“If we really believe the truth, we shall be decided about it. Certainly we are not to show our decision by that obstinate, furious, wolfish bigotry which cuts off every other body from the chance and hope of salvation and the possibility of being regenerate or even decently honest if they happen to differ from us about the colour of a scale of the great leviathan. Some individuals appear to be naturally cut on the cross; they are manufactured to be rasps, and rasp they will. Sooner than not quarrel with you they would raise a question upon the colour of invisibility, or the weight of a non-existent substance. They are up in arms with you, not because of the importance of the question under discussion, but because of the far greater importance of their being always the Pope of the party. Don’t go about the world with your fist doubled up for fighting, carrying a theological revolver in the leg of your trousers. There is no sense in being a sort of doctrinal game-cock, to be carried about to show your spirit, or a terrier of orthodoxy, ready to tackle hertodox rats by the score . . . These are theologians of such warm, generous blood, that they are never at peace till they are fully engaged in war” (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 224).

HT: BHT

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags:

This entry was posted on Monday, March 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

57 Comments(+Add)

1   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
March 31st, 2008 at 12:59 pm

“These are theologians of such warm, generous blood, that they are never at peace till they are fully engaged in war”

Hmmm…this sounds like he’s describing a “Truth War”….

2   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
March 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pm

tim,

astounding quote. wise words.

as an older man………….i sadly reflect on all the wars i have waged in Jesus name. slaughtering all who stood in my way…….i won. but what did i really win?

3   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Oh come on… you know this won’t be taken seriously… I mean they appeal to Spurgeon as subjectively as they do the bible.

iggy

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 4:35 pm

And here’s a little tidbit from the preacher who is touted as the greatest:

“How can they harden their faces to utter such a false promise, such a mockery before the presence of the Almighty Father? Most likely angels weep as they hear the awful promise uttered! I can understand a simple, ignorant farmer, who has never learned to read, doing all of this at the command of a priest. I can even understand persons doing this when the Reformation was in its beginning, and men had barely crept out of the darkness of Roman Catholicism; but I cannot understand gracious, godly people, standing at the baptismal font, insulting the all-gracious Father with vows and promises based on fiction and lies. How can intelligent believers in Christ, dare to utter words, which they know in their conscience to be wicked and opposed to truth?

For the uninformed, Ingrid believes in infant baptism. Oh that Spurgeon!

5   nc    
March 31st, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Oh, be careful now, Rick.
You’re so rage filled and vicious and personal.

6   Scott    http://www.verumserum.com
March 31st, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Rick,

Ingrid believes in infant baptism? Pardon my French, but are you sh##ing me?!? How is that possible? How does she who claims to stand so firmly on the conservative side of Right, she who never met a Spurgeon sermon she didn’t adore, she who becomes rabid at the slightest whiff of anything that even remotely smells like Catholicism…how does she end up at infant baptistm?

Scott

7   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Ingid not only believes in infant baptism (I think she believes in baptismal regeneration), but she also believes in transubstantiation. She belongs to a sect of Lutheranism that retains the vestiges of their Roamn parent. She is a “confessional” Lutheran who also practices litergical worship which will never be accused of being too loud. Spurgeon would criticise her church openly as being too “Romanish”.

I was raised in a form of that.

8   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 9:31 pm

And she also believes in male only pastors and/or elders.
(wink-wink)

What that means is you can rebuke other elders, criticise other pastors, take doctrinal oversight of male teachers, speak in demeaning and caustic terms about leaders in other churches, and basically do everything an overseer is called to do as long as you don’t call yourself a “pastor” or an “elder”.

And even if everything you say is Biblically true, she still acts and speaks outside the gender qualification explicitly outlined in the New Testament. Her father is Scriptural, she is not.

9   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Scott,

Get real… this is the truth of ODM’s… they can overlook their own inconsistencies so they can attack their enemies as they defined them.

They play our Romans 2 beautifully every time!

But, I might be as kind to say they may just be suffering from the delusion of Chapter one… for they replaced the truth with a lie (their own truth) and God with some abstract disembodied god who is detatched from His creation.

iggy

10   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
March 31st, 2008 at 9:39 pm

rick,

lutherans believe in con not trans. there is a big difference between the two.

11   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Brutus – some sects of Lutherans believe in trans-substantiation. See Chris Rosebrough’s blog. “Extreme Theology”. Maybe Tim can find my post here that linked to the teachings. Tim?

12   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Here it is Brutus:

http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/why-just-rick-warren/

13   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
March 31st, 2008 at 9:57 pm

what sect does ingrid belong to. i am pretty sure it would be either wisconsin or missouri……..both of which are con. there is also a lutheran brethren in america i ran across while living in az. con also.

not that i have a problem either way. con/tran/mem. it all points to jesus/

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Hey Tim, why can I not post the link to my post about Why is it only Warren?

15   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 10:00 pm

http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/why-just-rick-warren/

Here it is.

16   Scott    http://www.verumserum.com
March 31st, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Rick,

Thanks for the info. I had absolutely no idea about Ingrid. While I agree with Iggy that ODM’s are able to blindly overlook the inconsistencies in their positions and opinions in order to attack those on the outside, to me this is different. This isn’t just an inconsistency. This is blindness on an astounding level, a contradiction in the most fundamental core of what she claims to stand for. I agree that it is much closer to her support of the gender roles found within the NT while at the same time functioning in such a way that directly contradicts her beliefs.

I guess I am amazed that her blindness can go that deep – infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, liturgical worship…what else is she missing? Confession and eating fish on Fridays?

Have you ever had dialog with her on this whole thing? I know you have pretty strong feelings about the Catholic church, and since your backgrounds are/were similar I would be curious to know how she defends her beliefs in light of the fact that they contradict some of her most virulent attacks.

17   Andy    
March 31st, 2008 at 10:14 pm

((((Oh come on… you know this won’t be taken seriously… I mean they appeal to Spurgeon as subjectively as they do the bible.))))

hmmmm pot kettle black :-p

18   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 10:17 pm

I have had limited dialogue a couple of years ago, but as you notice Ingrid almost never posts anything about those beliefs because she would lose readers who would, like you, be very surprised. Chris Rosebrough is one of the few consistent ones who is courageous enough to openly post about. I linked to two of his articles entitled “Baptism saves” and “His real Body” (I think).

Now if you believed that baptism saves and that the actual body of Christ is in the Lord’s Supper, would you not think that would be important enough to post about once in a while? See, you can downplay any unpleasant aspects of your theology when you think it would cause controversy. Isn’t that called a “seeker blog”?

19   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Scott – here are the two articles I linked to which I believe Ingrid’s church believes as well:

http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/09/baptism_saves.html

http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/11/just_bread_and_.html

20   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Andy,

hmmmm pot kettle black :-p

I rarely quote people outside of the bible for authority… and I surely see that God’s word works on both levels objectively and subjective… otherwise it cannot be a Personal faith, with a Personal Savor…

So as far as the pot… and the kettle… you are a bit off base.

: )

iggy

21   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Scott,

I stated I was trying to be kind… ; )

igs

22   Andy    
March 31st, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Iggy comeeee on you dont see the above quote as selectively quoting Spurgeon ?? Your out of the stadium ;-)

23   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
March 31st, 2008 at 10:48 pm

iggy,

i don’t even quote some of the people inside the bible :)

24   Andy    
April 1st, 2008 at 8:06 am

Sorry Iggy i didn’t mean that to sound so personal..

I just find the thread slightly ironic considering the vast amount of quotes by Spurgeon that would sit uneasily here,i guess that doesnt take away from the power of this quote…

25   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 8:19 am

Spurgeon’s interpretation of Scripture carry no weight with me. Same with MacArthur, Wesley, and everyone else. I alone answer to God for what I believe, everyone else can provide some perspective but my views are not fully aligned with anyone elses.

26   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
April 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am

rick,

not to be picky here but how do the articles you posted show that ingrid believes in transubstantiation?

most lutherans believe in consubstantiation though they probably would call it sacramental union instead.

not that it matters to me………..i just don’t want to put doctrine in ingrid’s mouth.

27   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
April 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am

here is an excellent summation of the various beliefs on communion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence

28   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I understand she attends the same type of Lutheran sect as does the author of those articles. My advice – ask her.

29   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
April 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm

what type does the author attend?

not looking for advice here. you made some pretty definitive statements about ingrid so i am trying to pin down your source and how you came to the conclusion.

in the article you allude to the author, steve newell, says:

Unlike the Roman Church, we cannot state the bread and wine actually change to Christ’s body and blood. We can say only what Christ says and that the bread and wine

catholics believe in transubstantiation. lutherans do not.

30   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Brutus – you may be correct, however, Chris R. has never refuted my observation. In that same article the author says:

“The key question is what does “is” mean? Does “is” mean a literal “is” or not? If the bread and wine is Christ’s body and blood, then we are actually eating his body and blood. If not, then the bread and wine are merely symbols of Christ’s body and blood. How we understand what “is” is determines how we approach Holy Communion. If we view “is” as literal, then the focus is on Christ since we believe that Christ is present in the bread and the wine. If we view “is” as symbolic, we then focus on “do this in remembrance of me”, which places the focus on us.”

So even con-substantiation teaches the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements. I’ll ask Chris R. which one he believes in.

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Newell also does not say he is sure it doesn’t change into the body and blood. You would think that in the genre of certainty they would be sure about that, no? It is clear that Luther still had some Roman doctrinal vestiges in his teachings. Who can blame him?

32   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
April 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm

rick,

there are fine nuances in this whole discussion. lutheran’s are very sensitive to NOT being associated with the catholic church, especially in the wisconsin and missouri synods.

some of the more “liberal” lutheran sects are working towards communal unity with the catholic church .

for me, it doesn’t matter. real presence works for me. same with the baptism issue.

i just want to make sure we brand ingrid with the right label :) we don’t want to be sloppy with the labels like the odm’s are.

33   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm

She is a confessional Lutheran which retains shadows of the RCC. It always amazes me that Ingrid doesn’t post her theological views, only her disagreements with other’s views. I would love to see her present her systematic theology.

Why is it OK to criticise others views without presenting your own?? Go ahead Brutus and e-mail her and ask her about her views on communion, baptism, litergy, salvation, and anything else. Ask her to post it.

34   inquisitor    
April 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Are you guys arguing over non-essentials? Sounds kinda ODM’ish

35   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
April 1st, 2008 at 5:05 pm

is baptism for the remission of sins a non-essential?

36   Evan Hurst    
April 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm

ODMs don’t argue over non-essentials, they declare their opinions on them and then stick their fingers in their ears and go “lalalalalalalala, can’t HEEEEEEEEAR you, can’t HEEEEEEAR you!”

and then they run into their bedrooms and jump on their beds in girl scout uniforms when they’re supposed to be going to sleep.

37   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Gee, to inquire into Ingrid’s beliefs is a “non-essential”, and yet every cough from Rob Bell’s mouth finds scrutiny? Let us all lay our doctrinal cards on the table “providing for things honest in the sight of all men”.

38   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
April 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Inq,
ODMs don’t allow dissent, so there’s no arguments among them. If I can pull a page from Ingrid’s book, they’re a lot like Soviet Russia which demands unity as a matter of policy.

39   inquisitor    
April 1st, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Brutus,

You tell me.

40   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
April 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pm

no, but others do.

41   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 am

“and then they run into their bedrooms and jump on their beds in girl scout uniforms when they’re supposed to be going to sleep.”

Now, you see, that is funny. I may stealuse it sometime.

42   andy    
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 am

Hi slightly OT as anyone heard of Patrick Ersig (i haven’t)? ..I just read the public confession hes released, it can be found at http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=22899&forum=34&5

Its about his judgmental attitude and un-spiritual discernemnt,and him apologizing for his behavior..

43   Evan Hurst    
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:03 am

:)

44   Zan    
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 am

I am not here to get in a long drawn-out debate over “baptismal regeneration”, but I have to say that the article, other than some mis-types on the Acts 2:38 reference (not 3:38 or 4:38) is a fairly well-written overview of this topic. Yes, I do believe in it, and no, I am not Lutheran (although I was baptized as an infant as well as a 10-year-old by my own choice…that means I am twice as saved as you all! ;) ) Some in my “denomination” would live or die by this doctrine, but I am not so hard-core. I do, however, look at what the bible says, and I take it at its word. And I apply it and teach it according to what the Bible says, not according to what others would like to do. I believe that those who do not want to be baptized because they don’t see the need are those suffering from sins of pride. Often we are called to obey even though we don’t understand the reasons or rationale.

45   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am

If that view of baptism was valid as a salvidic meduim it would have Pauline support, open and clear, not just a reliance upon Luke’s narrative which includes accurate narratives of false statements of some the apostles including Peter.

Without Pauline authority we can construct many doctrines based upon the gospel narratives and the book of Acts. The entire Pentecostal denomination uses Acts 2 as their foundation for many various doctrinal teachings. There is only one “work” necessary for salvation and it was carried out by the labors of Christ at Golgotha. Every cermonial aspects of church life point emblematically to that work without any detracting elements of grace spuriously attached to anything practiced within the church.

The only source of grace is the cross and that can only be drawn from by faith. Nothing else is a Scriptural conduit, only faith. To suggest that baptism is something more than a ceremonial act of obedience publicly reflecting Christ’s work is to not only add something that the epistles never did, it is also subliminally creating a relationship between baptism and Old Testament circumcision which when acrried to its natural conculsion results in infant baptism.

There are no means of grace in the New Tstament save faith and faith alone.

46   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 am

Zan,

The point is not that we all think it as wrong. I do not see a “biblical” teaching that states baptism is water saves us. IN fact I see that John reference to John… we see we are saved by the water and the blood… which came from Jesus side when he was pierced.

Water was the symbol of the reality we have in Christ. It is powerful, but really it is about a cleansed conscience as Peter states and not the washing of our body.

Yes, this debate can go on, but if you believe it is ultimately Jesus who saves you and you walk with Him, I will call you a brother.

Now the issue is, side by side the ODM’s attack one person for being too Catholic and another for some other doctrinal difference, while they turn a blind eye to their own differences… does MacArthur teach baptismal regeneration? Does he promote child baptism? In fact I bet you he preaches against that… yet people like Ken Silva will partner with Ingrid and Chris Rosebrough and while they show a form of favoritism in their grace, they unite in hypocrisy to attack others they deem less worthy of God’’s grace than they are.

iggy

47   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 am

To suggest that baptism is something more than a ceremonial act of obedience publicly reflecting Christ’s work is to not only add something that the epistles never did,

Could you give some references where Baptism is done as a “ceremonial act of obedience?”

48   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 am

Romans 6:1-5
Col.2:11-12
I Cor.12:13 = Gal.3:26-27

49   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 am

Gracias Kind Sir

50   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 am

Joe,
It’s interesting you brought up Bonhoeffer in your latest post, because I actually just finished that book as well. His view on baptism was something that actually surprised me a bit in the book. He comes very close to saying that regeneration comes through baptism, and in fact he might actually say it. It wasn’t quite clear to me.

He also made a big deal of saying that baptism can only be done once, because it is the old person dying and the new being raised to life in Christ.

My opinion is that baptism is a bit more than just symbolic, but it’s not an actaul salvific act either. It seems to me that it’s something that’s not to be treated lightly. I think we westerners have such a dualistic mindset sometimes, that when we say that something isn’t salvific, we automatically assume it means it’s unimportant, or throw-away.

I wonder sometimes if we shouldn’t just take the attitude that says “Jesus says we should so it, so we should do it” regardless of the reasons and mechanizations behind it. That was the other thing that struck me about the Bonhoeffer book. We can always rationalize a reason not to believe if we try hard enough.

51   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am

Rick,
Romans 6 is far from a ceremonial view of baptism, in fact it is usually one of the key texts used by those who support baptismal regeneration.

3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

The only way this becomes a ceremonial view of baptism is if you begin by assuming that baptism is ceremonial.

52   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am

When Peter on Pentecost says “Repent and be baptixed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” and then when paul is asked the same question he says “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved” we must address the difference. So to whom shall we go to resolve the obvious specifics in both men’s replies?

We must go to the epistles, and more sepcifically the one to whom the gospel was given to be Jesus Christ Himself post resurrection and to whom all the other apsotles gave honor. We must be taught be the teaching epistles of Paul, all the other epistles expand Paul’s foundation and give more illumination to that which was entrusted to Paul. As Moses was to Israel so Paul is to the church.

53   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 am

No, Tim, we must cross reference Paul when he says we are ALL baptized by one Spirit into Christ. How, by faith. Not by the Lord’s supper, not by baptism, not by good works, not by church membership, faith and faith alone. Anything else attempts to plcae itself in the redemptive equation.

Christ died – We believe.

—————–LINE OF DEMARCATION——————

Afterward we are baptized and we receive the Lord’s supper and we do good works.

We must never break that redemptive line – ever.

54   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am

Rick,
You’re using the scriptures in a way they never would have been used by the original readers. Essentially what you’re saying is that what Paul originally wrote could not have been understood by the people he originally wrote to because they didn’t have easy access to their (and in some cases access at all) to his other writings in order to cross reference. How does that make sense at all?

(BTW, Rick, I don’t mean this as an insult, but its this kind of thinking that causes many of us to reject modernist processes as way of creating theology. At some point we need to recognize that the culture of the church now, and the theology we take for granted could not possibly have developed in the early church.)

55   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:10 am

OK, Tim, huh?

I now promulgate my recently arrived at personal fiat. There are many subjects that become counter productive because the points of view are incompatible and with no actual subset of perspective that is common. I continue to enjoy the dialogue about the church and homsexuality, but the baptism thing, I am at one end and Chris R. is at the other and you guys are in the middle.

And so it remains. I do not say you are not saved, to the contrary, but I respectfully disagree with you view on baptism which I will ridicule in private with others who see it my way. I love this game!! :)

56   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 am

And so it remains. I do not say you are not saved, to the contrary, but I respectfully disagree with you view on baptism which I will ridicule in private with others who see it my way. I love this game!!

At least you’re polite enough to only do it in public!

Actually I find poking at each other’s theology with good-natured sticks to be a great hobby. Its why I still laugh at this.

57   Evan Hurst    
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am

which I will ridicule in private with others who see it my way. I love this game!!

haha. loves it.

One Trackback/Ping

  1. Convict « Anonymous Jane    Mar 31 2008 / 10pm:

    [...] post has nothing to do with most of what I’ve typed above except that I found it very convicting.  It [...]