The Christian Library

Or any good, general history of the world. J. M. Roberts maybe. There aren't too many good non-politically-correct ones. For sacred history, other than the Bible, John Owen Biblical Theology, or Jonathan Edwards History of the Work of Redemption (minus the post-millenialism in the third part). In the same vein: Boston's Human Nature in its Fourfold State, for history from the Garden to Glorification from the point-of-view of the states of man.

It's always interesting that, the stakes being so high, we all can be so asleep to or uninterested in the fate of our souls. I mean, even committed, believing Christians. What I mean is: a pressing sense of urgency about it all is missing. Regarding evangelism as well. In most, anyway. Also just the radical knowledge and promises in the Bible, and the very fact that the Word of God is God Himself speaking to us. Unless we are in unusual circumstances, facing death or something, we can see it as we see everything else. I think it has to do with this: prior to being effectually called by the Word and the Spirit (reborn, regenerated) the reason for our lack of concern or urgency for our souls, etc., is we are deep in the bondage of sleep and illusion that the kingdom of Satan casts over all its prisoners; then, once we do awaken to the truth and learn the truth and convert and consciously give our allegiance to God and His Kingdom...everything then is always OK. I mean, no matter what, after that point, everything works out for the best. So it implants an opposite, though similar, sort of lack of sense of urgency about it all.

I'm not saying that is good or right. We're called on to build ourselves up in the faith and to make sure our salvation and so on.

I think we're also called on, as new men, to be inwardly-motivated, which is always new territory for human beings with human - all-too-human - human nature...

Satan is God's tool to tempt and expose and harden reprobates and to tempt and reveal and temper the elect.

The regenerate elect's attitude towards Satan, regarding oneself, is one of wary indifference, as towards an enemy that has been conquered. The regenerate elect's attitude towards Satan, regarding good will towards one's neighbor, is one of confrontation and battle, as to defend the faith and glorify God.

An elect of God knows Satan is a necessity in God's plan of redemption, and hence does not rail emotionally at, or get depressed because of, the evil angel and his followers and their deeds; but he also knows Satan is dangerous to the degree of eternal death and darkness without the God-given shield of faith and sword of the Spirit -- and without wary watchfulness until the return of the King.

[This is part of a comment from here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/faith-alone-in-christ-alone.html ]

I do think, though, you are getting at a central issue that you don't intend to and one that a Bible-believing Calvinist like [a certain blogger], for instance, should make clear, which is this: either you consider infant baptism to be false doctrine or you don't. Because infant baptism by default gravitates into a belief in baptismal regeneration. It just does. Even if it doesn't it's doctrinally sloppy and an ever-present slippery slope waiting for people to slip on and fall down into false doctrine. It also stunts real Christian practice regarding such things as engaging the Word of God and evangelism.

The implications for Covenant Theology are nonexistent, though. Basically:

Is regeneration or ritual water baptism how one gets into the covenant? If you say both then you believe either in the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration or you don't believe in faith alone. If you believe the Bible and not tradition - and if you've experienced regeneration - then you know regeneration is by the Word and the Spirit, period. This is real baptism. It bothers people who want a paint-by-numbers approach to the the faith, and who would rather put their faith in something they can experience with the senses rather than in something that only God can do, but -- too bad. The Bible is clear that baptismal regeneration is false doctrine and faith alone is true, biblical doctrine.

Once regenerated by the Word and the Spirit you are in the covenant. Some people don't like hearing that? It makes them uneasy? It is their carnal nature and its demands that is feeling uneasy. They need to dedicate themselves to the Word of God and become God-centered and not man-centered, and realize that faith doesn't involve outer-directed sensual experience and assurance.

So, I'm saying: if you see the truth in this then take a stand. A person who understands regeneration is by the Word and the Spirit can float freely between different Reformed, Calvinist, camps, but admit that you can do that because you are above all those camps in your understanding, and that your understanding is what is biblical.

RBs (Reformed Baptists and similar 'early-Zwinglian' type Calvinists) who know regeneration is by the Word and the Spirit and not ritual and clerics and physical trappings and who also understand Covenant Theology - Calvinism, five solas, doctrines of grace - have the truth. That is the truth. Those who can't see it don't have the discernment to see it and that's not a crime, but those who can see it should state it boldly and let the others know just what the summit of biblical truth is. It exists. Man-centered arrogance will forever accuse those who have the truth of being arrogant and whatever, but they are the blind raging against what to them is a void, and they at the same time demand to lead their fellow blind aimlessly around within the void. They resent the fact that the truth exists. Don't fear them. It's like fearing ghosts. They are particularly mocking and disgusting ghosts with their mixture of ignorance and arrogance and sneering and accusing and shaming and lack of self-awareness, but they are flitting ghosts. Give them the truth boldly and let the chips, as they say, fall where they may.

>Josh and I have fought, and fought, and fought over all things Lutheran. But when I first met him 2 years ago, he was already talking about the attempt of some Reformed Baptist quarters to police the rest of the reformation.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-johnny-cant-read.html

As a recent very much outsider let me say that when I first looked over and "got the measure" of the field (the Protestant field) it was the Reformed Baptists who were defending in the most non-wobbly way the doctrines of grace and the five solas. The Presbyterians are likely to defend the doctrines of grace then to demonstrate they can't discern a common snake in the tent on a subject as central as justification (not to mention their often crank-like excursions into, and sympathies for, liberal politics, a not-insubstantial sign of the same kind of wobbliness found in one's theology. Obviously not all Presbyterians are liberal, but I tended to see seemingly theologically conservative Presbyterian pastors spouting the usual left-wing political views when goaded by something in that direction.)

There is a question in all this, though, that Steve Hays brings up by saying he is able to "move freely" between different Calvinist groups and all that (which there's nothing wrong with), but it does by default place him at some point vertical to all those different groups. I would suggest there is a muscular "early-Zwingli" type in the Calvinism camp (of which I see myself as one of). I say "muscular" because it is fueled by an assurance of regeneration and faith that many other Protestants seem to lack to some degree or another. The Reformed Baptists are obviously the closest as a defined group to this muscular "early Zwinglian" type; but I think the type itself in its purity disdains to be labeled because they - we - ARE able to justify BIBLICALLY our position of being above the fray, so to speak, and not having a problem with other Calvinist approaches to the sacraments, for instance, as long as they are not of the nature of baptismal regeneration or something else obviously doctrinally false.

I think a mark is this: an RB who comes into a real understanding of classical covenant theology and can see it not solely in the context of sacraments or ecclesiology. This puts one in this above category, this "early-Zwinglian" category.

Zwingli was a soldier, and he was arguably the earliest and most bold and doctrinally pure reformer, in his early days. He changed, of course, but it's early Zwingli that defines the type as I'm describing it.