tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post2588881407173629224..comments2023-06-09T12:46:12.932-04:00Comments on The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia: Arthur Sidohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-50564686878469115822008-05-04T18:13:00.000-04:002008-05-04T18:13:00.000-04:00Timothy,I refrained for some time before respondin...Timothy,<BR/><BR/>I refrained for some time before responding to this, to avoid a tit for tat response that would echo the tone that these posts and comments have taken. It would have been easy to fly off the handle in an effort to match your comments and “prove you wrong”, and that wouldn’t have been profitable or honoring of Christ.<BR/><BR/>What I find so odd is how thin-skinned padeobaptists are. They think nothing of posting links to smarmy articles like Richard Muller’s “How many points” and feel free to cavalierly declare Baptists to not be truly Reformed, but dare raise the suggestion that somehow padeobaptism is wrong and point out the very real issues in the Scriptures regarding the lack of commandment to baptize infants, and somehow it becomes an un-Christlike personal attack and the moral outrage meter goes off the charts.<BR/><BR/>My fear is that in your very natural reaction to the errors of Arminianism and dispensationalism you found in some Baptist circles that you have dismissed all of Baptist theology out of hand. If Presbyterians are right on soteriology (in most cases) then they must be right on ecclesiology, right? Not necessarily so. Be cautious that in your zeal for Reformed theology that you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Semper reformanda as I understand it is not, as you suggest I believe, seeking out new doctrines but rather returning to Scripture to constantly test our doctrines. It is ironic that you point to “explicit” examples in the mid-100’s of infant baptism to support paedobaptism. Ironic because that is exactly my point, you cannot go to the New Testament to support infant baptism so you turn to the Old Testament over and above the New and extra-biblical church traditions. You are a smart guy, I hope you can set aside the confessions and just read the Bible. If you do so without preconceived notions, you will find that padeobaptism has no Scriptural warrant whatsoever, regardless of what some of the Reformed confessions state. Where the Scriptures and the confessions differ, I always will come down on the side of the Bible. <BR/><BR/>Best of luck to you as you finish school, please know your comments always have been and remain welcome here.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-4487790613897730392008-04-26T14:24:00.000-04:002008-04-26T14:24:00.000-04:00Hey Arthur, After reading all the discussions on t...Hey Arthur, <BR/><BR/>After reading all the discussions on the various blogs it saddens me to see your continual skewing of the Reformation as just soteriological and your inaccurate and arrogant claims about what Reformed theology consists. I apologize if my posts started any of this fall-out but am not ashamed of being what I believe to be biblical and what the Reformers defined as their theological stances. <BR/><BR/>One major problem that seems to be the clincher is your understanding of semper reformanda. This phrase does not mean we ever keep searching for new doctrines and beliefs. There is a set dogma that has already been established since the Apostles. It is arrogant and ignorant to think the paedobaptism began with the RCC. Documentation finds explicit evidence since the mid 100s. Semper Reformanda calls us back continually to Scripture within the context of the historical beliefs of Christianity. These beliefs do not change nor should they. They should ever be renewed by the Gospel of Christ, His objective and "outer" work. <BR/><BR/>You do not have to approve of this comment if you do not want but I do not see reason to continue supporting one another's blogs. The lack of concern for historicity and exactness is frightening and dangerous. <BR/><BR/>I appreciate the great discussions we have had in the past. ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-27556127397787072112008-04-25T23:26:00.000-04:002008-04-25T23:26:00.000-04:00It isn't a matter of playing rough, it is a matter...It isn't a matter of playing rough, it is a matter of acting in a way unworthy of those who claim the name of Christ. It is a sign of a weak position to resport, as some have, to pejorative name calling rather than substantive discussion. Converesely, I appreciate your firm yet gracious response, I replied back on your blog in what I hope is an equally gracious and God honoring way.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-27270328344892294242008-04-25T21:23:00.000-04:002008-04-25T21:23:00.000-04:00Hi Arthur,here's my reply to your latest comment o...Hi Arthur,<BR/><BR/>here's my reply to your latest comment on the HB. <BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that some of the fellows have played a little rough - this post has brought out strong feelings. <BR/><BR/>---<BR/>Hi Arthur,<BR/><BR/>Well, I'm sure I agree with Mark Dever (who is a friend and an excellent scholar) on the gospel. I do think that sacraments and ecclesiology are more important than they often seem in broader evangelicalism. I sometimes wonder whether TG4 and Ref21 are efforts to preserve the old predestinarian-evangelical coalition that once dominated evangelicalism. I've written about that more than a few times on the HB. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/three-ways-of-relating-to-american-religion/" REL="nofollow">Three ways...</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/bog-standard-evangelicalism/" REL="nofollow">Bog Standard 1</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/bog-standard-evangelicalism-circa-1962/" REL="nofollow">Bog Standard 2</A><BR/><BR/>I agree that Baptists are not heretics. I wouldn't use that adjective but I think that denying that the administration of the covenant promise to covenant children is a serious problem and even a sin. It's serious enough that, in my view, I don't see how Baptist congregations have all the marks of a pure church (BC 29). One of those marks is the "pure administration" of the sacraments. Denial of infant baptism is not a pure administration of the sacraments. <BR/><BR/>Of course they don't (or shouldn't) regard me as baptized, so I accept turn about as fair play. I don't take it personally. I have the highest regard for Ken Jones and Mark Dever and Jim Renihan. These are great men but I regard them as seriously confused on the sacraments and they probably think of me the same way (if they think of me!).<BR/><BR/>As to Bible v Confessions, well, that's not a very Baptist answer! Historically Baptists have been as confessional as the Reformed. The "just the Bible Ma'am" approach of biblicism is not a very healthy way to relate to Scripture has no roots in <EM>Sola scriptura</EM>. As Mike Horton has noted, the "bible only" approach is <EM>scriptura solo </EM> not <EM>Sola scriptura</EM>. I hope you'll keep thinking about this issue.R. Scott Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01734965995130936606noreply@blogger.com