The Deaf, the Stupid, and the Dishonest.

I often ask myself why I bother to debate with evangelicals, especially after I have done it yet again, and against my better judgement.  It seems to me that they are irredeemably stupid, deaf, and ignorant, despite their post-graduate degrees.

My motivation for engaging these types is to show them a better way, and to show them from their own Confessions and the Bible where their view of justification and the sacraments needs modifying, for the gospel’s sake.  I usually succeed in not saying things that I will regret through anger and frustration, and I strive to be patient and courteous.  But one of my failings has been to not know when to stop trying.

Why is it that people who are supposed to be highly intelligent are blind to this article of faith in the Nicene Creed?

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

I am fully aware of the political implications of actually agreeing with it, having paid the price myself, but how is it that people who do not believe it allow themselves to be ordained without declaring this exception, and, when they are made aware of its meaning when in the ministry, refuse to acknowledge it?

If anyone is an evangelical it is certain before God that he does NOT acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.  Believing it will inevitably result in immediate loss of fellowship within one’s evangelical group, and ostracism by other evangelical ministers.  

Off to the sacerdotalist outer darkness with you!

I devoutly wish that these men and denominations would have the honestly and integrity to modify their Confessions and Standards to reflect the truth about their belief on this article.


4 thoughts on “The Deaf, the Stupid, and the Dishonest.

  1. Pastor Roger,

    I just want to point something out to you quickly. Most of the men involved in the “Federal Vision” are members of a denomination that called the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Each of the “Federal Vision” pastors (Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, Jeff Meyers, etc) proudly call themselves evangelicals. Essentially you are saying that the guys your blog is linked to do not confess one baptism for the remission of sins, which is completely untrue. It seems like you are speaking about a group that is much more specific than evangelicals. Either that or they didn’t know what the term “evangelical” meant when they formed their denomination.

    Perhaps in England evangelicals are the way you describe them without question. If that is the case, I would like to point out that the situation is not like that the world around.

  2. Thanks for that Bentok. I know these men via the internet, and I agree with you in your positive assessment of them.

    However, events are showing that the evangelical churches will not tolerate their Nicene orthodoxy, and the time is coming when they will call themselves by another name.

    I think that they wish to be accepted by the evangelical reformed churches, but I do not believe that that will ever happen, unless the NAPARC churches have a sudden reversion to Westminsterian and Nicene orthodoxy.

    Personally, I am no longer an evangelical, because that name is so closely associated with Baptistic and anti-sacramental theology. I have taken the historical and accurate name of catholic and Reformed.

  3. Aside form simply accepting the literal and grammatical sense of the Creed, accepting it as is will result in immediate loss of reputation and career.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s