Responding to all your many errors-Biblical, historical and theological (not to mention personal)–would constitute a part-time job, at least. Sorry, but I have neither the spare time nor the inclination to do so right now.

Report comment to moderator

Tiller had been (rightly) excommunicated by a previous church. And no, there was no evidence that he was a Christian; it’s fair to assume he was not, baptism or no. BTW, striving too hard to say, “Yes, he was a sinner, but so are you” is nonsense. His fruit was the very opposite of what a believer’s should be. By this argument, one needn’t even strive to live a holy, obedient life, because “no one is perfect” and anyway, “I’ve been baptized.” This is completely contrary to Scripture on so many levels.

Report comment to moderator

It looks like this, just use the angle brackets instead of the parentheses I’ll use to demonstrate.

(i)This text will appear in italics.(/i)

Done correctly: This text will appear in italics.

Report comment to moderator

Thank you, kind sir, for your suggestions. I was trying to figure out how to differentiate my thoughts from the original author’s thoughts, especially since I am HTML illiterate, and the coment section doesn’t show me how to do italics, and the like.

Note to self: Always remember . . . look for the simplest solution first!

In answer to your question, I am not Roman Catholic, but a Lutheran pastor. That accounts for much of the difference of opinion I have with some of the other commentators.

Dale

Report comment to moderator

One word of advice for posting, if I may: When you quote others, especially if the quote comes in the middle of your own post, it helps to set the quote off somehow. I use HTML tags to put quoted material into italics. Others use the HTML blockquote tag for a similar effect. If nothing else, you could insert some symbol like ##### to designate the start and end of a quote of someone else.

It helps make it clear at a glance which words are yours and which come from the post you’re responding to. Without that, it can become confusing, especially for people who didn’t see or remember the post you’re referring to.

So for example, in #96 we encounter this:

As I understand the concept of the baptism by the Holy Spirit, this refers to the primary function of the Holy Spirit. That is, His work of sanctification, or enabling Christians to strive toward serving God in words and in actions.

As for Tiller’s salvation, all I care to say is that he was a bad tree and that he was unrepentant after being excommunicated from one church because of his abortion practice. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is not that one doesn’t sin while the other does, but that the Christian’s life is a life of repenting from his sin.

Besides, in giving the church the responsibility of disciplining its members, Christ essentially commands us to make judgments about people’s souls. If Tiller had repented, he would have been received with joy like the Lost Son in Jesus’ parable. But he didn’t.

Your paragraphs quoted above distort the clear intention of excommunication. We do not judge “souls but actions. If it were a judgment again a person’s soul, he would surely be damned to hell. “22 Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:22-23); and 18 “18 I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mat 18:18).

….

It’s more clear what’s what like this:

As I understand the concept of the baptism by the Holy Spirit, this refers to the primary function of the Holy Spirit. That is, His work of sanctification, or enabling Christians to strive toward serving God in words and in actions.

As for Tiller’s salvation, all I care to say is that he was a bad tree and that he was unrepentant after being excommunicated from one church because of his abortion practice. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is not that one doesn’t sin while the other does, but that the Christian’s life is a life of repenting from his sin.

Besides, in giving the church the responsibility of disciplining its members, Christ essentially commands us to make judgments about people’s souls. If Tiller had repented, he would have been received with joy like the Lost Son in Jesus’ parable. But he didn’t.

Your paragraphs quoted above distort the clear intention of excommunication. We do not judge “souls but actions. If it were a judgment again a person’s soul, he would surely be damned to hell. “22 Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:22-23); and 18 “18 I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mat 18:18).

Report comment to moderator

Sorry to add more to my already too long response, but I shall.

As for Tiller’s salvation, all I care to say is that he was a bad tree and that he was unrepentant after being excommunicated from one church because of his abortion practice. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is not that one doesn’t sin while the other does, but that the Christian’s life is a life of repenting from his sin.

No doubt he was a “bad tree”. Aren’t you also a bad tree? Do you consider yourself above those Christians who acknowldge and confess to be sinful from birth, and continue to sin against God and neighbor by thought, word and deed?

“He was excommunicated from the church.” What gives you the authority to declare that he was excommunicated from the church? Is this pronouncement your own? The authority to excommunicate is given to the congregation where Tiller had his membership. As far as I can tell, he was not excommunicated. After all, last Sunday he was an usher for the worship service. A very unlikely scenario had this congregation excommunicated him.

God be with you through all your days.

Dale

Report comment to moderator

The baptism that saves is not the baptism of water on the body but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Peter takes pains to make that clear.

I beg to differ. Infant baptism ,and adult converts, was the only practice of the Church until the rise of the various Baptist sects and their offspring. The concept of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a new theology which was begun by the various Baptist sects and their offspring.

I understand the reasoning behind the novel understanding and approach. It happens all to frequently. That is, the baptized abandon their faith in the pursuit of the pleasures of the world, in defiance against a “Christian” church which has become legalistic and law-bound, and in defiance of the parental or grandparental rule “You must go to church, whether you like it or not.” All of this, of course, undermiines the clear Word of God.

Further more,

“The belief that it does is the heresy of baptismal regeneration taught by the Roman Catholic Church and others.” David, by that flippant remark, you have condemned all Christians prior to the reformation “heretics” and all Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Orthodox and Lutheran Christians as “heretics”. That is pure arrogance!

When you put the Biblical teaching of Baptism “getting dipped in water [as you irreverently speak of God's action by water and the Word] doesn’t save you,” you, sir, are speaking heresy. I will continue to maintain that the Word of God in 1 Peter 3:21 does, indeed speak of being “dipped in water” for salvation.

May I remind you of Jesus’ institution of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism? “18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ?19? Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in ?a? the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ?20? and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Let me draw your attention to verse 9: “baptizing them in ?a? the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Hear Jesus clearly tells us that baptism is given in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Not only the Holy Spirit.

The only exception to this invitation to be baptized is found at the end of Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentcost: And Peter said to them, ? “38 Repent and ?be baptized every one of you ?in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive s?the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For t?the promise is for you and ?for your children and for all vwho are far off, everyone ?whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is referred to in only a few places in Scripture. One useage which is relevant to our dialog is: “Then Peter said, 47 ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have’.” Note the order. These people first received the Holy Spirit, then they received baptism with water. If being baptized by the Holy Spirit creates Christians, then why does Peter write, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?”

As I understand the concept of the baptism by the Holy Spirit, this refers to the primary function of the Holy Spirit. That is, His work of sanctification, or enabling Christians to strive toward serving God in words and in actions.

As for Tiller’s salvation, all I care to say is that he was a bad tree and that he was unrepentant after being excommunicated from one church because of his abortion practice. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is not that one doesn’t sin while the other does, but that the Christian’s life is a life of repenting from his sin.

Besides, in giving the church the responsibility of disciplining its members, Christ essentially commands us to make judgments about people’s souls. If Tiller had repented, he would have been received with joy like the Lost Son in Jesus’ parable. But he didn’t.

Your paragraphs quoted above distort the clear intention of excommunication. We do not judge “souls but actions. If it were a judgment again a person’s soul, he would surely be damned to hell. “22 Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:22-23); and 18 “18 I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mat 18:18).

Permit me to read your mind. The previous verse reads, “17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). Jesus instruction is clear. “Treat him (the one who refuses to repent) as you would a pagan or tax collector.” Jesus always honored the pagans and tax collectors as the one’s who were particularly invited to receive His forgiveness. Jesus had a very loving heart for these social outcasts. This is surprising because one would expect Jesus to give the religious leaders the greater attention. But he knew the hardness of their hearts, and went to bring the Gospel of Peace to the most unlikely af all, the pagans and the tax collectors.

Finally, let you remind you of my primary point when I joined this dialog. We cannot read the mind of God. Neither you nor I cannot say “If Tiller had repented, he would have been received with joy like the Lost Son in Jesus’ parable. But he didn’t.” How do you know Tiller did not repent? Can you read his mind? Can your read God’s mind? Where in Scripture are we given the authority of judge whether or not a brother or sister in Christ “truly repented”?

As always, may God’s peace rest and remain with you always.

Dale

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Getting dipped in water doesn’t save you. The belief that it does is the heresy of baptismal regeneration taught by the Roman Catholic Church and others.

As for Tiller’s salvation, all I care to say is that he was a bad tree and that he was unrepentant after being excommunicated from one church because of his abortion practice. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is not that one doesn’t sin while the other does, but that the Christian’s life is a life of repenting from his sin.

Besides, in giving the church the responsibility of disciplining its members, Christ essentially commands us to make judgments about people’s souls. If Tiller had repented, he would have been received with joy like the Lost Son in Jesus’ parable. But he didn’t.

Report comment to moderator

I believe you totally missed my point. I did not say the church cannot judge another Christian as being a Christian or not IN THE EYES OF GOD. That judgment belongs entirely to God, not us.

I did say “we can say Tillman’s activeties (late term abortions) were evil. We can say Tillman was wrong for performing late term abortions. We can say Tillman sinned in the eyes of God for performing late term abortions. [And we can even say, due to your apparent lack of repentance, you are removed from the Church.] An addition to my original comment. [See note below] However, because George Tillman was baptized, made a profession of faith and trusted in Jesus as his Savior, from OUR vantage point, we cannot judge him to not be a Christian. We can say we don’t agree with his decisions, his choices and the rest because they are contrary to what we believe Scripture tells us. But it is improper to say he was not “righteous” or not a Christian. My righteousness, your righteousness, every Christian’s righteousness comes from God through Jesus Christ.

Only God can judge the heart. In the end, only God is able to separate the righteous from the unrighteous.

However, because George Tillman was baptized, made a profession of faith and trusted in Jesus as his Savior, from OUR vantage point, we cannot judge him to not be a Christian.

Note 1 Peter 3:21
“Baptism, which is like that water [my note: like the water from the great flood], now saves you [just as it saved Noah and his family.] Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life.” 1 Peter 3:21 (GW)

You should realize that I am a Lutheran, who speaks as a Lutheran. While my comments are a bit rambling, and perhaps unclear, I stand by them. Except for the verses taken from 1 Corinthians,
“12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5). (read 2 Corinthians 2:5-9: 5 If someone caused distress, I’m not the one really affected. To some extent—although I don’t want to emphasize this too much—it has affected all of you. 6 The majority of you have imposed a severe enough punishment on that person. 7 So now forgive and comfort him. Such distress could overwhelm someone like that if he’s not forgiven and comforted. 8 That is why I urge you to assure him that you love him. 9 I had also written to you to test you. I wanted to see if you would be obedient in every way.

Most Biblical theologians are in agreement that Paul is referring back to 1 Corinthians 5 and the expulsion of the adulterous man. Clearly he came to repentance, but the Corinthians did not respond as they should have. The did not receive him back into the fellowship of the Christian community, but “locked him in his sin” (of couse my interpretation of the verse) which resulted in helplessness and hopelessness–which come with a harshness that looks only to the law and not the gospel.

I also disagree with Deet: Saving faith proves itself out through obedience. When you get down to spiritual reality, who among us can claim obedience? If anyone thinks so, then for that person, Jesus died a useless death. We can strive, pray and work toward obedience, but it is like the carrot before the pony — we never reach obedience. But Jesus’ death brings us something far better than obedience. He brings us His own righteousness. Righteousness (in the Biblical sence) means God’s righteousness given to disobedient humanity so humanity can stand before God in the perfection found in Jesus.

But enough of this. I think I’ve given you enough to chew on (and more than enough!) And in so doing, probably have proved even more that I am an anti-nomian, while I am, in fact, pointing out the role of the gospel in the Christian community.

Thanks for reading. I don’t have to say, please respond, because I know you will!

Dale

Report comment to moderator