Water to Wine: Jesus and Joy

11 thoughts on “Water to Wine: Jesus and Joy”

1. Two words about Pitchford: infant sprinkling. Two more words: Roman Catholic. And finally one word: unscriptural. Now one statement: More people have been condemned to hell by the doctrine of infant sprinkling than any other doctrine.

2. Mr. “Anonymous”–

   Why do you insist on posting such evil, arrogant, and ignorant comments? Please remember that One Day, you also will stand before Jesus Christ and give an account for every careless word spoken [Matthew 12:36].

   I think you are under deep obligation–for the sake of the Truth and Name of Christ–to either do some serious apologizing or else some significant exegeting [or both].

   Here [and elsewhere] you insinuate strongly that Reformed Theology is damanable, heterodox, and worthy of utmost repugnation. Accordingly, you proceed to attack certain propoents of it–like Bob Hayton and Nathan Pitchford.

   If you insist on continuing to attack the Reformed understanding of Scripture [and such men who laud it], I would like to urge upon you a few points of Biblical admonition/consideration, knowing full well that unless the Holy Spirit does a miracle of grace in your soul you will conintue to think and act in ways which deeply dihonor Christ.

   1. Please remember that in all of our “earnestly contending for the faith” we must labor to retain demanors of “love” [Ephesians 4:15] and “kindness” [2 Timothy 2:24] and “gentleness” [Philippians 4:5]. There is no excuse for “brow-beating.” There is a way to contend and argue and rebuke–in such a way that love is evident and grace is administered. The reson, I think, that the aforementioned “commentators” have been so concerned for you in this area is that love is the chief fruit of the Holy Spirit and the prime indicator to the world of the authenticity of who we are/what we preach [Galatians 5:22; John 17:23]. Certainly love rejoices with the truth–but in so doing it never becomes haughty or harsh [I Corinthians 13:4-7]. “Love-talk” is no mere Neo-fetish; rather, it is a Christ-ian reality and necessity. Please show some genuine kindness and love in your writing. Please demonstrate that you are a brother longing to see us “come to the proper understanding,” or a father heart-broken and soul-earnest over our “departure from the truth” …but please stop coming across as a trigger-happy enemy soldier bent upon our utter demise. And that is how you are coming across.

   2. Please guard against harmful and wrongful misrepesentations. Nathan Pitchford and Bob both agree with you that Roman Catholicism is a damnable heresy and a false religion. Such a fact could easily be gleaned from a serious reading of their posted materials, and/or the briefest interaction with them via e-mail. Why did you feel justified in identifying [in an arrogant, uphanded, and categorical fashion] Mr. Pitchford with Roman Catholicism? You wrongly and ignorantly [and very decietfully] imply that Pitchford and Pope Benedict believe and teach the same thing about baptism! That is wrong; that is deeply immature and irresponsible; that is uncalled for; pure and simple, that is sin. In fact, Mr. Pitchford and myself have undergone significant opposition and turmoil in recent months here in central North Dakota because of our pointed comments against Roman Catholicism on the radio. You seem to think, sir/maam, that the espousal of Protestant paedo-baptism is indistinguishable from Roman Catholic infant-bapitsm-for- salvation. But here you are refusing to read/think/understand, because no Reformed paedo-baptist in history has ever taught that baptism saves anyone! Perhaps, though, to give you the benefit of the doubt, you may be thinking that Protestant paedo-baptism is such an unBiblical and dangerous position that it would necessarily lead some people to think of it as Catholic. If such was your take, you are still not excused in the wrongful misrepresentation. For instance, I assume your church [granted that you attend a church of some kind] practices marriage. Well, R.C. teaches that marriage is one of the sacraments. So does that make your church Roman Catholic–or liable to being accused “Catholic-like”–because it also practices marriage [but not for salvific purposes]? Or what about the Lord’s Supper & Eucharist? To the deeply ignorant and foolish outsider, both practices might seem the same. Does that mean he would be justified in lumping the two together? Protestant paedo-baptism and Catholic infant-baptism are as different as night and day. Either you remain vastly untrained in history and theology, or you engaged in a harmful and foolish “smear-tactic” to put down the position you strongly disagree with. Either way, you are guilty of gross misrepresentation. Please take care not to do that in your future posts.

   3. Please labor to root your assertions and rebukes, etc. in Scriptural reasoning. I do not think that this is too much to ask. You seem very confident in making some very bold and confrontational statements. Please do not expect people to respect you or to even give you the time of day if you refuse to carefully and humbly explain why you say what you are saying, and thereby direct people’s faith to God’s Word and not merely to your own cavalier thoughts or opinions. Posts on both Nathan’s blog and my brother’s are marked by serious and belabored Biblical reasoning. It helps no one for you to step into the conversation and start issuing rebukes when you refuse to take seriously or even interact meaningfully with what has been written. Yor irritable and passionate generalisms [though specifically thrown at Bob and Nathan] actually do much more to discredit you than to disarm them. Until you resort to some serious Biblical exposition and thoughtful reasoning yourself, you present yourself as merely a loud-mouthed nameless madman bent on causing rucous for its own sake. I intend no offense by such words, but it is important, sir/maam, that you understand how unhelpful you are being to anyone who reads your comments. If you truly wanted to help, then I would really encourage you to graciously and carefully dialogue with Biblical arguments and counter-arguments. Otherwise all you accomplish is a) discrediting [needlessly/prematurely] yourself and your positions; b) wasting precious time [both yours and ours] and c)dragging down the Name of Christ by unreasonably attacking your brothers in Christ. Please, if you have a meaningful contribution [no matter how dissenting from Reformed theology] to make to our understanding of the Bible–please do so; otherwise I would ask you to do everyone a favor and refrain from any further comments. Please don’t take my words as hurtful or slamming; I do not intend them in such a way. Rather, please hear all this as a desperate plea for reason and the importance of interacting with each other like Bereans, not Bolsheviks.

   4. Please consider the value of prioritization in doctrine. This really is a true and Biblical practice [Matthew 23:23, Hebrews 6:1-3]. I mention this because you “seem” [I admit limited exposure to you] to employ the same vehemance and energy for fighting against Protestant paedo-baptism [and for certain points of your understanding of Fundamentalism]–you seem to use the same energy for these causes as you conceivably would for the Gospel itself. Forgive me if I am making an incorrect inference [seriously]. But if I am correct in my inkling, then I would urge you begin drastically prioritizing the way in which you hold onto certain doctrines that are not central to the Christian faith. Surely, if you and I both share the Biblical truth of salvation being by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone [being discovered and rooted in the Scriptures alone as our final authority]–should we not then experience a profound and deep-seated unity and partnership that far outweighs other real differences that may exist between us? If we both name the Name of Christ, and are mutually laboring to depart from inquity–is there not far more that unites us than divides us? More importantly, how can Christ be honored, per John 17 & Romans 14 & Philippians 2, etc., if we insist on bitterly separating from each other over obviously [Biblically] non-essential matters? So, if am mistaken in how you view separation/unity, please pardon me as I rejoice that you do view us as partners in the Gospel. Otherwise, please, I beg of you, please consider, for Christ’s sake–not ours, your divine obligation to be truly united with other believers–even those who may be weak in the faith or who may differ on matters of nonessential doctrine [Romans 14:1, Ephesians 4:3, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Corinthians 1:2]. And toward that end I would ask you to carefully [and measurably] prioritize Biblical doctrine. It is all important; but some parts are infinitely more important than others.

   5. Please ponder the forthrightness of your identity and motives. It does concern me when folks who jump so heavily into such discussions adamantly refuse to identify themselves and/or cloud their motives in ambiguity. Perhaps you have a good and Biblical reason for retaining anonymity, I do not know. I do have my suspicions as to who you may be [Kent Brandenburg?], but I think others [myself included] would appreciate knowing exactly who it is who is so harshly rebuking and challenging them. I also think that the Biblical model is one of forthrightness–1 Thessalonians 2:3. Therefore, please do identify yourself and also your motives. If you are not trying to meaningfully affect the content of our conversations, why are your posting comments? Do you have a personal vandetta against Bob? Are you frantically [but foolishly, I would have to say] trying to minimize the influence that Bob’s blog [and Nahtan’s] may have on others whom you know? Are you lonely or craving of an audience, and just want to be heard? Please: I am not impunging motives. I am just trying to figure out what they are, since they are nowhere stated [that I have yet come across]. If you would have been sincerely trying to contribute to the discussions at hand, whether by affirmation or disagreement, no one would need to question your motives. But since such is certainly not the case, your motives are most suspect. Please, for the sake of Christ and the integrity of His Name, please identify yourself and make clear your motives for joining a discussion that heretofore you have not meaningfully nor helpfully entered. Please “come out from behind the bush” and join us in humbly laboring to understand and apply the Word together.

   Even though we do not know you [except Bob, perhaps–depending on who you are], we do love you in the Lord Jesus. And it is such love that compels me to write this to you and beg that you would quickly temper your comments with grace and with truth–so that Christ’s Name would be glorified. You are very welcome to comment on this blog [in my opinion], provided you truly write toward the better understanding of Scripture, and not for the tearing down of the brethren.

   We are sinful and finite, and therefore very prone to being wrong on a number of things [just like yourself]. But, by the grace of God, we are not “false teachers,” and we would appreaciate not being treated as such. May God have great mercy upon each of us, continue to open our eyes more to the glory of Christ, and lead us into further unity in the advance of His Kingdom!

   Sincerely,

   David Hayton

3. Hey, here is one KJV-Only Fundamentalist who loves his liquor.

   God Bless

4. Are you arguing for infant sprinkling then? Inside the barrel, it looks like all criticism is unloving and that all toleration is loving. If Pitchford is thankful for infant sprinkling, he won’t have any problem with those two words. And if Bob doesn’t mind infant sprinkling, sees it as part of a true gospel, with keen, exegetical discernment, then he won’t mind it either.

   Infant sprinkling came from Roman Catholicism, and it is a damning doctrine, replacing a Scriptural gospel. Nowhere is sprinkling taught, and nowhere is infant baptism taught in the New Testament. I would argue Scripturally, but it isn’t in there. I just have to say, “Show me one verse.” The results of the false doctrine: Many condemned. Yet, Pitchford gets great acceptance, little criticism, why is that? Condemning people seems to be unloving. If Bob and Pitchford are so clearly unassociated with Catholicism in their blogs, then what I have posted will be no threat to them. Having evangelized many protestants (most of them aren’t converted) I have found the infant sprinkling issue to be foremost in their mind. That is what false doctrines will do. Just like someone could argue that his idols are not intended as images of worship, just to enhance the worship. That you see little danger in it is tell-tale. Your attempt at exposing some logical fallacy with your marriage parallel doesn’t work because the Bible teaches marriage, but doesn’t teach infant sprinkling. Now, if I were you at this point, first after having talked about how to speak in love, I would inform you of how you need a logic class.

   C. S. Lewis seemed to be the type of person who prioritized doctrine in his teachings like you represent. He had a life-changing, astounding influence on John Piper, Bob’s pastor, and toward his “Desiring God” credo. You should look at what this kind of prioritization did to C.S. Lewis and others as a warning.

   I haven’t used the words evil, arrogant, and ignorant (then loud-mouth, rucous, mad-man, among others). A lot of unbiased people would consider those to be unloving. Name one evil, ignorant, and unloving comment that I have made. I could name many that you guys have made. The best you can come up with is: “insinuate” and, Bob, “imply.” I certainly haven’t said reformed theology is damnable (or damanable). Adding to grace is. Perhaps you guys could take a deep breath and consider whether you aren’t just a little thin-skinned, overly sensitive, otherwise known as wimpy. John Bunyan wouldn’t be so reactive of the style as you are.

   If I attack the doctrine of men, is that attacking the men? What Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther did was attack the men. I think I could attack the men, but I haven’t started doing that yet, as you have. At worst, I’ve said Bob is young. Having suffered that comment, who else would even continued blogging? Do I want people to trust those espousing false doctrine? No. Is Bob doing that? Yes. Do I think I’ll change him. Not likely. Is it possible that he could be discredited. More likely. He deserves discrediting. No, I don’t want you to know who I am because the entire issue would become my identity, so you’ll have to deal with that. Otherwise, people should consider what I say.

5. Anonymous,

   If you truly are laboring in love for the doctrinal edification of believers whom you think are in error, then I commend you. All of us need rebuke, exhortation, and encouragement to be more faithful to the scriptures. However, despite your good motivations (I am accepting your claims at face value), the method you have chosen is, I believe, unhelpful. If we are ever to change, we must be confronted by the Word of God (see, for example, John 17:17). Therefore, I would humbly ask that you be overtly scriptural in your criticisms. It is no avail to banter back and forth about whose styles of speech, willingness to confront error, etc., are more loving, if the doctrinal error (so perceived, at any rate) is not biblically confuted. Your assertion that, because infant sprinkling is not explicitly taught in the scripture, therefore it should not be opposed with biblical references/lines of thought, is somewhat unfair: On this blog, as well as others, scripturally-sound arguments have been brought forth that would, in the minds of many sincere (and I think able) expositors of scripture, constitute necessary and compelling biblical bases to validate the practice. What those scriptures are, I forbear here to mention, because the question is entirely off-topic (and thus in contradiction of Bob’s request for comments on his blog). On that note, I will sign out — but remember that any time you would like to discuss scriptural reasons for why we believe the way we do (Bob and I differently on this particular topic, by the way) there are other posts accomodating that search.

   Let me add one more observation (if I may be so presumptuous): I hope you will concede the necessity of formulating scriptures together for the precise expression of clear doctrinal truths: nowhere in scripture, for instance, is the statement clearly made, “There is One God, eternally existing in three Persons.” Neither will you find explicit reference to women partaking of the Lord’s Supper (just as you will find no explicit reference to infants partaking of baptism). The question, then (in these instances and others), is not, “Does scripture have any explicit reference to such taking place?”, but rather, “Are there multiple scriptural truths which, when conflated, lead us to this necessary understanding?”.

   Thank you again for your expression of desire to confront doctrinal error. Please be considerate enough of our need to submit our consciences to the Word of God that you will resolve only to do so by making appeal to the scriptures. See Acts 2:42; Acts 15:12-19; II Timothy 2:14-19; II Peter 3:15-18.

6. Warning: This will take on characteristics of a ramble.

   I don’t know if you noticed Pitchford, but you argued your last point with a non-Scriptural argument. Your argument was, “The Trinity is not in the Bible.” Like David’s parallel of marriage with infant sprinkling, characterizing my argument my very, very short post as logically falacious, yours is also false. The Trinity is in the Bible. Infant sprinkling is not.

   I don’t like to lecture on things I think you already know, so I get straight to the point. Notice I don’t say; if you could take some theological training, something David was want to do, as an example of loving discourse, assuming that you didn’t have any. I assume all of you have had training. Bob in his own words alaughters his own, in so doing discrediting and slandering the reputation of his college professors, lovingly, of course, because Bob only does things lovingly. On the one hand he has had this terrible training in his own words, but on the other hand, we are to trust what he says.

   Of course, since you folks don’t believe God in His sovereignty, didn’t preserve every Word of Scripture, you won’t be able to use 1 John 5:7 or 1 Timothy 3:16, to help you with this point, to the glee of JWs, Muslims, and restorationists. Of course, anyone sanctified by the Truth would just go with what God said He would do, that is, preserve every Word, but on this point, perhaps you are sanctified by history or at least by 19th century rationalists.

   You must weave infant sprinkling out of an in-between-the-lines Bible that is quite popular, I’ve noticed, in the world. And then, if you don’t like what’s actually in the Bible, you can do as David asserted, and that is, prioritize the things that are important, do them, unify on them, and the rest of it can be shucked like so many corn husks, of course, for the sake of the superior doctrine of unity.

   You will find the words “sprinkle,” “water,” and and “infant” in the Bible, but unfortunately, they don’t appear together to merit their practice. On the issue of women partaking of the Lord’s supper, we would understand that, first, women were part of the body of Christ (do you need verses for these?) and that the Lord’s Supper was a communion of the body of Christ. You’ve insulted my intelligence, and I only bring that up so I can join the ranks of those offended by style.

7. Anonymous,

   My heart is grieved at your continued divisive, harmful, and unscriptural atacks — your speech that is blasphemous to the Christ I love and serve. Although it is a difficult thing to do, I believe it is an appropriate time to “smite the scorner,” that the simple might beware (Proverbs 19:25). We have sought to reason with your divisive ways once and again, and it is now time to discontinue the conversations that have profited nothing, but have only given you a platform to bring reproach upon the Name of Christ (Titus 3:10-11). I say this with a heavy heart, counting as nothing the unprovoked attacks you have made against me, but deeply grieved at the picture you have given the watching world of Christ, and at the possibility of weak brothers being led astray by your cavilings. My prayer is that God will grant you repentance and the acknowledging of the truth (II Timothy 2:25-26), and that no sheep of Christ’s flock will have ears itching to hear your quarrelsome teachings (II Timothy 4:3). If at any time you are willing to submit your conversation to the Word of God in humility and truth, and your spirit to the gentleness and meekness of Christ, then I will always be ready to take up the discussion of our thelogical differences. Until that time, I must warn the flock of Christ not to be turned aside from Christ by your quarrelsome speech. God, spare your sheep, however weak, and grant repentance to this man! Protect us all from pride and a contentious spirit, and lead us in the way of humility and truth, for the sake of your Son, in whose work we trust.

8. It was interesting to hear that no one had done any smiting yet, but now Pitchford takes upon himself to do so. Name-calling does not constitute an argument, Pitchford, words like “divisive” and “blasphemous.” You may get some amens from your little choir, but you didn’t deal with what you said you wanted, Scriptural arguments. You say “unscriptural,” but look, because you don’t point out one example of unscriptural. It amazes me that you guys think you are just going to get a chorus of agreement from people impressed with your lofty syntax, and if you don’t, you poor things, someone is being divisive and unloving. You set yourselves up as judge and jury like some reformed state church prepared to put a Baptist to death. I would fear any of you in a position of authority, so sensitive to criticism–your people having to walk in lockstep for fear of being called some derisive name by you. You end your rant praying on the street corner for all to see, in the spirit of the Pharisees. I’ve often considered legalistic Protestants and the Pharisees to be a close match. I suggest a Puritan, Thomas Watson, and his series of messages on the ten commandments on your flippant use of the Lord’s name. I went into this without expectation, but this group has quickly manifested their haughty brand of voluntary humility, continually posing in dreadful offense when they face opposition. When heat is applied, the impurities rise to the surface.

9. I imagine that those who thought you once fellowshiped with them in independent Baptist churches wish that you were as quick to defend them as you are Pitchford. If people formulate enough, they can find angels dancing on the head of a pin. It has to be in there first, to get it out. The Trinity is in there to get out. Infant sprinkling isn’t in there to get it out. I read Pitchford’s convulated trail. If I was judging his path by a sobriety test, he would have been under arrest. I’ve noticed you repeatedly using the “doctrinal equivalency” test, making space for additions to Scripture with other additions to Scripture, not even fitting of a CT evolutionist’s shortest reading. I can be happy that I didn’t get one more lecture on style from people sporting large oak trees. If you need verses proving the Trinity, Bob, I’d be glad to help you with that, just let me know. And I do wonder who or what will settle things for you, the Holy Spirit through His churches or historical, rationalistic “evidence.”

10. About Infant Baptism

    To state without qualification, as “Anonymous” does, that infant baptism sprang from the Roman Catholic church is misleading. Any student of history knows that the Roman Catholic church did not enter history complete with all of its doctrinal perversions. It gradually evolved over time adding more and more doctrines and becoming more and more monolithic and authoritative. At the point when infant baptism began to be noticed by history (the late 300s) many wholly orthodox men were involved in what could be called (in hindsight) the Roman Catholic Church). This was also the period of the defense of Trinitarianism and the Deity of Christ. Historically, it is too simplistic to write infant baptism off as merely a product of Rome.

    The vast majority of Baptists (even IFB Baptists) agree that there is a big difference between Protestant paedobaptism and Roman Catholic paedobaptism. Dr. Kevin Bauder is representative in this regard, see his article here which touches on this subject.

    That some Protestant church members confuse their baptism with a claim on God for salvation is deplorable. But many a nominal IFB Baptist or any other kind of Baptist church member or attender has a foggy view of salvation too. The Bible belt is loaded with born-again children of the world who definitely “asked Jesus into their heart” but just as definitely possess no true conversion. Perhaps we should shun the unbiblical statement “ask Jesus into your heart” as fiercely as we should shun paedo baptism in any form.

    There are several posts on this blog and on Nathan Pitchford’s which deal with infant Baptism thoroughly. “Anonymous”‘s comment “show me one verse” proves he has not even bothered reading them. I could equally ask him to show me one verse which instructs believers as to how to baptize their children. All NT texts illustrating examples of baptism deal with first-generation converts from either Judaism or paganism (or Samaritanism whatever that is). No example exists in this regard. Also all NT texts teaching baptism discuss what happened in the lives of first-generation converts when they got baptized. There is no clear text which clearly has second-generation followers of Christ in view. This point is made clear in the discussions on these blogs.

    About “the necessity of formulating scriptures together for the precise expression of clear doctrinal truths”

    “Anonymous” did not address this argument of Pitchford’s. He concludes the Trinity is in the Bible but infant sprinkling is not. Yet he cites two Scriptures to prove the Trinity not just one, exactly Pitchford’s point. 1 Tim. 3:16 (the TR reading) does not formulate the Trinity as we understand it. Neither does 1 John 5:7 (the TR reading, not that of the Majority Text or Critical Text). It does not address the eternality of the Son or the personhood of the Spirit. The Trinity is formulated through a comparison of many Scriptural passages, not a mere proof-text approach. The historical Trinitarian debates of the late 300’s never once used 1 John 5:7 to prove the Trinity, most likely because it was not an original Scripture. For this reason and others, Erasmus and Luther agreed that the verse is not genuine. The majority of thoroughly Biblical scholars have always held this view of 1 John 5:7, indeed only a handful of extremely late Greek MSS contain it, and it is demonstrably a late addition to the Vulgate.

    {“Anonymous” claims that we are restorationists for believing in the priority of the modern Critical text. Yet the TR itself restored 1 John 5:7 into the Greek tradition (presumably from the Latin tradition, although it is by no means unanimous in support of 1 John 5:7).}

    Later, “Anonymous” claims that Pitchford’s mentioning of women taking the Lord’s Supper as an example of the need to formulate scriptures together for precise doctrine “insulted [his] intelligence”. But again, “Anonymous” himself resorts to a formulation of scriptures together to prove that point.

    Clearly, “Anonymous” has not either heard Pitchford’s argument, or does not want to concede that doctrine must be formulated through comparison of Scriptures together and not a mere prooftext approach.

11. Please note this post in regards to the recent discussion. This post summarizes the discussion and declares it is now over. Any further comments by “Anonymous” will be deleted. Again check out this post for the reasoning behind this decision.

    Thank you.

Comments are closed.