Loose Ends

You may also like...

87 Responses

  1. PP Vet says:

    So well said. This old man identifies with both of you.

  2. Nonnie says:

    Sadly, I have seen the “Prophecy wonks” showing up on FB. I had not heard of St. M before yesterday, but oh, how excited they are now!!

    The video of your native American friend was riveting and so very sad. I hope that men like him will have an impact on his culture to redeem and heal what has been so abused.

  3. from this corner says:

    the prophesy wonks will always “wonk” – on everything … the tidbits that i’ve picked up of the Roman Catholic organization’s core power is fascinating, has nothing to do with Christ, Himself … but i think the Popes know Christ and must feel very vulnerable inside those walls at times – dunno –

    reading Michael’s blog today is not a happy thing, but there’s a secular love song that i like to think God might sing to each of us … and may do so someday at the end of the road … “All I Ask of You.”

    going to get a cup of coffee and watch the video

  4. steve voigt says:

    let the good times roll. they can milk this one out for years if this new pope lives a long time and the NEXT one comes to pass… in the mean time they are paying tribute to this last one.. the vatacian is joining together with ben and Jerry’s and creating a special ice cream.. they are freeaing the holy water and calling them pope cycles

  5. rick says:

    Just in case, I am thinking we should buy a heart and lung machine for the next pope. Need to keep him hanging around for as long as possible.

  6. I saw it yesterday the POPE Prophecy… I guess we have a new deadline

  7. from this corner says:

    speaking of secular love, which i did earlier … from a woman’s point of view, over time i have come to the conclusion that some of us Christian women (no one here) may ask of our men some of the things that we should ascribe to God, Himself (not thinking of fidelity, which is a reasonable expectation IMHO)… not sure what i mean … thinking … thinking … when is open blog? Saturday? not sure i can hold a thought that long at my age …

    and maybe … some men break themselves trying to meet that expectation, too … not good, i don’t believe … thinking …

    recovering from cleaning and running the vacuum, sitting here taking advantage of Michael’s blog again … 😐

  8. Anonamoose says:

    We need a really young Pope, I’m thinking around 2 years old, just in case 🙂

  9. I heard an amazing comment on Pastor’s Perspective today. I think Chuck believes in baptismal regeneration… at least in his own salvation.

    At the end of the show they were talking to a 4 yr old kid and after the conversation, Don Stewart and Greg Laurie were commenting how well the kid understood what he was talking about. Don then said to Chuck, “well that is what happened to you. Weren’t you 5 yrs old when you were saved?”

    Chuck replied (and this is where I almost ran my car off the road) “yes, when I was baptized in water.”

  10. “Evidently the next pope is the last one followed by the judgment according these forgeries prophecies.

    What do you think?”

    Haven’t thought about it. Don’t care. I am, however, enamored with the word “wonk.” Is that wrong of me?

  11. filbertz says:

    St. Malarky has the hounds in heat, huh? Always barking up the wrong tree. I’m with the Capt. Wonk is a perfect fit.

    Thanks for the links on Twiss. I’m inclined to agree he’d flown under the radar of too many, myself included. I’ll be reading more regarding him and his legacy.

  12. Lutheran says:

    I really like this article (link below) by Rod Dreher, the “Crunchy Cons” author. Rod writes about how he was enamored with being a Catholic and an EO. Then through the papal scandals, he realized he was serving a false idol — the Church.

    No matter what part of the Church we belong to — no matter our tribe — I think it’s wise to see our Church as a “companion in shipwreck.”

    I hope no one here has too romantic or rosy a view of Lutheranism. It, too, is a “companion in shipwreck” along with the rest of the Church. I believe we need to appreciate one another. I also am really glad to be part of the PP community and that Michael, I believe, has always epitomized that.

    “This is true about the Church, as I now see (and by “the Church,” I don’t mean the Roman Catholic Church only, but the church universal). I had what you might call a chivalrous view (in the sense Tolkien means) of the Church, and built an entire faith around this ideal.

    Had I been wiser, I would have seen the Church as a companion in shipwreck. As it was, I reacted as if I had learned that my Fair Lady was a whore. It was an honest reaction, but not a mature one.”


  13. Ixtlan says:

    re: your last paragraph. I had to smile some at reading that. My reaction to the church was more of a WTF than anything else. Many times, that is still my response, although you’ll find in church every Sunday.

  14. brian says:

    Richard Twiss will be missed.

  15. PP Vet says:

    MLD, obviously CS has been lurking here at PP and has been swayed by your persuasive rhetoric in support of paedobaptism.

    The only other possible explanation is that he is simply saying that in his own personal case, his experience of salvation happened to occur at the moment of his baptism.

    Similarly – I have a dear friend who was born (many years ago) on Christmas Day. He does not maintain that all Christians were born on Christmas Day, only that he was.

  16. PP – that was stupid (IMHO)

    LOL Hey, it looks like Chris Dornan can be the new poster boy for “ASH” Wednesday. 🙂

  17. PP, but that’s what we say with infant baptism – that salvation happens at the moment of their baptism. I like Chuck

  18. PP Vet says:

    When people ask to hear my testimony, I ask them:

    Do you want to hear about the drugs, the crime, the sex – or would you rather hear about the stuff from before I was saved?


    But seriously folks –

    Right after I was gloriously saved (not sure what a non-glorious salvation looks like) I excitedly called my Episcopal godfather, the priest (and a good and godly man) who had christened me many years earlier. His immediate observation was that this was an open expression of what had actually taken place at my christening.

    With all the wayward living stuck in between, I suppose.

    That, my friend, is myth and superstition.

  19. London says:

    Serious question for those who know these things…does the Pope lose his infallibility once he steps down and goes back to a more “normal” life using his own name? At what point does a pope actually become infallible anyway? When he’s sworn in (ordained or whatever the poper term for popeness is)?

    All reminds me a bit of that wonderful old Tom Conti movie “Saving Grace” a bit.

  20. The pope is not infallible and never claims to be such. Some of his teachings are considered infallible, but there is a real narrow application. It deals only with faith and morals and has to be applicable to the whole church. 1950 may be the last time a pope spoke such.

    So, I would imagine, when he leaves his office as pope, he leaves his responsibility to speak to and for the whole church.

  21. PP,
    I just saw your #19.
    I used to believe like you – you know, that God can’t save without permission (and since babies can’t give their permission to be saved, they remain fodder for the hell fires) – but then I became spiritually mature 😉

    Look, what is the difference between the story you told and the “adult” who get’s saved by altar call, or falling prostrate in their living room in front of a televised Billy Graham crusade – who then spends a couple of years in training and doing Christian works with Bob Mumford or Derek Prince – falls away for 20 yrs living a life of rowdiness and then miraculously comes back into the fold?

    Are you saying that the 20 yrs absence shows that you were not previously saved? That’s what you are saying about the baby.

    I think you are deluded thinking that as an adult, you finally, as Sinatra would say ” did it your way.” … which was to tell God “OK God now you have my permission.”

  22. PP Vet says:

    When I was confronting end-of-life issues in caring for my mother, I could not find anything more seriously thought through than the writings of the pontiffs and the Conference of Catholic Bishops.

    It is a serious and deep organization. As a result of its longevity and its own internal commitment to a certain kind of intellectual accountability, there is an integrity to its teaching that is not seen in younger and more free-spirited religious distinctives.

    Certainly it can be argued that like me, the Roman Catholic Church does at least as much harm as good to the kingdom of God.

    Nevertheless, anyone serious about having a fully-orbed faith cannot get there without gleaning from the traditions and insights of the Roman Catholic Church.

    The encyclicals, the writings through the centuries of the so-called “Saints” etc., just have to figure into one’s spiritual diet at some point.

  23. PP Vet says:

    Back to baptism – the superstition part comes in believing that a ritual bestows divine favor.

    You might as well put several Hindu Gods by your front door. If it makes you feel better.

  24. “the superstition part comes in believing that a ritual bestows divine favor.”

    For those who believe that, I agree with you 100% – that is not what Lutherans believe.

    But then I hear some people believe in the ritual, that if you hear God’s word preached, that that bestows divine favor… have you ever heard anything so laughable???

  25. Luther, in the Small Catechism, addressing the 3rd article of the creed states on the first phrase;
    “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.”

    If this is true, and I do believe that it is, what is different between a baby responding to the preached word at baptism, and the ensuing work of the Holy Spirit and the same with an adult? Unless you do feel that people can believe by their own reason and strength.

  26. Bob says:

    “what is different between a baby responding to the preached word at baptism,”

    Which is more laughable?
    A baby who “hears” and “understands” or and adult who
    Speaks and understands?

    “But then I hear some people believe in the ritual, that if you hear God’s word preached,”

    “Faith comes by hearing the word of Christ”
    “How shall they hear unless one is sent”

    “for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

    And this debate is why we will always have division in the body of the Messiah.

  27. PP Vet says:

    In fairness, John the Baptist was listening from the womb….

    And Lazarus from the tomb….

    And the rich man from doom….

    So you never know who’s in the room.

  28. PP Vet says:

    People in a coma …
    People with no diploma …
    People with an aroma …

    This is His poema.

    (Sorry I am done now 🙂 )

  29. erunner says:

    I think London asked a great question at #20. If someone can answer her question I would love to read what you have to say.

  30. covered says:

    erunner, I think that MLD answered that question @ #21 (he may have left it uncertain)

    PPvet, that is hilarious!

  31. PP Vet says:

    e, I do not know the answer to that, but I do know that Benedict signed a no-compete agreement that he will not speak infallibly for at least two years.

  32. London says:

    Actually Covered,
    He didn’t answer the question I was asking.
    His answer was google searchable.
    That wasn’t the point, but rather than get yet another debate about facts, I decided to let if go.
    I think E got the heart of what I was asking.

  33. Lutheran says:

    I think this Slate article should answer your question, London. Lots of good info in the piece.


    No—and in fact, he’s never been infallible. In accordance with the First Vatican Council of 1870, the pope is infallible only when he makes an ex cathedra statement—that is, a statement concerning “a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”

    Most popes never make ex cathedra statements during their papacy; only one infallible statement (regarding the Assumption of Mary) has been made since the First Vatican Council of 1870. Pope John XXIII was quoted as saying, “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.” Pope Benedict XVI has never spoken ex cathedra, and he will lose the ability to do so once he resigns from the papacy.


  34. papiaslogia says:

    That is a good question, and one that Catholics will have to wrestle with, since its been 600 years since a pontiff stepped down.
    I do think that it has to do with the Pope speaking in matters of faith – to a Catholic, he is infallible. Perhaps when he steps down from being Pope he no longer teaches… therefore….falibility is no longer an issue.
    But then again, its not like everyone who says they are Catholic abides by everything the Pope has decreed.

  35. London says:

    For the record, I know that the pope isn’t infallible.
    Never thought it.

  36. London says:

    When I was in college, Hans Kung came to our school. Went to hear him lecture and there was a bit of a “scuffle” with a woman and security when he spoke about his work “infallible?”
    That woman was ANGRY about him daring to say the pope could be in error. That, of course, stirred up more folks to speak out against him and say “same on you” etc to him.
    It was LONG after 1950 and had nothing to do with whether or not the technicalities of whether the pope had spoken a specific statement that was considered infallible. The perception of much of the crowd at the time was that Kung was speaking blasphemy by declaring what he did.
    Perception is reality.
    Hence, the genesis of my pondering about the point in time at his the pope is allegedly given this “superpower” and at what point, if any, he can give it back.

  37. Chile says:

    PP Vet is on a roll! 😉

  38. London says:

    Maybe you’re right about it being when he teaches. Not sure.
    If he someday gives a speech somewhere, will people think he still hears directly from God and can not be in error?
    Have no idea why it intrigues me to think about, but it does.

  39. filbertz says:

    the current pope will not have a voice in the papal matters once he steps down, as the ‘authority’ resides in the office, not in the man. This was explained by a Vatican official in an interview yesterday.

    mld–your Ash joke was…how shall we say this…Dor’ n’er outta bounds.

  40. Bob says:


    In fairness you are somewhat comparing apples and oranges in your comment about John B, Lazarus and such. Actually your argument would validate Calvin and the notion of determinism and pre-destination not the Lutheran or Catholic notion of salvation and fellowship via the sacraments.

    The position that MLD and others like him promote is baptism of babies saves them (and anyone else so baptized) from hell if they should die. I prefer a scriptural concept of God’s goodness, compassion and mercy on those who are defenseless.

    The difficulty many have is when or at what time in a person’s life are they culpable for their sin? Rather than start a thread on the subject I just believe God is a whole lot more capable than my petty thought process can fathom or physical actions can accomplish.

    Blessed is He who looks after His people and keeps His word!

    I’ve said too much. Into the mist I go

  41. PAL says:

    #26. Martin Luther’s Disciple says:

    Luther, in the Small Catechism, addressing the 3rd article of the creed states on the first phrase;I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.”

    If this is true, and I do believe that it is, what is different between a baby responding to the preached word at baptism, and the ensuing work of the Holy Spirit and the same with an adult? Unless you do feel that people can believe by their own reason and strength.

    MLD, I am not sure that my referring to this is directed towards you in particular, but many of your comments make me think deeper to come up with an answer for myself. I am curious if you would agree with this or not?

    First of all, I may have a slightly different view as to the meaning of the first paragraph you wrote; or maybe not?

    The way I understand it, is that I am “guided” by the Holy Spirit but not “controlled” by the Holy Spirit. I would not be aware of Jesus (The word) without Him (The word) showing Himself to me. He continuingly shows Himself to me, from the beginning of my life. However, we (The word and I) are not “One” until I choose to accept the word as being a part of me; this is the choice God gives me as being a human.

    Before Christ, baptism was merely a sign of a new form of life; this can also be simulated as baby baptism. The Christian baptism is a new life in particular, meaning a personal acceptance of, and an intent to follow, Jesus (The word) which makes it a total different type of baptism, (One personally being chosen and the other not personally being chosen) (One becoming “One” with God and the other not necessarily becoming “One” with God.

    A possible Bride is first aware of the possible Groom that wants her, but they do not become “One” until the Bride accepts the Grooms offer. The Groom can force the Bride to marry him but they will never be “One” unless the Bride accepts the Groom.

    The baby baptism can only symbolically make the baby be a “possible” Bride, with future guidance of those involved in the ceremony (Therefore possibly making the baby baptism more of a commitment to those involved in the ceremony than to the baby that is un-aware of what is going on), but the baby (possible future bride) which is not making a personal acceptance, does not become “One” with the Groom.

    The adult Christian Baptism is the Bride publicly accepting the Groom, and a personal public announcement that the Bride (the person taking the Baptism) wants to be “One” with the Groom (Jesus/The Word).

  42. Bob,
    You are fairly close to what we believe up to a point. Where I would go further is that babies are culpable for their sin – that’s why they too do indeed need salvation. If babies were not sinners, why do babies die? The wages of sin applies to them also.

    But the point is that God does the saving. Adults have no method to save themselves without intervention from the Holy Spirit, and adults have no better understanding of how salvation works in their life than a baby does.

    That is why I brought up, how does hearing God’s preached word save you? Beats me, but it does? It can’t be because more information was added to the person’s life – then we would be saying, it’s not sin that condemns a person, it’s lack of information.

  43. PAL,
    “The adult Christian Baptism is the Bride publicly accepting the Groom, and a personal public announcement that the Bride (the person taking the Baptism) wants to be “One” with the Groom (Jesus/The Word).”

    The only problem I see is that the groom now has no choice in the matter – he has made his case the best he can, but the decision for salvation is 100% in the hands of the “potential” bride, who can now say “I am saved because I made the right decision.”

    I have never really understood when someone says that God will not force a person (and I know that we lose something when we use human terms and try to apply this to human relationships) – but when we pray for a lost loved one, isn’t that exactly what we are asking God to do? “God, open their eyes” or “God, smack them upside the head so that Aunt Martha will believe.”

  44. Bob says:


    “Where I would go further is that babies are culpable for their sin – that’s why they too do indeed need salvation. If babies were not sinners, why do babies die?”

    Believe it or not this doctrine of sin is a huge difference between the RCC/Lutheran position and the Eastern Greek church (I am neither).

    I believe it is pointless to debate the merits or lack thereof of the innocent and their culpability for sin. The very nature of being entirely dependent on another is the very heart of faith. The definition of faith isn’t just hope it is dependence like a child is for their parents.

    Therefore a child, or any innocent, meaning dependent, person for that matter, is at the very heart of God. Do they need to be “baptized” for remission of sins or else they will die and go to hell? The God I read about in His scriptures is a whole lot bigger than the limitations you have put on him in the doctrine of child baptism for sin.

    Where I do agree with your practice, isn’t in the actual baptism, is in the obedience of parents and the community to protect, teach and raise their children in a way pleasing to God. I can look the other way in the doctrinal error of baptism but not in the lack of faithfulness of those adults charged by God with the raising of their children.

    Oh you’ve got to quit throwing out the obviously miss-leading statements like “…why do babies die?” Those are red herring statements intended to direct the conversation away from the issue of doctrinal position.

  45. PAL says:


    Why would you think that the Groom now has no choice in the matter? He made his choice of wanting a particular possible Bride and throws the ball into the possible Bride’s court, to be a Pure Bride or not. He only marries the possible Bride after she becomes a Pure Bride by accepting the Grooms offer. He has already made the particulars clear. She must accept the word in order to be the Pure Bride.

    To be sure you understand what I am saying; the possible Bride is any person. The Groom is Jesus. The actual Pure Bride is the one saved. The adult Christian baptism is the saved person making a human public announcement of the marriage of becoming one with the word/Jesus. This is why I think you are not saved by Baptism; Baptism is making a public announcement of already being saved.

    As far as God “forcing” Aunt Marta to believe, the misunderstanding is coming from the pray-er and not the pray-ee. Perhaps the pray-er (the one making the prayer) should merely be asking God to give Aunt Martha more time of life to change her way. Sometimes it is not that God does not answer prayer but we do not know what we are asking for.

  46. Bob says:


    One more point on baptism; it doesn’t save adults any more than circumcision does for Jewish people. God makes it clear that obedience is essential, but he makes it even more clear circumcision of the heart is essential to being one of His people.

    This wasn’t something newly presented to us by the Saul/Paul, it is clearly spoken of by Moses in the OT. Therefore if circumcision in the flesh is not a guarantee of salvation then neither is baptism or any other “sacramental” practice of the Christian church. Of course this argument does not mean we shouldn’t baptize, observe Jesus’ death and resurrection, or even circumcise men in the flesh today. It just means these practices don’t save, they just reflect what has happened in the heart of men.

    Again I’ve said way to much and will fade into the depths of internet again.

    Bless and Love Him with all your heart, mind and strength!

  47. “I believe it is pointless to debate the merits or lack thereof of the innocent and their culpability for sin.”

    I guess that is a big difference we have – you declare them innocent right off the bat. You make it sound as if Jesus didn’t need to die for anyone under the socalled “aga of accountability”

    God killed millions of these “innocents” just during the flood – what was his justification?

  48. PAL,
    “Baptism is making a public announcement of already being saved.”

    The bumper sticker on my car makes that public announcement to far more people than my baptism ever did. 😉 Perhaps a 100 saw my baptism,but 1,000s have seen my bumper sticker.

  49. Jim Jr. says:

    I agree on the analogy between baptism and circumcision.

  50. Bob says:


    Again you miss-lead!

    “you declare them innocent right off the bat”

    I do not declare them innocent of inheriting the sin and disobedience of our great grandfather Adam. They are innocent because they CAN’T TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES! They have to be fed, changed, comforted, warmed up, raised, talked to and all of this before they know a word of their parent’s language. They have faith their parents will do it or else they will die!

    You mistake innocence for being innocent. You sir are capable of great evil because you have the ability to turn on your fellow man and knowingly take advantage of them to point of killing and destruction. You are neither innocent nor innocent and God will hold us (me included) accountable for our actions, words and thoughts. If it were not for His compassion, grace and mercy shown to all man-kind in Jesus none of us would be able to be saved, no matter what baptism, circumcision or sacraments you choose to observe.

    Enough. Conversing with you is like hitting my head on a brick wall, all I end up getting is a bloody forehead.

  51. Steve Wright says:

    Babies die because of original sin. They (we) are born with a sin nature that ‘bears fruit’ in sinful acts once they know right from wrong. Romans deals with this issue IMO.

    As to prayer for the lost. The Spirit must convict the sinner of sin, righteousness, judgement to come and the sinner is blinded to the truth of the gospel due to Satan. This is spiritual warfare to the fullest. It is also the one area where I believe we can be assured we are praying in accordance to God’s will, when praying for the salvation of a lost one.

  52. PAL says:


    A bumper sticker is nowhere near as much of a personal action as that of a Baptism; which God requires. It is not how many you announce too, it is the personal action you take in order to announce.

  53. Steve Wright says:

    As to support for PAL’s comment above. I believe I have shared here that in some places in India where I was, the Christians could attend church on Sundays without incident (I assume bumper stickers too would have been fine if anyone owned a car)

    Once he/she got baptized, it was understood in the village as the act of forsaking Hindu idols to worship Christ alone – and that is when their hut would get burned down

    My local Christian friends spoke of those who were ‘ready for baptism’ (meaning they had counted the cost of the pending persecution). Some had been believers for quite awhile.

    Yes, baptism is a witness to the world, including the spirit world and the demons that populate it.

  54. Jim Jr,
    “I agree on the analogy between baptism and circumcision.”

    I don’t see anywhere in scripture where there is a promise of salvation attached to circumcision. I do see it with baptism. Don’t make me draw out the verses. 🙂

  55. PAL says:


    God bless the Brothers and Sisters you witnessed in India!

  56. Steve,
    PAL’s position is not that Jesus came to save, but that he only came to offer salvation. I find that quite weak.

    That is why I mentioned that the evangelical position is that people are lost because they do not have enough information, not because they need a supernatural work of God to change their status.Give them one more Josh McDowell book – that should do the trick.

  57. Steve Wright says:

    PAL, I had the honor to baptize several in one village. Many, but not all, were elderly and actually terrified of putting their entire heads under water (especially leaning backwards as we do baptism). However, they wanted to obey the Lord’s command. It was an unforgettable experience. I would add that there is no way that these believers were somehow not saved until they went into the water. The only reason they possibly could (and would) go into the water is BECAUSE they were already saved.

  58. “The only reason they possibly could (and would) go into the water is BECAUSE they were already saved”

    For the most part that is our position for an adult. Don’t confuse adult baptism and infant baptism.

  59. PAL says:

    MLD, re: your #57

    Are you saying everyone is saved? Because if Jesus came to save; everyone would be saved. It is a matter of interpretation of “He came to save”; He did, but not unconditionally. That makes it an offer.

  60. PAL says:


    Amen to your #58. I can only hope I would be like they are.

  61. PAL,
    Why some are saved and others not is not the question. No one knows that answer. The point is that no one is saved because they decided to be saved.

    But Christ did die to forgive everyone’s sin. There will be many forgiven sinners in hell.

  62. Bob says:


    If you must know one of the biggest supporters of baby baptism and it’s comparison to circumcision is RC Sproul. Additionally one of the local Missouri Synod Lutheran church’s catechism also teaches the comparison and association. In fact the MSLC teaches the association between males who were circumcised and those not as being “rejected” by God.

    Again, and I believe if you read closely in your very own church position papers, children are neither dammed to hell by the lack of baptism, nor it is guaranteed they will be “saved” through baptism, it is this ” In Baptism children are committed to God and become acceptable to Him.” The position the Lutheran church clearly takes is that without water baptism a person cannot be saved, infant or adult.

    And it is this last statement in which I believe is an error in doctrine by the Lutheran church and many others. The bulk of scripture clearly points to the heart of a person and that is reflected outwardly by his actions. Which is why I state if a parent clearly believes the church teaching that baptism saves their children and fails to do it the they, the parents, are in sin and guilty of a great evil.

    Our children depend on us and we must depend like them on God!

  63. Steve Wright says:

    MLD, I thought Jesus explained why people aren’t saved somewhere there in chapter 3 of John….not coming to the light because their deeds are evil and they don’t want to be reproved…loving the darkness.

  64. Bob,
    “children are neither dammed to hell by the lack of baptism, nor it is guaranteed they will be “saved” through baptism.”

    You are a bit frustrating to discuss baptism. First, I agree with you quote. No one believes anyone is condemned to hell for lack of baptism. My position and the position of the people you quote is that people, babies included are condemned to hell for sin.

    If you have read my posts for any length of time you would know that my position and that of my church is that people can reject their baptism, walk away from the faith and return to a reprobate life. So, you have stated our position well.

    Now, if you would learn to address us as LCMS instead of MSLC, perhaps you would increase your credibility. 🙂

  65. PAL says:

    MLD in #59: “… Don’t confuse adult baptism and infant baptism.”

    I am happy to see you understand that they are different things.

    But in your #62 you say “: … But Christ did die to forgive everyone’s sin. There will be many forgiven sinners in hell.”,

    This makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

    Please explain, I cannot in anyway understand how a person forgiven for sin by Jesus can go to hell; and I pray I will not understand your answer.

  66. Steve,
    That was not what I addressed – why some and not others? You take your pick – why do some get saved? Is it just a choice? or is there more – why is the spirit effective in some and not others?

  67. PAL,-2Cor 5:18-21

    18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling[a] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

    Through the death of Christ on the cross, God has reconciled the world to himself.What does it say in v.19? “not counting their trespasses against them,”

    What is to be our message to the world? to tell the world “God is not mad at you any longer – stop being mad at God.”

    What separates man from God? Unbelief – not sin. (because he no longer counts our sin against us)

  68. bob says:


    “Now, if you would learn to address us as LCMS instead of MSLC, perhaps you would increase your credibility. ”

    I’m bad!

    I guess it’s the sin in me.

    I hope you get the heart of my posts against you aren’t really about doctrinal differences, but about the emphasis you and so many like you put on them. Many of the PP threads are about essentials and if there can be any common ground for fellowship in Jesus. The problem is you have clearly stated what your essentials are and there will be no compromise nor fellowship outside them (with the exception of sport and drink).

    The more I read and study scripture the more I see simplicity in the doctrine of God and salvation, but also the greater complexity in and complication of living life within that doctrine.

    I also know, because of our opposing views on baptism and the sacraments, there will never be fellowship in the way you and I understand fellowship doctrinally. I accept that and respect you for your faithfulness to what you believe to be true.

    Until later

  69. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – as to your question @67. The answer lies in the word ‘truth’ do a study of that word just in John. Of note, the passage I mentioned earlier speaks of those who do evil and NOT those who do good, but rather those who do truth.

    Remember, I am not a Calvinist and so when you speak of whether the Spirit is ‘effective’ in some and not others, you are no longer in my lingo. The Spirit is ALWAYS effective at His job of convicting of sin, righteousness, judgement to come. It’s one reason everyone recognizes they are not perfect.

    Maybe the confusion as to my earlier answer in praying for the lost is that I do not believe the Spirit continually (nor is under obligation) to keep drawing someone. I think the first chapter of Romans speaks to that rather clearly.

  70. Bob,
    Do you realize that you brought up the first disagreement today with your #27?
    Later this evening I complimented your initial comment back at #41 with my #43 and offered some clarification to my position – then you continued to tell me why your position was right and mine was wrong.

    So who holds the rigid doctrine position here?

  71. Steve,
    Actually in a rough way you answer seems quite Calvinist (remember, I said in a rough way.) Your position is that the HS has determined who to be persistent with and who not to be persistent with.

  72. Steve Wright says:

    No, my position was in the context of prayer…and spiritual warfare

  73. PAL says:


    Nowhere in the verses in your #68 do I see an answer to my question in #66. (How can a person forgiven from sin go to hell?)

    As far as your statement, “What separates man from God? Unbelief – not sin. (because he no longer counts our sin against us)”.

    Once again, this makes no sense to me, because “unbelief” IS “sin”. In fact it was the very first sin, Adam and Eve both did not believe God.

    I will pray to my God, for you to live long enough to see the light and you pray to your God, for me to live long enough to see the light. Whoever lives the longest matters not, because the true God may or may not answer the prayer positively. However, I have no doubt that the true God will NOT send the Christ forgiven person to hell.

  74. PAL – take it up with Paul. He is the one who said that God no longer holds people’s sins against them That sounds like forgiveness for all people to me – but many will still end up in hell.

    Not only that, but he has charged you to go spread that message.

    When I witness to people, I say “Because Christ died, you are forgiven… do you believe this?” I don’t know how you witness.

    Pray for the apostle Paul – perhaps he had it wrong.

  75. Steve Wright says:

    MLD, if they say ‘No’ do you then say ‘Then you are still in your sins’ – or do you leave the impression that their sins no longer matter to God?

  76. Steve Wright says:

    John 8:21-24

  77. Jim Jr. says:

    “Don’t make me draw out the verses. ”
    Har har. Just a quick question. I remember a few days ago someone (you?) said something about attending classes heading into baptism.
    If there is a promise of salvation attached to the act of baptism, why attach a list of acts to to receive such a free gift?

  78. Jim Jr.
    Interesting that you think that educating people in the faith is some sort of “list of acts” – perhaps it is more like teaching the people what the promise is that they are about to receive.

    I know for evangelicals it’s all about the numbers – get the hands raised and the feet standing before the altar, but some traditions like people to understand what they are getting into – or what the promises are that are about to be delivered.

    Long, long ago in a land far away, there was this guy Jesus who who taught people for 3 years about the future promises to be delivered – silly guy. 🙂

  79. And just for fun, why do evangelicals call it an altar call when they don’t have an altar?

    Shouldn’t it be called the acrylic pulpit call or the drum set call?

    Sorry, I just needed the chuckle this morning as I have to go spend my 3rd straight day in a training seminar. By 1 pm each day I am ready to put a bullet in my head.

  80. Steve,
    Your quote of John 8 amazes me. Are you actually pulling a G. and pitting Jesus against Paul? LOL

    I wonder if Jesus words before the cross are any different than those while on the cross? I wonder if the Pharisees were at the foot of the cross when Jesus asked the Father to forgive people because they did not understand what they were doing?

    I don’t limit that to the foot of the cross alone

    So which is it – are were to preache to people that the work on the cross has reconciled the world to God and God doesn’t hold your sins against you any longer? .. or

    God doesn’t hold your sins against you any longer, but if you don’t believe in him, he will change and start holding them against you again.

    Now don’t get me wrong – I do hear guys at the Huntington Beach pier yelling at people that they will burn for their sins if they reject Jesus – so I know your position well. 😉

  81. “MLD, if they say ‘No’ do you then say ‘Then you are still in your sins’ – or do you leave the impression that their sins no longer matter to God?”

    I don’t mention their sin, because I can’t get the log out of my own eye first. I only talk to people about believing & trusting in Christ for salvation and if they say NO! – I leave them with “Your unbelief will keep you separated from God.”

    If I tell someone that their sin is their problem, they will just go out and work harder at trying to clean themselves up … and then I will have failed with my message.

    This is the same problem I have with the Reformed – I want people to understand the mercy of God, while you and the Reformed want people to understand the sovereignty & justice of God.

    Their is a gulf between us in motive, message and tactic. Not necessarily bad, just a difference.

  82. Oh No says:

    Yawn! Back to bed.

  83. Jim Jr. says:

    ” it is more like teaching the people what the promise is that they are about to receive.”
    And if they should be killed in a car accident on the way to a baptism class, do they receive what was promised them then?

  84. Jim Jr. says:

    Seems to me if baptism is so important in the receiving of the free gift, then why make them wait?
    Would you tell a drug addict to attend a class BEFORE they stop using drugs?

  85. Jim Jr. – since you are so anxious to make your point, you probably missed where I distinguished between infant baptism, which was my conversation and adult baptism. Go back and read and then see if you want to revise your question.

  86. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – This all goes back to sufficiency and efficiency of the death of Jesus. The ‘ransom for many (efficiency’) and the ‘ransom for all (sufficiency)’ (and no, the words of Jesus to them show He was not speaking somehow ‘precross’ because those men would seek Him and not find Him and would die….you’re not saying they all died in the next few days before the cross and the seeking was somehow looking for Him the night of Passover when He was in the upper room do you?)

    Serious question here. Do you think the judgement of the unbelievers before God does not reference their sins but only all the times they rejected the gospel?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.