They can certainly fall away, but they will receive greater condemnation. And that puts more weight on the parents shoulders. You add to your child’s condemnation if you do not raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

This does not, as some like to say to me, negate God’s sovereignty. It does not preclude God’s election. Rather, I think it enhances God’s sovereignty. He is so sovereign, he determines which parents will raise his elect and which will not. But it still does not take away from our responsibility in the slightest.

Okay, I am sure I have gone enough different directions as to confuse my readers, so I will stop. I hope this makes some measure of sense.