Luther on Baptism and Perseverance (Response to R Scott Clark)

[@mikeparker840]

It's really honoring to God and good for the body of Christ to see how self-controlled and passionate you are Dr. Cooper concerning the truth and brotherly kindness, your sharp as a razor, keep up the good work! God bless your efforts in Christ, amen.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Luther's lament that very few attended his sermons with the intention of hearing what he was actually preaching, and his overall assessment that only one in a thousand were true Christians means that the attrition rate was enormous if they were all regenerated and given the Holy Spirit when they were baptised Also seeing as the Augsburg Confession says in Article V that the Holy Spirit is given through the Gospel when and where it pleases God it seems to follow that just as the Holy Spirit isn't tied to the Word (i.e. so that regeneration is always a potential), so the Holy Spirit isn't always active through baptism in creating faith This seems to be Luther's position in the Large Catechism because he says that we pray that God will give faith to the child who is baptised which would surely be unnecessary to do if he believed that baptism always results in the regeneration of the child. Why pray for something which is automatically created if he believed that baptism always results in the creation of faith? The conclusion seems to me to be that whilst Luther believed in baptismal regeneration he didn't believe that all children who are baptised are thereby regenerated, but that only some are. If anyone disagrees with this please state your reasons. Thanks.

[@j.g.4942]

I don't know if you'll see this reply, but for those who might read anyway, The Holy Spirit certainly moves when and where He pleases, but through scripture He has promised us He works through the Word, Baptism and Communion. These places the Lutheran Confessions tell us we can be sure that the Holy Spirit is working (Isaiah 55:11), basically the Spirit has freely chosen to 'tie' Himself to these things; though perhaps He might be found elsewhere but this He has not promised. Next, the Holy Spirit is not faith, He gives it. The Holy Spirit is given in baptism, He has promised to create faith (and that none can have faith without Him; 1 Corinthians 2:14-16). Therefore just as we pray for God's Kingdom come, knowing that He has promised it, we can pray that the Spirit produces faith in the baptised. So faith is the 'natural' conclusion to baptism and the gift of the Spirit, like the Final judgement is the 'natural' conclusion to this world. I think there's a difference of understanding 'baptismal regeneration' and also the dynamics of faith/trust/belief On that Luther in the catechism tells us that faith is what holds on to the promise; the Holy Spirit, forgiveness, regeneration, new everlasting life, reconciliation with God Almighty, unity with Christ in His body the church, adoption as heirs of the Father, peace, joy and love forever, these are what is promised in baptism. Just as a desperately hungry man is foolish to spit out bread freely given, the baptised are foolish to reject these gifts freely given. Unfortunately many do (Hymenaus, Alexander, Phygelus, Hermogenes, and those antichrists named in 1 John). You're welcome to correct my understanding too, God's peace be with you

[@roymartin1385]

There's a reason no one is asking R. Scott Clark when it comes time to debate church history..............

[@jeffhein7275]

Excellent response Pastor. BTW in the word "Großer" the "ß" is actually not a "B" it is called an "Eszett" or "scharfes S" and ca also be written as "ss." Thus "Großer" would be pronounced "Grosser" not "GroBer." Blessings in Christ. Keep up the great work!

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Yeah, I recognized that after I said it and failed to correct myself. Clearly I don't read German.

[@jeffhein7275]

@@DrJordanBCooper It's all good! :)

[@Dilley_G45]

​@@DrJordanBCooper pronounced Grow-ssah

[@prayunceasingly2029]

"Clark Kent discusses Lex Luther". Oh that's not it. My mistake!

[@noelmojica]

I’ve kinda avoided this topic of infant baptism or baptism regeneration but I don’t see in scripture where water baptism is necessary for regeneration but just the INTENT or willingness of obedience to do so to receive His grace. More specifically to infant baptism one crucial passage comes to mind which I find that it directly addresses this topic at its core and that is that it’s not a parents decision or any other mans decision for anyone to become regenerated not even through any sacraments. .John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38;22:16 Mere water baptism repentance grants the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. Romans 6:3-5 Water Baptism (which buries) is death to sin, death with Christ, newness of life in Christ, and resurrection with Christ. Ephesians 5:26 Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word. Colossians 2:11 Water Baptism is the Spiritual circumcision, the circumcision of Christ. Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in water baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.* As for your believers' baptism objection, *John the Baptist had and professed faith from his Mother’s womb.* _And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ...And it happened that as she [Elizabeth] heard the greeting of Mary, σκιρτάω [leap (for joy), skip, bound] the baby in the womb of her,_ Luke 1:15, , 41 *A psalmist had faith from birth.* _For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;_ _You are my trust from my youth._ *_Upon You נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי [I have leaned myself] from my birth;_* _You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb._ Psalm 71:5-6 *David had faith from birth.* _[You made me trust] מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י while on the breasts of my mother._ _I have relied on you since birth;_ _from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God._ Psalm 22:9 *Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy.* _From βρέφους [ an unborn or a newborn child; infant, babe, child in arms] you have known the holy message._ 2 Timothy 3:15 *David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith.* _And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of νηπίων [babies] and θηλαζόντων [nursing infants] You have perfected praise’?”_ Matthew 21:16

[@scottmcdermand8697]

The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others, by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of the Baptism and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that Sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body. (Westminster Larger Catechism, 167)

[@DanielBShaw]

Presbyterian view of baptism = We hope this child is elect and will one day be regenerated

[@jeremybamgbade]

Lutheran view = this child has been regenerated, but apparently can lose his/her salvation. That's not particularly comforting to me.

[@mikebaker2436]

[Luther didn't clearly teach baptismal regeneration? I am not a published reformation scholar, but I do own a book shelf....] "......Besides these there are others, like the brethren called the Waldensians. "They teach that every one must believe for himself, and receive baptism or the Lord's supper with his own faith; otherwise neither baptism nor the Lord's supper is of any benefit to him. So far they speak and teach correctly. But it is a mockery of holy baptism, when they go on and baptize little children, although they teach that they have no faith of their own. "They thus sin against the second commandment, in that they consciously and deliberately take the name and Word of God in vain. *Nor does the excuse help them which they plead, that children are baptized upon their future faith, when they come to the age of reason. For the faith must be present before or at least in the baptism; otherwise the child will not be delivered from the devil and sins.* "Therefore if their opinion were correct, all that is done with the child in baptism is necessarily falsehood and mockery. For the baptizer asks whether the child believes, and the answer for the child is: Yes. And he asks whether it desires to be baptized, and the answer for the child is again: Yes, now nobody is baptized for the child, but it baptizes itself. " *Therefore it must also believe itself, or the sponsors must speak a falsehood, when for it they say: I believe. Furthermore, the baptizer declares that it is born anew, has forgiveness of sins, is freed from the devil, and as a sign of this he puts on it a while garment, and deals with it in every way as with a new, holy child of God: all of which would necessarily be untrue, if the child had not its own faith.* Indeed, it would be better never to baptize a child, than to trifle and juggle with God's Word and Sacrament, as if he were an idol or fool......" -Martin Luther, 1529 "Sermon for the Third Sunday After Epiphany" (Matthew 8:1-13), Part III:27-28 [My Emphasis added] German text: Erlangen Edition II, 52; Walch II, 654, St. Louis II, 478

[@mysaviourjesus4134]

Aren‘t those who are justified the elect? And if the justified can fall away, why shouldn’t the elect be able to commit the apostasy?

[@margaritalopez4990]

I am just reading the augsburg confesion, after years ago, in number 13 says that the sacrament do a diference betwen they that are christian in a external sence against those that aren't christians in a profesion sense. Then this confesion clearly doesn't agree with your thesis of regeneration and baptism. In other hand, i can agree perfectly, with that are saying Luther against catolicism about eficaciy of the baptism for whole life, and this doesn't prove the regeneration in the baptism. Bible teach this eficacy, but the context always is for the news converts... if you are honest you must agree with that, it is so clear.

[@scottmaag5890]

Very Good.

[@margaritalopez4990]

Two things more. First, the evangelical world is failing to know the great objective aspect of the baptism, and this is agreat problem for lose a big consolation and encourage for a christian life. But in the other hand, you have a big mistake doing a universal salvation turning this into something objective for everyone, it is a great error. nobody apostol argue in this way for do consolation or encourage, but the apostol Peter says "10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:10,11). And the way for security in a objective sense comes as a result like say in 2 Peter 1:8: 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[@Robofish22877]

You are a treasure Dr. Cooper! I would love to hear you do a podcast with either Pastors’ Fisk or Wolfmueller.

[@billk8874]

Now one thing to point out, I just read this morning the Augsburg Confession, the Defense of the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's Small and Large Catechism. It is clear that in the case of infants the holy ghost is not given at the moment of baptism, it is also clear that the holy ghost is not given to all that have been baptized, but it is given to many of the baptized says Luther and this is evidence that infant baptism is effective regardless whether those that are baptized ever come to faith or not. But regeneration happens at the moment a man comes to faith, and not at the moment somebody is sprinkled with water, baptism must be accompanied by saving faith. Neither Luther nor the confessions state at any point that all baptized infants have faith or don't have faith, this topic is simply not addressed. However, it is clear that faith is required in addition to baptism, and baptism without faith does not save, Luther disagreed with the Roman Catholics that taught baptismal regeneration in that Luther added that faith must accompany baptism and where faith is wanting baptism does not save. And clearly it was Luther's position that faith does not always accompany baptism, so Luther did not teach baptismal regeneration.

[@AnUnhappyBusiness]

Bill K how about this: ‪ That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine. This is Calvin

[@billk8874]

@@AnUnhappyBusiness It might, Calvin's doctrine is similar but not the same as Luther. Yet you are right, Calvin teaches like Luther that the remission of sins is granted apart from faith at baptism, and so is regeneration. When I read Luther's larger catechism, he clearly teaches that in infant baptism the remission of sins is granted apart from faith (just like Calvin does). But he doesn't think this is contradictory to his teaching that faith alone justifies, because faith needs an object. More modern Lutherans also in the doctrine of objective justification affirm that the remission of sins takes place in infant baptism regardless whether the infant comes to faith or not. This was a dispute between the Norwegian and Finnish synods in the 19th century, the finnish synod affirm that an infant cannot be justified without faith, while the Norwegian synod affirmed the opposite and this position prevailed since. So I am not sure why Jordan Cooper is trying to prove that an infant that is one week old has faith, when in fact it is not necessary for the salvation of the infant to have faith, since his sins were taken away at baptism apart from faith. As a matter of fact the remission of sins at baptism is the object of faith, and must be believed once the infant grows up.

[@yellowblackbird9000]

Did you even watch the video?

[@noelmojica]

I’ve kinda avoided this topic of infant baptism or baptism regeneration but I don’t see in scripture where water baptism is necessary for regeneration but just the INTENT or willingness of obedience to do so to receive His grace. More specifically to infant baptism one crucial passage comes to mind which I find that it directly addresses this topic at its core and that is that it’s not a parents decision or any other mans decision for anyone to become regenerated not even through any sacraments. .John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[@raphaeldasilva3269]

@@AnUnhappyBusiness As a Lutheran myself, one of the best comments on the subject of baptismal regeneration that I have ever seen was from an anglican (ACNA Anglican) commenting on the youtube video between Dr. Jordan Cooper and Matthew Everhard. Here is the quote that you can still find below the video : "Lutheran theology consciously tries to interpret the New Testament on regeneration in keeping with earliest church fathers-that what John and Paul mean by regeneration happens (or begins) at the moment of baptism, with the result that there might be a temporal separation between repentance and regeneration. Reformed theology, naturally, follows Calvin, “By repentance I understand regeneration,” e.g., that the conscious experience of certain mental states is what the New Testament means by rebirth. Looming in the background is what one generally understands τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ-the reign (or kingdom) of God-to mean in the New Testament. Lutherans (and many Anglicans) argue, citing some literature of the second temple Jewish context and contextual hints of the Bible itself, that τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ is the reign of God, his work on earth as in heaven, not just heaven-that entering the βασιλεια of God doesn’t mean going to heaven when one dies (not that it would exclude it). The Reformed (in my experience) take the view that it’s heaven. This naturally has a tremendous impact on how one reads texts like John 3 (especially 3:5). Calvin, essentially taking kingdom of God to mean heaven, and thus John 3:5 giving a condition upon which salvation is possible, inferred that being reborn couldn’t simply mean what happens at the moment of baptism since some are saved without baptism. While this view isn’t found in the church fathers (not in the 38 volumes put together by the Reformed scholar Philip Schaff and the others I’ve checked, at any rate), it does make sense if τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ just means heaven. (Similarly, there’s the effort in Reformed thought to keep repentance contemporaneous with regeneration to keep TULIP intact.) What folks in Reformed and Arminian circles mean by ‘regeneration,’ Lutherans just call repentance-contrition and faith (there are historical reasons why repentance take such somber tones in a lot of theologies that might not be warranted from the Jewish use of the Greek word generally translated ‘repentance’ in English, μετανοια.) I admittedly lean toward the Lutheran view, but am curious to see what support exists in second temple Jewish and possibly Patristic literature (it’s possible I’ve missed some sources) for the Reformed view. It all comes down to what the authors meant by their words and what we can extrapolate from what they meant-context is king, both the immediate textual contextual and the cultural-historical context." I don't know who the guy is, but for me what he wrote is a masterpiece. It's all based on context and what different traditions mean for one particular word. Then when he says "there are historical reasons why repentance take such somber tones in a lot of theologies that might not be warranted from the Jewish use of the Greek word generally translated ‘repentance’ in English, μετανοια." I found these links by myself which helped me understand what he means historically doaj.org/article/06442c3cfcc442069639151df7d3d2a7 + www.abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/n/n-ht-mfin.html + www.abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/si/si-w-b.html and the wikipedia page for τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ-the reign (or kingdom) of God en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingship_and_kingdom_of_God Finally read what we Lutherans believe on the subject of baptismal regeneration from the wikipedia page and it all makes sense with the comment of the guy. Particularly where it says "The Lutheran Churches teach that "we are cleansed of our sins and born again and renewed in Holy Baptism by the Holy Ghost. But she also teaches that whoever is baptized must, through daily contrition and repentance, drown The Old Adam so that daily a new man come forth and arise who walks before God in righteousness and purity forever. She teaches that whoever lives in sins after his baptism has again lost the grace of baptism." [...] Lutherans agree that one can be saved without baptism, and a baptized Christian can lose salvation if he later falls from faith." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration#:~:text=Baptismal%20regeneration%20is%20the%20name,salvation%20is%20impossible%20apart%20from)

[@margaritalopez4990]

In other way, seems so dificult to argue that the elect will be save for sure at the same time, a regenerated person can lose the salvation. Somewhere you have to make some kind of difference to justify your argument. I don´t believe that Luther believe it. I can find that you are saying in this topic on Augsburg confession, but the reformed could afirm like say in Hebrews that a person could have the Spirit in some way that it not imply regeneration (for example King Saul)... I can find this idea in words of Jesus for example talking about parabole of the sower. A person can have some kind of faith, and this doesn´t imply regeneration because it is superficial like say Jesus. It seems that agree perfectly with Hebrews about the apostasy. And other important text that you neglect is 1 Juan 2:19:19 "19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." This text is a great statement about those that go apart of true religion, they that make apostasy, they aren´t of us.

[@mordimerlives]

You specifically mentioned that Catholics believe the grace bestowed at baptism is a one time event. However, we believe [dogmatically] that baptism leaves a permanent mark on the soul, so the idea that baptism is useful only once is repugnant to me. The gift of baptism is ubiquitous in the life of a believer. The reason why any of the other sacraments have effect at all is because of the residual and continual effect of baptism at every point of life. Even if one discards their state of grace they don't lose the gift of baptism..which is why no one ever gets baptized twice. Even if reconciliation is necessary, it's not baptism under a different form, but receives it's effect only by the power of baptism.Thus the power of baptism is necessary not just to receive the other sacraments licitly but for them to have any power at all. We believe (and you probably disagree) but Sanctifying grace is the infusion of God himself [indwelling] to the believer's soul through the three theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love. Any amount of sanctifying grace is sufficient to go to heaven, and without sanctifying grace we cannot go to heaven (or purgatory). Thus sanctifying grace is both sufficient and necessary to go to heaven. When we were baptized we receive sanctifying grace. When we walk away (sin mortally), we discard all of that for the cares of this world. Reconciliation brings us back and gives us sanctifying grace again. If this were the only thing that happened at baptism it would be understandable to think the two sacraments do the same thing basically. However, baptism does so much more then give us sanctifying grace. Why? Because we have a fallen nature, baptism is the means by which our nature is renewed to it's perfect state.Thus Baptism *prepares* us to receive sanctifying grace in a way that would be impossible without it. This is why only the baptized will enter heaven, because only the baptized can receive sanctifying grace (the indwelling of God), and without the indwelling of God it is impossible to enter heaven. Now some may wonder what about those that were never baptized with water. Baptism in it's purest form is the changing of the nature of man by removal of his sin nature and reconstruction of the glorious nature. This is necessary to receive sanctifying grace and thus in this sense everyone must be baptized to enter heaven. This is separate and distinct from the ritual of baptism which is how we enact the former. The ritual of baptism is generally guaranteed to perform a metaphysical baptism but a metaphysical baptism may take place even without a ritual baptism by means known only to God. Thus God can 'baptize' whoever and whenever at any moment before the person's death and thus give his gift of eternal life to them. Finally, some people say that we can baptize another person..this is incorrect. God is the one who baptizes we only preform the ritual.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Thanks for the clarification regard the RC perspective.

[@mordimerlives]

​@@DrJordanBCooper I really respect you btw. You have presented some very persuasive arguments for Lutheranism. The caliber of your argumentation is very strong. While, I think you sometimes fail to understand the nuance of the Catholic position on some points, generally you are very informed and I've learned a lot from your in passing references to other ancient reformed thinkers. And It's obvious you take great pains to present RCC as fairly as possible rather than straw man an easier caricature of the RCC.

[@margaritalopez4990]

A clasification, i am not a fan of Clark, he doesn't tesch the reformed faith on many points and distorts history when he us interested... I don't like either Westminster Seminary.

[@dimitri1225]

Is it proper to say that an adult person who comes to believe in Christ through the preaching of the Word is justified but not saved until he or she is baptised ? Is there a difference between salvation and justification ? My understanding is that such a person is justified but salvation, which i take to mean the remission of the consequences of sin namely eternal punishment,is not given to such a person until the sacrament of baptism is conferred upon him.By doing this i separate justification and salvation,temporally, and maintain justification to be the state in which the person is certain to receive salvation in baptism,either in the ordinary way or extraordinary way ,which is baptism of desire.Of course a non-elect person would not be granted baptism of desire.Hence the formula in Eph.2:8-9 is not violated,salvation by grace through faith.Am i correct or am i missing something here ? Please help me out on this pastor.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

We are not saved just because we are baptized. Only those who persevere by avoiding sins and doing good works can be saved. What if an adult person, a non-Christian, came to believe in Christ and was preparing for Baptism, only to be killed in a traffic accident before the Baptism? What would happen to his soul? The ancient Church taught, and the modern day Catholic Church teaches, that that person has "baptism of desire", he desired to be baptized, and can still be saved.

[@dimitri1225]

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh works don't contribute to salvation a good work can not remit a sin.By being in the Body of Christ one is saved

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@dimitri1225 You need to read the book of James.

[@scottmaag5890]

Good.

[@atanasiogreene8493]

Clark tried to claim that Philip Melanchthon was reformed in his theology and that he believed the reformed view of communion.

[@atanasiogreene8493]

Saxon Murray Melanchthon did not hold to Calvinism otherwise the Lutherans would have excommunicated him and considered him a heretic.

[@jordantsak7683]

Baptism saves. Baptism is the new world of grace with us in it. Baptism is the body of Christ. Christ saves us by grace through faith. He regenerates us by the word and the sacraments. The Holy Spirit brings to us His love, His grace, His justification through the sacraments. The incarnation continues. Christ is still physically where the church is, and the church is where the word and the sacraments are. Baptism saves us not by itself but because of the word in the water, because of the promise delivered to us physically. Reformed theology (not Calvin's) is heretical, it is a combination of gnosticism, nestorianism, arianism, monophysitism. It denies the incarnation. Is Baptism magic? No. Baptism saves us (it delivers to us His grace, forgiveness, communion) and is a fully salvific fact for us when He also delivers to us the spiritual eyes to see what happened to us in Baptism. Baptism saves us but we see it by faith. No faith, no realization of what happened there. Baptism is for the faith a physical element of grace you can trust on when yourself disappoints you. If faith is only a spiritual thing it is problematic because you always have to prove it by deeds. You become introspective. If faith is a spiritual AND physical things is healthy because when frustrated by yourself and your process in ''holiness'' you have to trust something outside you, you have to trust completely to His promise, and this is SALVATION. We are saved, dear ''reformed'' people, by grace through faith delivered to us by the Spirit via the word AND the sacraments. Wish to see it one day. Read Calvin and let the ''reformed'' and ''calvinists'' sing their futile song of heretical theology.

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

Theres a nice paper on this by a guy whose name I dont remember, which is called "Why Luther is quite not protestant", you can find it freely on Scribd. It was published in Pro Ecclesia if I'm not wrong.

[@rorshakks]

This is one of four reasons for why I left Lutheranism for the Reformed side. Mr. Cooper's response was utterly unconvincing.

[@kingsaviorjesus]

What was the other 3 reasons you left Lutheranism for Reformed?

[@rorshakks]

@That Lutheran Guy Oooo zing you got me. Tragically it's the reverse. Now go get yourself some more papalisms.

[@rorshakks]

@That Lutheran Guy Right, R. Scott Clark refuted them and that was my response. Please try to pay attention. Your supposed false teachings list was answered and shredded hundreds of years ago but you don't understand Calvin so there ya go. Maybe Cooper's rosary will bring you solace. Or do you have your own?

[@johnnywatson4914]

So in other words, you rejected the Bible for a system.

[@rorshakks]

@@johnnywatson4914 You a fan of Johnny "Guitar" Watson? Not a rejection by any means but a wonderful presentation of systematic theology showing up in the Bible and explained by Reformed thought in doctrine, practice and worship.

[@billk8874]

I hate to be uncharitable towards R Scott Clark, but before he gets taken seriously he must confess that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24 hour days and rested on the 7th day. According to R Scott Clark, God created the world over billions of years. If R Scott Clark doesn't believe the history of creation, how can anybody take him seriously on anything else he teaches ? The man may not have saving faith to begin with, because Hebrews 11:3 clearly teaches that by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, and R Scott Clark does not believe that the word of God created the heavens and the earth, but instead some lengthy natural processes over billions of years created the world we have today. R. Scott Clark must be exposed, because he is a false teacher on the book of Genesis, and if you don't understand creation and Genesis, you most likely do not understand Christ and redemption. So frankly, R Scott Clark may be a theology professor, but the question is whether he's a believer or not ? I think not, but I have to admit that only God knows the answer and not I.

[@MortenBendiksen]

It makes no sense to me that all was created in 24 hour days. An hour is a human concept based on the passing of time in our experience. The genesis text exists for us to relate to. It is true in some sense, but it has nothing to do with a scientific account of how God created the world. It has more to do with what it means for us. I suspect you have an idolatrous view of scripture there. It's fine to believe such things, but the moment you use that belief to justify not taking others seriously, it has become idolatry (which we are all guilty of constantly, so don't feel too bad). Any image we construct in our minds, can become a distraction from the Word of God, when we take it for being reality itself. You must never think that the images you construct in your head when you read a text about how God operates, actually are God. They can only give hints. Billions of years actually makes even less sense when talking about creation. It's fine in science as there it is simply a useful way of talking about unfolding of phenomena from our shared experience and perspective. It is a human calculation of time using our concepts of how time unfolds for us right now, and projecting that back onto phenomena we have never experienced arising from a reality which we never participated in. However, the phenomena we perceive and measure are not the same as what they represent. The underlying reality doesn't behave as our conceptions do apart from our perceiving them. God breathes us, and he breathes through us to achieve His goals, and time is simply our experience of this process unfolding. If he intends to communicate with us through a text as we are, he must use our concepts. Can you imagine God trying to explain how time actually unfolds and how atoms and quarks and electrons and neutrons and what ever underlies these phenomena actually operates and how time relates to them, to some poor soul some thousand years ago? It would first of all have accomplished nothing, it would have not been relatable to anyone back then, nor now. And noone would even have remembered or bothered to even write it down. God can never tell us The Truth (without making us into Him first ), he can only point towards The Truth, and tell us what we need to hear. I'm sorry for the long comment here. I'm not saying much, only using many words to say something simple.

[@billk8874]

@@MortenBendiksen so, to believe that the bible describes historical events is idolatry ? So you do not believe that God created man from dust as scripture teaches and breathed life into it ? When we die die we become dust and you do not believe God can turn dust into a human being like Adam ? Then how can you believe in the Resurrection ? Unless Jesus comes soon before I die or shortly thereafter my entire body will be turned into dust, God better be able to resurrect us from the dead, otherwise we would have perished eternally and remain as dust. Or if you are cremated your body turns into ashes, if God cannot bring us back from these ashes into life then we must deny the resurrection of our bodies from the dead. If you start reading the bible metaphorically, then you are denying that God operates supernaturally and you will end up denying all supernatural events in the bible as myth. Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a fish and spent three days inside a fish ? Do you believe Elijah was fed by ravens in the wilderness ? Do you believe Elijah resurrected the son of the widow of Zarephath ? Or is God a liar when he inspired the authors of the bible to write about these historical events ? Or maybe God inspired them to write poems instead of historical events ? Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ poetry or a historical event ? In Genesis it is clear that God spoke creation into existence by his Word Instantaneously, when he said there be light there was light or let there be mountains or diamonds or whatever. God did not create the Great Canyon in Colorado through 6 million years ago as the geologists and R Scott Clark believe. R Scott Clark is worshipping the creature, nature, rather than the creator. He believes mountains or diamonds or oil and gas sediments were created over millions of years, whatever the latest scientific fad comes up with. Genesis 1 teaches that God created oil and gas 6500 years ago. Who do you believe the bible or Science ? Geology like evolution is a pseudo science that thinks that given enough time species evolve or oil and gas formations develop, the reality is the opposite, when a species becomes extinct it disappears and when the world runs out of oil there will be no more oil created by natural processes. That is the end of it, this is why it is a non renewable resource that God spoke into existence and created by his Word. When science denies the supernatural creation of the universe by God and speculates about whatever natural processes caused it to come into being, it makes war against scripture and must be rejected. Or else we deny the faith, it is Christ, the Word of God that created the heavens and the earth and all its inhabitants, it is not natural geological and biological processes. I know R Scott Clark does not teach that man evolved from other forms of life, but he teaches that the earth is billions of years old and man has been on earth for a much longer period of time than scripture teaches and there are generation gaps in scripture and so forth. The problem with this is that even scientists agree that languages and agriculture and religion appeared less than 10000 years ago. So was Adam a Neanderthal ? At the beginning of Genesis 4 scripture teaches that Cain was tilling the land and Abel had livestock, and they are the first two people after Adam and Eve, so clearly Cain and Abel lived less than 10000 years ago. But biology teaches the first man lived 2 million years ago and was a caveman that communicated with grunts, and was not religious. Yet scripture tells us the first man Adam already had a knowledge of God, or better spoke directly with God. We must destroy the idol of science before we can come to faith, R Scot Clark is an idolater and it is is fair game to challenge his faith in Christ, because you cannot possibly have faith in Christ and believe the earth is billions of years old as he does.

[@billk8874]

@@MortenBendiksen And what about the flood, in reality all men are descendants of Noah and his wife, since all men were killed at the flood of Noah.which was 1656 years after creation according to James Ussher's chronology which is as accurate as we can get. So really all men inhabiting the planet today descend from one man that lived 4500 years ago. When God made a covenant with Noah to never destroy all the inhabitants of the earth the way he did at the time of the flood, do you believe this is a historical event ? Here's the thing if you answer no, then you have no faith. And this is exactly why people are not going to church any longer today, because so many churches do not believe the bible is an accurate depiction of history. And the churches that do not believe in the historicity of the Genesis account are frankly disappearing, who would go to those churches ? I would run away from them as fast as I can, they are in apostasy. Faith in Jesus Christ is incompatible with a denial of the historical events in Genesis, and no Christian who has the holy spirit should have communion with those that deny the historic events in Genesis. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod recently affirmed the creation in 6 24 hour days, it is part of the Christian confession blogs.lcms.org/2019/convention-confesses-god-created-the-world-in-six-natural-days/

[@MortenBendiksen]

@@billk8874 I believe all those things are possible for God, and have no problem if it should turns out the pictures in my head when I read it is exactly what transpired. I believe the Bible itself tells me that is impossible. I would ask you: do you think it is necessary for the processes that God uses to create, to fit neatly and completely into human language and thought at any point in time. Do you think God's plans are necessarily constrained by what language and thoughts we humans have? I think sometimes things transpire that sinply are not describable by or for humans, and even less possible to communicate or write down into scrolls. I think that the miracles are events that took place, and that what was written down is the best possible account of the essence of their reason for being recorded. The reason they were recorded and remembered is because they were miraculous interventions by God to control the story as it unfolds. I believe they are more magnificent than what we can imagine, though what was recorded is what illustrates the point in the way that is possible to relate to for the people and culture of the time, and still carry the meaning and purpose of it forward in history. It is not idolatry to have the wrong image in your head, that is inevitable. What might become idolatry is if you use that image as an excuse to ignore the real meaning of all the stories. That quickly devolves into a denial of the purpose and meaning, especially in modern peoples minds, which see a dichotomy between symbolic and real, which people didn't before. We clearly read something completely different when we read the Bible today, than what people used to do. As a simple example: ancient people didn't have different concepts or words for spirit, wind, breath. These things were the manifestation of the same thing which permeates and moves everything. In one way that is not wrong, but certainly in our conceptualisation it makes no sense, and we are forced to think of it as it being either one or the other, and we completely miss the meaning of certain things. There are many more examples of such concepts. They lived thoroughly embedded in their world, and everything meant something, and everything was connected. To them there would be no difficulty accepting an act like, say, the lords supper, as both symbolic and real and physical and spiritual at the same time. They were already thinking in those terms about everything. They could feel the wind, spirit, breath of the gods on their bodies, and see it creating the world around their very eyes. It's obvious they has a deeply symbolic relationship to reality itself. To them, what was being symbolised by events is more real than the perceived representations, though they didn't really see the distinction between symbol and reality as such.

[@billk8874]

@@MortenBendiksen You see I do not see it like you, as far as the importance of the cultural context at the time and so forth. The bible was written for people of all times, and its narrative is descriptive of actual historical events. It is not for us to make images or whatever, it is like reading a history book, it is not a literary masterpiece, neither prose nor poetry. The bible is simply a narration of the historical events that took place and the promises of God associated to these historical events. With that said there are a few exceptions, for example the book of Revelation is clearly a dream that the Apostle John had, so it is prophesy of the end times that God gave the apostle John in a dream. And certainly the author uses symbolic language (different animals, and even Jesus is described as a lamb obviously in a symbolic way). Same language appears in some of the revelations God gave to Daniel, another example is Jesus spoke in parables which obviously use symbols to explain a reality. With that said we cannot say that the history of creation in Genesis is a parable, or the resurrection of Christ, or any of the miracles in the Old Testament. Those are real historic supernatural events that must be believed by faith. Doing otherwise would completely destroy the historical narrative of scripture, and would turn the Bible into a fable written by men.