Another theory: the watchdoggies are more concerned with preserving a particular style of church in which Chris R fits, and so as long as the trappings are the same the actual theology doesn’t matter.

I admit, when I read thru your article, i thought to myself “Oh no. We are going to be accused of taking a small statement or article out of context.” But then I read the links and he actually said that. That’s nuts! IMO that is way worse than anything Rick has done.

Rick,

You assume way too much.

Ken and I have talked on several times about our differences about baptism. I haven’t converted him to the correct position yet. But we very openly disagree with each other.

Again let me remind you of Dr. Walter Martin and John Warwick Montgomery. They both publicly disagreed with each other about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and yet the worked together because they were both MONERGISTS and they worked together to fight the cults as well as SYNERGISTS.

Ken and I’s working relationship is very similar.

As for Ingrid and I, there was zero disagreement with each other on either of these issues.

You may want to check your reformation history. There are both Calvinists who believe in paedo baptism and those who only believe in believers baptism. But both groups still consider each other to be brothers. Why? Because they both agree on the doctrines of grace and most importantly salvation by grace alone through faith lone through Christ alone.

Lutherans and Calvinists are not too far off from each other. That is why you see them working together on the White Horse Inn and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. There is a diverse difference of opinion on baptism and the Lord’s supper in those groups. They’ve put away those differences to fry more important fish.

What are those fish? They are semi-pelagian evangelicals (synergists). Those would be the Rick Warren’s and the neo-liberal Emergents.

And Rick ultimately your post IS about what the Bible teaches on Baptism. You and I have a supreme difference of opinion on this subject. Everytime you’ve brought it up I have given you the verses that support the doctrine I subscribe to. Yet, you’ve never done the same but instead have resorted to calling me a heretic and a Roman Catholic.

I don’t mind you calling me either. I would only ask that you do me the courtesy of showing me from God’s word where I have gone wrong. If I am in error I will repent.

Again prove your case from the scriptures.

Rick,

I think Chris did answer the question, though:

they were both MONERGISTS and they worked together to fight the cults as well as SYNERGISTS.

Translation: As long as you’re a Calvinist, you’re saved, even if you disagree on how people are saved. After all, to quote their idol/prophet/demi-god, “Calvinism is the gospel”.

Nice try Iggy.

No dice. I have my own blog for that sort of stuff.

Again, how can one call others apostate… yet let others who deny the works of Baptism as Chris R does with Ken and others at CRN? There is quite a double standard going on there.

I do not see how one can compromise and not see that as a sin and still feel justified calling others out on their error….

There seems to be a log in someone’s eye that blinds them.

Be blessed,
iggy

Here are Ken’s thoughts on baptism and the Roman Catholic Church, courtesy of Internet archiving… I don’t see how he can say this about the RCC and not others.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051208031718/http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/

The post is about halfway down.

p.s. Chris, a legitimate question. How is Decision Theology synergist but baptismal regeneration not? Do not both require some human act as a necessary condition for salvation? I’m confused.

I find it interesting that what seems like moments after Slice goes down, CRN.info decides to start going after Chris. I want to make two points here intitially:

1) Chris didn’t even write those posts (the page clearly says that Steve Newell wrote them).
2) They were written over a year ago.

Who’s digging now?

Now to Chris. I count you a friend. However, baptism is a core doctrine, and it even becomes more a core doctrine when you add it to salvation or include it as another means to salvation. If there be a debate, you ask that the Scripture alone be the final authority. That sounds good to me. I suspect this means that you will stop appealing to historical accounts of the reformation? If the reformation had much to do with getting back to the Bible, then shouldn’t it make sense that you (being directly in the lineage of that reformation) would not want to fall back on the traditions of your church tradition?

I also want to make another point. It is possible to be a conservative Christian and not hold the doctrines of grace, not be reformed in your ecclesiology, and not hold to sacramentalism. It is also possible to be a monergist and not hold to the TULIP or to buy into Classical Calvinism.

My schedule is crazy right now (full time work + full time class + getting married soon). However, I will be posting about this soon.

Again Chris, I count you a friend. However, I wish you would recognize that theological ground exists between Catholicism and Reformed theology — it’s not dangerous.

Iggy,

Here is Article VI from the Augsburg confession

1] Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God’s will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification 2] before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17, 10. The same is also taught by 3] the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.

If you’d like to learn more please refer to this website. http://www.bookofconcord.org

http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=3133

Thanks for the link Chris R.

I particular like this line:

In the spirit of Dr. Walter Martin and Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, Ken and Chris have agreed to disagree agreeably

Now how about in spirit of Christ you extend Grace to others who hold different doctrinal view points.

I sure would like to have some of that grace thrown my way as well. Come on Chris R, lead the way. I know you can . . .

I haven’t converted him to the correct position yet.

It’s the implied “my” in place of the “the” which leads to the continual Battle of the Brothers/Sisters which gives this blog and the ODM legs.

We’re pretty busy proseletyzing other Christians.

Rick,

This issue is no laughing matter and it unmasks the hypocrisy of many self entitled “watchman” who will join hands with anybody as long as they throw stones in the same direction.

That is probably one of the most profound things I’ve ever heard. Quote of the day, my friend. Well done!

Classic, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” … even if we disagree on something as important as the means of salvation. After all, there are preachers sporting jeans and spiky hair that need to be brought down hard!

Rick,

The invitation is still open for you to debate me in public on the issue of Baptism.

You’ve called me a heretic on my own website (which doesn’t offend me in the least) and I have publicly invited you to prove your claim using the scriptures. But, you haven’t marshaled a single Biblical text to support your claim. Yet, I’ve given you the Biblical texts that support what I believe and you’ve not commented on a single one of them.

If you want to have a debate about baptism then lets do it. What I believe obviously bothers you greatly because you keep bringing it up and keep trying to make an issue of it.

But, I’d never call a person a heretic over the issue of baptism. I used to believe in “Believers Baptism” and changed my position during my third year of Greek in college. It was the Biblical text itself that changed my mind. I understand that there are sincere Christian Brothers and Sisters on both sides of this issue and I invite them to read the scriptures with me and discover what God’s word says that baptism does.

Rick if you are not willing to have an honest Biblical debate with me on this issue then I must conclude that your motives have nothing to do with a sincere pursuit of understanding Biblical truth and sound doctrine but that you’re just trying to be a quarrelsome trouble maker.

My question for you Rick is this, “How is being a quarrelsome trouble maker supporting the verse posted at the top of this site?” It states, “Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free…- John 8:32”

Ya’ll claim that you’re into ‘seeking justice, mercy and faithfulness amidst persecution from within. But you’ll never be taken seriously if you engage in the very same tactics that you’re complaining about.

Chris R.

It is not “what you believe” that bothers me… it is that you do not stand up for what you believe and would prostitute it for a partnership with some that deny your own beliefs…

Be Blessed,
iggy

Boy we hit a nerve if Ken (or the “editor) has to do a public discalimer on CRN giving each other “indulgences”; LOL!

Now Chris L should feel even worse as he is betraying the Spirit of Luther in indulging in indulgences… it only cost Chris his values.

LOL!

be blessed,
iggy

Iggy,

You’re incorrect in assuming that I don’t stand up for what I believe. Nor have I prostituted my beliefs.

Last time I check, ya’ll don’t attend the same churches nor do you hold the exact same doctrinal statements.

One could easily make a counter-claim (and they’d be right) that the charge brought by Rick is stupid because the guys who run this site all don’t agree on exactly the same doctrines because they all come from different churches in different denominations or non-denominations.

Gasp!

Should we start saying that Rick is prostituting his beliefs because he’s working with Nathan? Is Nathan compromising his beliefs because he’s working with Joe? Is JohnD now a doctrinal whore because he works with Chris?

The argument is silly and it cuts both ways.

If ya’ll are TRULY upset that a Lutheran and a Baptist minister have been working together when they don’t agree on every single doctrine, then I think you guys should set an example for all of us and disband THIS site for that exact same reason.

Chris R.,

That’s a pretty silly argument you put forward. The central argument, as far as I can tell, is that Ken is being *inconsistent* by throwing stones with you, someone with whom he does not agree, at people by virtue of the fact that he does not agree with them. And for pretty trivial things. So much of CRN is, for lack of a better word, petty.

And granted, things get petty around here as well, as far as I can tell. But the guys here aren’t upset simply by a display of ecumenism. In fact, it could be considered encouraging. But they’re baffled, or at least I am, by how random it is.

By the way, I’m still kind of confused how baptismal regeneration can be squared with monergism. I read the article, granted it wasn’t penned by you, but that did nothing for me. In fact, if you had told me it came straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I would have believed you.

Rick,

You may be right that no one is converted.

I would consider it a success if at the end people would realize that those who hold to the doctrine of baptism that I do are doing so because they believe that is what the scriptures teach. You may disagree with me about how to interpret the scriptures but you will never again say that I don’t have scripture to support the view.

BTW, I will not do this in private. It must be in public. I can set up website or blog specifically for this issue if you like. Or we can wait til you’ve recuperated and I’ll fly to your hometown and well do this face to face in front of an audience. We’ll record the event and post the audio at both of our sites.

Personally, I prefer to do this in front of an audience, with a moderator so that we can also get some questions from the audience. Plus audio is so much more engaging than ‘position papers’.

How bout it?

I think we are missing the point here. The fact is, that when you begin to narrow down who is a “Christian” with such tight parameters, then you begin to alienate even those you love. The “editor” over at CRN can say that Chris and Ken respectfully disagree over an issue as important as baptism’s role in salvation, but turn and attack Rob Bell for having a third point of view.

Basically, if you are my friend then I will forgive. If you are my enemy then you are still a heretic.

For the record, Chris, your arguments seemed to be based more out of history than scripture. You keep referring to how things were back during the reformation. How our view today was a minority view back then. Does that mean it is correct? It is valid just because the reformer believed it.

How bout we just ask ken what side he is on… that would be a fun day. Ken on our side and the ODMs on the other.

Rick,

I’m curious what your position would be on Christian Brotherhood.

You’ve publicly called me a heretic.

Can you please explain to me why it is okay for you to uncharitably call me a heretic but it is not okay for anyone to call any of your favorite teachers heretics or something worse.

I’m curious about your personal definition of ‘orhtopraxy’ and how it excludes you from having to show ‘Christian Brotherhood’ to me.

Chris R, Rick,
I think a debate between you two guys on the Biblical role of baptism would be great but I would enjoy even MORE a debate on what constitutes “cardinal” doctrine, i.e., the essentials of our faith that binds us together as brother and sister in our Lord vs. what Augustine called “non-essentials”.

I think one of the things we’re trying to do here at CRN.info is to underscore that much of what is criticized at ODM blogsites is inconsequential and in many cases, counterproductive to furthering the gospel message on the Internet and elsewhere.

As previously noted, how is talking about sex in church or music style of even equal weight to the question of whether or not baptism plays a sacramental role in salvation?

That’s the question I would like to hear debated.

You did call me a heretic along with several other unflattering epithets.

But, I accept your apology and I forgive you.

Regarding a debate on Christian Brotherhood. I don’t think that we would have much of a difference of opinion about what the scripture says on this matter.

I think the real issue here is how are you to treat someone who’s teaching false doctrine within the church.

You see I don’t believe Ken Copeland is a Christian Brother. I don’t believe Paula White is a Christian sister. I do not for a second believe that Rick Warren teaches the same Gospel that I believe in and I believe that the Seeker-Sensitive church is unbiblical.

So what is the ‘Christian Response’ to someone who is teaching false doctrine?

That topic is one that I think would be much more fun and lively. I’d be open to doing that after the Baptism debate.

But, I won’t do it if is 6 against 1. It needs to be a one on one conversation and there needs to be some agreed upon structure to the conversation.

Chris R.

I think the real issue here is how are you to treat someone who’s teaching false doctrine within the church.

Now you are getting somewhere… as one who is in the hot seat of Ken often for my beliefs (which are consistently misrepresented and twisted) I hope you can see the value in kindness in how one approaches the other…

Ken rarely shows kindness… (spoken as one on the receiving end of his attacks)

Be Blessed,
iggy

Oh man I finally make a comment that I agree with Ken and I got moderated! LOL!

I will try harder to not let that happen again!

LOL!

Be Blessed,
iggy

Jimmy,

None taken.

I can say this. If I ever became a well know person in the Christian mainstream and I began twisting scripture and teaching false doctrine. I would be disappointed in the blogosphere if it didn’t start shouting with all its might to warn the church against my false teaching.

Ask yourselves an honest question. If Rick Warren wasn’t such a ‘Christian Celebrity’ and was just some guy who wrote a blog called the Purpose-Driven Life Blog would you have any problem challenging him regarding how he mis-quotes and twists the scriptures?

As for Rob Bell, the reason I and others think he is dangerous is because he undermines the authority of scripture in his books and lectures.

False.

Certainly, as with any speaker/writer, your can “prove” things by taking quotes out of context, but he has never done this, when viewed in context…

Chris L,

You are such a hypocrite and you show it in just one comment.

You just complained that sites like CRN and AM eviscerating other Christians. But listen to what you said about me.

What Chris has posted on the subject of baptism, primarily, and the Lord’s Supper, secondarily, is modern-day Sadducee tripe. Like many corners of Calvinism, it pretends to glorify God and His sovereignity with semi-gnosticism that completely ignores basic teaching in the gospel

How come it is okay for you to say that my position is ‘Modern Sadducee Tripe’, ‘Pretends to Glorify God… with semi-gnosticism that ignores basic Biblical teaching.”

I wonder who that sounds like….hmmmmmm

You guys are frauds.

Rick,

If I have to make an atonment offering to redeem that ’spammed’ comment then I’m out of luck. I just sent my atonement offering to Paula White so that I can get my 7 blessings.

Can you please explain to me why it is okay for you to uncharitably call me a heretic but it is not okay for anyone to call any of your favorite teachers heretics or something worse.

When you start asking the same question of the watchdoggies you might have a bit more credibility.

Challenging tradition is not undermining scripture, unless you are married to a systematic theology. Just because something is ‘traditional’ doesn’t make it Biblical.

Rick,

We pharmaceutical engineers don’t really make the ‘big bucks’, but I find it pretty funny that the spam filter is even hacking at me…

am I missing something here? Ken and Chris disagree over WHAT SAVES A PERSON!!! How more vital of an issue can you have?

Nathan,

You’re not missing anything.

How more vital of an issue can you have?

That’s pretty easy. Rick Warren doesn’t mention sin every time he opens his mouth, Rob Bell believes that Free Will and Predestination can coexist, some churches meet in bars, others in movie theaters, and some pastors say the word ’sex’ on stage in a positive context. Why should such a piddly thing as salvation get between you when you have an axe to grind on the previous items?

Chris R…

I do want you to know that though i have spoken strongly to you today I do respect you and appreciate that you stayed and gave answer… I am still not satisfied with your answers and still see that you are compromising on your true values.

But that is because I am an “emergent” and we hold true to our values and hold them with great respect.

In that “emergents” call each other on many things… it takes a thick skin… but in the end what one believes must pass through the fire of debate to see if it stands up to scripture, criticism from one’s brother and sisters in Christ and even non Christians as they often are alienated by our view… it is not about compromise but see which views are essential and which are nonessential…

Above all we seek to serve God in purity and honesty and with integrity… if we do it wrong… it is an honest wrong.

If it be right it is a glorious sacrifice of praise as God is revealed in us.

I hope that Christ in you will also be the light to those around you.

Be Blessed,
iggy

The problem with trying to separate “true” Christians from “false” ones vis-a-vis the monergism vs. synergism argument is that those categorized as “synergists” would not agree with the categorization, and that the Bible does not describe the exact mechanism you have written, nor – if it were such a cardinal doctrine – does Jesus spend any real time on the subject, and Paul does not seem to indicate it as “another gospel”.

In fact, both make quite plain that it is belief in Jesus and his resurrection that saves. Monergism, as you have defined it, is repackaged Greek fatalism – which is not damnable, but also leads to poor orthopraxy. Many of those you refer to as “synergists” would say that God gives man the choice to follow Him or not (so that any cooperation on the part of man is only done by His permission) – which gives much more sovereignty to God, and is more descriptive of “love” as defined in His book than a monergistic view of God as a megalithic, arbitrary toy-maker.

Jesus’ message was obsessed with the Kingdom, and in the parable of the Great Banquet, described it figuratively, from the invitation given by God and His sovereign decision to open it up to whoever would accept an invitation. The religion Jesus practiced and lived within had accepted for centuries and millennia that God both predetermined some events (such as Hezekiah’s extended reign), offered choices in others (such as with Esther) and limited the choices in yet others (such as with Jonah). He did not say anything to contradict this tradition, and neither did Paul – in fact, when viewed in context, they both – along with Peter, James and John – affirmed this view, without trying to lay its foundations to most of their audience.

That we have been so heavily influenced by Greek fatalism and determinism, and then made this bastardized “choice” of free will vs. predestination a lynchpin of faith is only a testament to the fallenness of the world and its influence on the church. It is a slap in the face to God, because when we make it a test of the gospel, we really are teaching “another gospel” all together.

I just discovered this discussion while researching another topic…interesting discussion. Don’t know if anyone is still reading here but I’ll drop my thoughts anyway. I have a different perspective of baptism than any of the posters I’ve read here. I am thinking we should look back further in time than the 16th century Reformation. Were not most of the first “Christians” actually Jews?

As I have researched my Jewish roots, (and apologies that I do not have a scriptural defense for my comments) I have come to view baptism not as a strange invention that Jesus threw into the new religion of “Christianity”. In Judaism there is the mikveh; this is a bath practiced to ritually separate “clean” from “unclean”. There are many references to ritual bathing in Leviticus and Numbers.

Perhaps the New Testament call to baptism is nothing more than a call to participate in a ritual bath to symbolize a boundary between the pre-salvation person in his/her unclean state, and the post-salvation person in his/her new, purified state.

Blessings to all,

Marilyn

Its the Jesus thread. It rose from the dead after a month.