 |
He is the “Assistant Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies” at Montreat College in North Carolina, a proponent of New Perspectivism, a defender of “Reformed Catholicism,” and most certainly not my favorite theologian on the block. It takes every ounce of my patience to read his writings, because when he’s writing solo, he seems like a pretty nice fellow. Unfortunately, once he begins responding to anyone he disagrees with, we the viewing audience, are forced to play duck-and-cover through the vituperative assaults that ensue as Dr. Owen clearly demonstrates the utter ignorance, stupidity, and ungodly motivations of every person who would dare find dispute his learned opinions.
|
When Kevin Johnson wrote the following on ReformedCatholicism.com this past April…
For hundreds of years, the Christian Church has seen some value in silence and meditation. Things are no different today.
ReformedCatholicism.com is going offline for the foreseeable future.
…it appeared as though there was going to be a time of… well… silence and meditation? I think that myself and the Reformed Catholic trio (Paul Owen, Tim Enloe and Kevin Johnson) really have a different understanding of what ‘going offline’ and ‘foreseeable future’ mean. Taking down blogs, and then opening new ones covering the exact same subject matter isn’t really my understanding of those concepts. (On a side note, I must say that I find it more than a little amusing that the up-again/down-again SocietasChristiana @ blogspot.com has been taken over by a blog-spammer. I guess, for once, it finally reopened with entirely different subject matter!) Kevin announced the demise of ReformedCatholicism.com on April 19th. Eight whole days later, they opened Communio Sanctorum, subtitled “A Reformational Contribution to Catholicity.” Reformed Catholicism is again the subject in question, with the same folks posting – as far as I can tell, the only difference is that they’ve disabled the comments, and instead have agreed to post emails. Now that, my friends, is funny, mainly because I know another blog has come under a substantial amount of fire from some of our more vocal Roman Catholic friends for not having a comment system enabled. Here’s a recent dig:
With all due respect to Mr White, I think this is disingenuous. White does not want to allow comments on his blog because he doesn’t want to give people who disagree with him a forum for deconstructing his rhetoric on the fly for all his readers to see. The claim that he thinks Catholics don’t read his blog is the opposite of the truth: He knows Catholics would flood his comment page with rebuttals and counter-arguments… and perhaps some of his faithful fan-readers would find some of their comments troubling. Posted by “jake” on jimmyakin.org
Anyway, that just gave me a giggle. It really isn’t relevant to this post, as I only recall one off-the-cuff comment by one of the posters at ReformedCatholicism.com, so I don’t want to give you the idea that they are hypocrites on this issue. For this post, I just wanted to take a second to discuss Dr. Owen’s recent post to Communio Sanctorum entitled “Some Thoughts on Baptists.” He introduces his thoughts with the following paragraph:
Over the last year or so, I have made numerous comments about “Baptists” in the midst of sometimes heated discussions about theology which I feel I should qualify. I believe I once stated that I would rather attend a Roman Catholic church than a Baptist church. And, on several occasions I have made it clear that I believe Baptist ecclesiology and sacramentology are inconsistent with the Reformation, and Catholic Christian theology. I would like to offer a few qualifications here as to what I do and do not mean by such comments.
As a Baptist, I can quickly identify that this first paragraph places me not only outside Catholicism, but outside of the Protestant Reformation as well. However, he says is going to qualify his statement. Phew. Let’s read the qualification…
Let me begin by offering an apology. If I have offended any of my Baptist brethren in any of the comments I have made, I offer my sincere apology. It has never been my intention to hurt anyone’s feelings on a personal level. I am a convinced Presbyterian. I affirm covenant theology, five-point Calvinism, and the doctrinal system articulated in the Westminster Standards, including of course infant baptism. I am a practicing member of a congregation in the Presbyterian Church of America.
Okay, well I’m okay with that. Apology accepted. I know lots of convinced Presbyterians (whom I affectionately call my ‘Presby Brothers’), and while we don’t agree on that seemingly small matter, we still happily worship together. If I were to ever to pick a “runner-up” to my Baptist convictions, it would likely be Presbyterianism. Let’s allow Dr. Owen to continue…
Now allow me to engage in a bit of imagination. If I were to leave Presbyterianism for some other denominational fellowship, I have no doubt that I would turn to Anglicanism. Frankly, that would require of me very little doctrinal adjustment. If that option were closed to me, I would opt for Lutheranism. Were that option to be closed, I would turn to Methodism. If that option were closed to me, yes, I would convert to Roman Catholicism. If that option were closed, I would return to my Classical Pentecostal roots. And if that option were closed, yes, I would become a Baptist. I say this not at all to be insulting to Baptists, but to lay my cards out on the table as to where I stand.
About that accepted apology earlier… Apparently Dr. Owen places one’s view of the church, and one’s view of the sacraments well above one’s view on salvation, the nature of grace, the nature of man, and even the very nature of God. There’s a big difference between the current debate as to where Roman Catholics and Protestants stand in relation to one and other in the family of God, and saying I’d rather give up my position on grace, free will, the nature of justification than be counted among Baptists. Why? Why would Dr. Owen take this seemingly drastic position? He continues…
Having said all of that, make no mistake about it–I greatly appreciate the contributions which Baptists have made to the body of Christ. John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, and John Armstrong are tremendously gifted pastoral theologians whom God has given to the Church, each of whom I GREATLY admire. I consider John MacArthur to be one of the greatest theological influences upon my life. And on a more academic level, I have been tremendously blessed by the ministries of such men as John Sailhamer, Walter Kaiser, Wayne Grudem, D.A. Carson, Mark Seifrid, Timothy George, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, George Eldon Ladd, and numerous other scholars of Baptist or Bible Church type of convictions. I have also been greatly influenced and impacted by the academic ministries of baptistic scholars within the Pentecostal and charismatic churches. Here I think of Howard Ervin, Gordon Fee, Clark Pinnock and Craig Keener especially. My own colleague and partner in crime, Dr. Carl Mosser, who has been the closest of friends to me over the years, also rejects infant baptism and is not convinced of Presbyterianism or covenant theology in every respect (I’m still working on him!). That does not prevent me from working side by side with him in our writing projects.
Okay. So you’ll still share a byline with us. We’re not looking at “Baptist only” water fountains or anything. That’s good. I haven’t been sent to the back of the bus yet. That’s good too. Now that Dr. Owen has thoroughly documented the fact that he’s not ‘anti-Baptist’ and he has Baptist friends, let’s actually get to the meat of the matter. Why does Dr. Owen place Baptists at the bottom of his “Christians I’d Be Counted Among” list?
That being said, I do believe that the rejection of infant baptism undermines a truly biblical vision of the present manifestation of the kingdom of God in the Church, which is Christ’s ecclesial family–a family which includes believers and their children (Acts 16:15, 33; Eph. 1:1 cf. 6:1), to whom God’s promise is directed and sealed in baptism (Acts 2:38-39). The eschatological gift of the Spirit is poured out upon all Israel, including the children (Joel 2:28), bringing the knowledge of God to the least and to the greatest, and that certainly includes the little children within Israel ( “the least”: Jer. 31:34). This is why the kingdom of God belongs to the children whose parents bring them to Jesus (Mark 10:13-14).
Infant baptism. It’s all about infant baptism? Huh?! Well that must be clear in the passages Dr. Owen cited. I mean, if he would choose Roman Catholicism over Baptists based on his view of baptism, surely the verses he cited will be clear and unambiguous, in the same way Paul’s expression of the relationship between faith and works in unambiguous. Let’s quickly look at them:
Acts 16:15 1And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Oddly enough, no mention of infant baptism. Oh, I know the argument – Lydia’s ‘household’ included children too. Sorry folks, there’s no indication of infants in that verse. It’s certainly not unequivocal anyway. How about verse 33?
Acts 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Same deal as verse 15. This time, it’s the jailor’s household that necessarily must have included infants. Again, yes, it’s an interesting argument but there’s no direct mention of the baptism of infants. Dr. Owen then basically cites Ephesians, specifically the relationship between children and parents, implying that children of faithful parents themselves will honour their parents through… er… infant baptism? How does a one month old honour his/her mother and father, other than manufacturing lots of icky diaper presents, thus ensuring the parent is never bored?
Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus… Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
Sorry folks. I still don’t see how that applies to infant baptism. My church baptizes children who confess faith in Christ, and who obviously earnestly desire to honor thier parents – in perfect harmony with Paul’s letter. Obviously Paul’s command was directed in the second person, and assumes that either the child can read Greek, or can understand the language of the person reading to them. Infants don’t really fall into either category. Surely these are simply “supporting texts” and not the source of Owen’s position. Ah, here we are. He tells us that the promise is actually directed to the children of believers, and is sealed in baptism. Let’s look at Acts 2:38-39…
Acts 2:38-39: Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
What are Peter’s audience to do? Step one: Repent. Step two: be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The result? You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Can an infant repent? Ah, but the promise is for “you,” meaning Peter’s audience, and for their children. Not only them, however, but for all who are far off. But, please note carefully the relationship between these three things: Repentance, baptism and the gift of the Spirit. Is it Dr. Owen’s assertion that all who are baptized receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? I doubt even he would take that position. If I snatch a person from tribal village in South America, drag him to the local river, and dunk him in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, even though he doesn’t have the foggiest clue what I’m doing or what I’m saying, does that person then receive the Holy Spirit of God, and manifest the fruit of that Spirit? Does that Spirit testify of Jesus the Christ? I’m thinking that not even Dr. Owen believes that. So, what “promise” is made to the children and those far off? Is it the promise of repentance? Of baptism? Or, is it the promise that the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to those who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Seems to me that the last option seems the most viable, and the text happily bears the weight of that interpretation.
Owen then goes on to assert that the eschatological gift of the Spirit is poured on on both adults and children, as evidenced by Joel 2:28 :
Joel 2:28 It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.
Clearly the Baptists are in grave error! You see, at the time Joel was granted this prophesy, the sons and daughters of Israel were all children, and they remained so at the time that the Spirit… oh… wait… Am I not a son of Israel in the spiritual sense? (Romans 9:6,7) Hang on. That would mean that the sons and daughters of Israel are not necessarily infants. The next verse, I’m not even going to bother with. The idea that “the least” must necessarily refer to infants is somewhat silly. That would mean that both Jeremiah 6:3 and 8:10 are referring to adults and infants being “greedy for gain.” I suppose, one could make the argument that my daughter was greedy for her formula and 2 months of age. She certainly vocalized her ‘greed’ well. I have the grey hairs to prove it.
So, I’m sorry. If this is all the evidence offered to support infant baptism, I don’t see how Christ’s blessing of the children applies to infants. I always loved how some of my Presby brethren (some, not all) draw an instant connecting-line between “children” and “infant,” between the Greek ‘paidion’ and ‘nepios,’ that the must inherently mean the same thing. I see no need to go there. Apparently my position has dire consequences. Owen continues…
The rejection of infant baptism has drastic ecclesiological consequences, for it essentially invalidates the vast majority of the baptisms which were performed within the Church in the pre-Reformation era. To reject infant baptism is to cut oneself off from the historic Catholic Church–something which Reformers like Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin and Luther simply were not willing to do. They saw their roots in the Catholic Church of the preceding centuries, not in some esoteric remnant of believers whose lineage could be narrowly traced backwards in time to the New Testament. This is why the Reformers understood the radical implications of the rejection of infant baptism. It was a rejection of Catholic Christianity itself, in favor of a supposedly pure, NT form of the Church, purged of the worldliness, failure, scandal, messiness, embarrassments, as well as the blessings, triumphs, and privileges which belong to any real family–Christ’s family included. The Reformers understood that any attempt to enforce a structure upon the Church which attempted to weed out the tares from the wheat before the harvest was simply inconsistent with the NT vision (Matt. 13:30). The Church, both in its OT and NT forms, is an earthly, messy, historically incarnated institution, which will only be completely sanctified at the eschaton (Eph. 5:27).
I never understood this leap in logic. Of course Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin and Luther all recognized their Catholic roots… they were all former Roman Catholics! Of course they didn’t believe they had been heretics for years and then suddenly became Christians once they began reforming. I’m so tired of reading how the original reformers weren’t as distant from Rome as many in evangelicalism are today. That is just such a silly, brutally obvious statement – I just don’t understand how that is to be, in any way, compelling. That’s like saying, “Constantine had a better relationship with the pagans of his day than most Christians do now.” It’s reverse anachronism that bears little or no weight. Modern evangelicalism isn’t attempting to “weed out the tares from the wheat.” Or, at least, I’m not. What I do is determine where the fertilizer (and if you take advantage of that potential pun, I’ll have to slap ya) and water is yet required, and get to the gardening. My Roman Catholic friend may have an idea of who Christ is, but just like you feel your Baptist colleague still needs you to be “working on him” – so I too feel compelled to feed, water, and offer correction to a Roman Catholic who I am in sharp disagreement with.
Dr. Owen offers the following conclusion…
So when I raise criticisms against Baptist ecclesiology and sacramentology, please take it for its real intent. I simply believe it to be inconsistent with biblical teaching and with Reformational Christianity insofar as it negates the work of the institutional Church through the vast sweep of pre-Reformational history. This is by no means to deny the wonderful contributions to the Church which have been offered by individual Christians of Baptist or baptistic persuasion.
Sir, you are not simply ‘raising criticisms’ with such comments. The compassion that I’ve witnessed you extending over and over again to the Roman Catholic, and the condemnation that you heap upon those who may be less compassionate is most certainly not the same compassion extended to your “Baptist brethren” with such comments. If it were, you would understand what an affront such statements are to us. Considering what I’ve read of your work over the past number of years, I must say that I am very content to be at the uttermost depths of your denomination-preference list. Thankfully, the vast majority of my Presbyterian brothers and sisters are not your students. Your condemnation of my position bears little or no Biblical weight, and the reverse-anachronism consistently applied to modern evangelicalism with regard to the Reformation view on certain issues bears even less historical weight.
In reading statements like Dr. Owen’s – I’ve never been more proud to be a Baptist.
Amy, I’m going to assume your scream was a scream of joy – I know how much you enjoy Bob’s vocal prowess after all. If you need a pick me up today, there’s a few new videos over at WalrusGiggles.com, and you know they’ve got to be good, since one of them includes ninja. Limp ninja time!
