Translate

Friday, November 06, 2020

The goats are always butting, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify when possible.)

“The goats are always butting ‘CHRIST is ALL.’” -- Ferrell Griswold

“When there’s something in the Bible that churches don’t like, they call it ‘legalism.’” -- Leonard Ravenhill

“Seeking to obey specific commands of Christ is not “legalism,” no matter how many evangellyfish throw the term around arbitrarily.” -- Scott Ransom’s notes

“The pastor ought to have two voices: one, for gathering the sheep; and another, for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves.” -- John Calvin

“Businesses must be free to set their own COVID-19 policies, and citizens must decide for themselves how much risk to accept or avoid. Politicians need to butt out.” -- Jo Jorgensen

“People do not judge a tree by its leaves, or bark, or flowers, but by the fruit which it bears.” -- Albert Barnes

“Avoiding censorship on the Internet is like a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.” -- J. D. Hall

“A sinner can repent, but stupid is forever.” -- Billy Sunday

“If brethren would do as the Lord says, the one doing the wrong and the one wronged would meet in the way, each going to the other for reconciliation.” -- R. N. Davis

“A man who first tried to guess ‘what the public wants,’ and then preached that as Christianity because the public wants it, would be a pretty mixture of fool and knave.” -- C. S. Lewis

“Lord Jesus, you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You took on you what was mine; yet set on me what was yours. You became what you were not, that I might become what I was not.” -- Martin Luther

“He who owns the sheep owns the wool.” -- J. B. Gambrell, from sermon “Who Owns the Wool?”

Thursday, November 05, 2020

Straight Party

As long as I have been voting, our state’s general elections offered the ability to vote “straight party.”[i] Straight party voting gives voters the option of completing their entire ballot with a single mark – a mark that votes for every candidate running for a specific party (e.g. Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican, etc.). This year we did not have that option. In 2017, the Texas state legislature passed HB25, ending the practice of straight party voting – beginning with the 2020 election. Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill into law June 2, 2017.

From the standpoint of politics, straight-party voting in Texas apparently favored the Democrats. At the least, both the Republican and Democratic parties thought so. First, the Republican Party is the majority in Congress and hold the governor’s seat, so they are most responsible for passing the bill. Second, since the Democratic Party sued over the change in March 2020, they must have thought straight-party voting helped their cause.[ii] In September 2020, with less than 3 weeks to the start of early voting, a federal judge blocked Texas from eliminating straight-party voting. Whatever the ins and outs of the suit and its outcome, we did not have straight-party voting on the ballot.

As a practical matter, straight-party voting helps “down-ballot” candidates – candidates whom voters often do not know and might not vote for otherwise. Ideally, the elimination of straight-party voting would force voters to make choices that are more informed on the down-ballot races. More likely, they will make ill-informed choices or just simply not vote for them at all. Straight-party voting may also expedite the voting process, making a quick one-stop experience rather than wading through each selection individually.

As a matter of principle, I do not like straight-party voting. A position is no better than the person who holds it. While party alignment reflects something about principles, voters should give serious thought to the beliefs, experience, and qualifications of each individual candidate. In practice, even if I knew ahead of time that I would be voting for candidates who all belonged to one party, I never chose to vote for the party, but selected each candidate individually.[iii]

Christians who are “all in” for a “straight party” probably are neither careful voters nor careful Christians. Christian culture is created in Christ and is prescribed in the New Testament. Though times change and cultures differ, the Christian culture is unique and exists independently of world cultures. Christian culture is neither Jewish nor Gentile (Romans 10:12, 1 Corinthians 10:32, Colossians 3:11). “Christian politics” is neither Democrat nor Republican, but seeks consistently to follow biblical principles, and will dissent from parties or candidates when they diverge from biblical principles. The culture of gathering believers – which exists outside of and independently from world governments, cultures, and standards – is universal and permanent, having neither command to change nor necessity to conform. We must be “all in” for Jesus Christ and his word.


[i] Also known as “straight-ticket” voting. Apparently, most states don’t offer this option. According to one article I read, Texas was one of only eight states that still have straight-party voting. And then there were seven.
[ii] That they waited three years to sue seems suspiciously more like wanting to throw the November 2020 process into a kink.
[iii] Very seldom have I voted for all candidates of one party, and probably in most elections there has been some office for which I did not choose any of the candidates.

Wednesday, November 04, 2020

The scope of biblical commands

Years ago, an internet acquaintance who posted under the moniker Scott Ransom shared a summary of some notes he took in a moral theology class. 

The instructor gave guiding hermeneutical principles for determining the scope of biblical commands. I do not agree on all points, but I find the subject compelling and found the comments interesting.
  • Determine the intended audience for the text.
  • What category of people is it addressed to? Am I a member of that category?
  • Determine the basis of the command. What is the logic behind the command?
  • Determine the progress of revelation on this topic. Is it consistent throughout Scripture, modified later, frequent or occasional, or interpreted in a particular way by Christ or the apostles?
  • Is the text normative, or merely narrative? Some texts are descriptive, but not prescriptive. Narrative does not always imply that we should “go and do likewise.”
  • Interpret imperatives in light of their literary genre. A specific context may contain both timeless and temporary forms. The principle of antithesis; A particular imperative might be limited by the evil to which it is opposed: that is, if we are told to “do A as opposed to B,” that does not necessarily translate to “always do A.”
  • Legalism is a misuse of the moral law that occurs in several forms: An attempt to become right with God through meritorious obedience. (Rom. 3-4). Imposition of the Law on Gentiles, for whom it was never intended (Acts 15, Gal. 1-4; Paul argues clearly in Galatians 3 that the Law was intended to be temporary and that its time was over). A focus on minor matters of the Law as a way to justify failure to reflect bigger, less explicit matters (e.g. in Matt. 23:23-24, Jesus attacks the Pharisees for using assiduous tithing as an excuse to avoid justice). Elevation of pious application of the Law to the level of Law itself (e.g. Matt. 15:1-9, Mark 3:1-6). On the other hand, seeking to obey specific commands of Christ is not “legalism,” no matter how many evangellyfish throw the term around arbitrarily.
Summary
Use of imperatives of the Bible is enduring for us if:
  • it is addressed to an enduring audience
  • it is based on a permanent relationship
  • it is repeated, especially transculturally
  • it is supported by prescriptive, and not merely descriptive, passages
  • it is supported without abusing its literary genre
  • it is taught as principle, not merely a manifestation of a principle.

A Demon’s Guide to the Election

A Demon’s Guide to the Election: How C.S. Lewis addressed national division
“...we will not serve this moment or any righteous cause well unless we keep certain things straight. We must not confuse the end with means. We must not confuse the King of Heaven and earth with the princes of this world. We must not confuse the potential of politics with the hope of resurrection.”

Tuesday, November 03, 2020

A One Issue Conception, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

Why some Christians will vote for Donald Trump

Many people seem to wonder about why some Christians will vote for Donald Trump. If those same people also wonder why some Christians will vote for Joe Biden, their amazement is probably legitimate. If not, it is likely just politics as usual. 

In the linked article, Baptist pastor Kent Brandenburg gives Three Reasons Christians should vote for Trump. Perhaps this will help those who wish to understand.
  • If you pray 1 Timothy 2:1-4, you should vote for Donald Trump, since he will defend religious liberty.
  • If you sigh and cry over the abomination of abortion, you must vote for Donald Trump.
  • If you value free speech and oppose communist Antifa thugs Burning, Looting, and Murdering (BLM), then you must vote for Donald Trump.

Monday, November 02, 2020

Not chasing into an impregnable castle

It is the duty of preachers to plead with men about their sins, but we must always remember to speak in such a way as to lead them to the discovery of their state and condition. Otherwise, we may lead men to formality and hypocrisy and not accomplish the true end of preaching the gospel. It will not avail to beat a man off from his drunkenness into a sober formality. We must lay the axe at the root. To deal with sin without the root is like beating and enemy in the open field and chasing him into an impregnable castle where he cannot be touched. Drive the conviction to the heart, not just particular sins. 
John Owen in The Mortification of Sin

Sunday, November 01, 2020

Groaning for Redemption

The following hymn is Part III of “Groaning for Redemption” by Charles Wesley, Hymns and Sacred Poems of 1742, pages 107-108. It is written in Meter 88.88.88. – or Long Particular Meter. The rhyme alternates in the first four stanzas, with a different rhyme in the last two. The hymn extols the will or decree of God over the will or desire of his saints – “To thy dread sovereign will I bow, Thy will be done, thy name adored.” I have not found this with a tune setting, but it could be sung to Abraham Maxim’s Bridgeton, and probably most L.P.M. tunes.

1. Omniscient, omnipresent King,
The true, and merciful, and just,
To thee my last distress I bring,
To thee my desperate cause I trust,
I give my fond complainings o’er,
I set my God a time no more.

2. My time, O God, is in thine hand,
Thou know’st my feebleness of soul,
Able thou art to make me stand,
Thou canst this moment speak me whole,
Or keep me thus till my last hour,
To shew forth all thy saving power.

3. I leave it all to thee alone,
Thy counsellor I cannot be,
To thee thy every work is known,
And secret things belong to thee,
Thy manner, and thy time is best:
But let me enter into rest.

4. The hireling longeth for his hire,
The watcher for the break of day,
But, O my restless heart’s desire,
Let me not murmur at thy stay;
Be stopt my mouth, and fail my tongue,
But let thy Spirit groan, How long!

5 The thing thou dost I know not now,
But I shall know hereafter, Lord,
To thy dread sovereign will I bow,
Thy will be done, thy name ador’d,
Act for the glory of thy name:
Lo! In thy gracious hands I am.

6. Act for thine own, and Sion’s sake,
And let thy will in me be done;
If but one soul may comfort take
By hearing me so deeply groan,
Still let me all my burthen feel,
And groan, and weep, and suffer still.

7. If but one tempted soul may find
Relief by my afflicted state,
I would be patient, and resign’d,
Still in the iron furnace wait;
Still let the sin, the grief, the pain,
The thorn in my weak flesh remain.

8. Still let my bleeding heart be torn,
If other bleeding hearts it cheer,
Disconsolate for thee I mourn,
My nature’s cross consent to bear,
To languish for my Lord’s delay,
And weep a thousand lives away.

Saturday, October 31, 2020

Things I thought

Or at least I thought I thought.

“Jesus’s love is higher than the cross on which he hung, stronger than the wood and nails between which he placed his hands and feet, keener than the spear that pierced his side, and deeper than the grave that could not hold him. Jesus’s love is sovereign, eternal, sacrificial, and unfathomable.” [related to Romans 8:38-39 (et al.) For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.]

“If our history hadn’t been our history, what would our history be?”

“Works for salvation does not work for salvation.”

“Some people say that our country needs more tolerance and civility. The Bible does not say, ‘Tolerate your enemies’ or ‘Husbands, be civil to your wives.’ Tolerance and civility often teaches us to pretend each other are right. Love demands that we act right toward those we think are wrong.”

“If we never change, we must already be right about everything, or we are unwilling to admit we are wrong about anything.”

“We should always be careful about arguing about words to no profit.”

“If you have the omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence of God all figured out, you’ve got it all wrong!”

“To be New Testament Christians, we must answer questions with New Testament answers.”

“Death cures all things temporal.”

Friday, October 30, 2020

$300 Million Telemarketing Scheme, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Pondering the Implications of the 2020 Election

Contrasting thoughts from John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

John Piper explains why he will not support either presidential candidate on Nov 3rd in Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin.
“May I suggest to pastors that in the quietness of your study you do this? Imagine that America collapses. First anarchy, then tyranny — from the right or the left. Imagine that religious freedom is gone. What remains for Christians is fines, prison, exile, and martyrdom. Then ask yourself this: Has my preaching been developing real, radical Christians? Christians who can sing on the scaffold, ‘Let goods and kindred go, This mortal life also; The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still; His kingdom is forever.’”
“As is characteristic of Piper’s personal humility, he allows that ‘you need not be sinning if you weigh matters differently,’ and adds, ‘my way need not be yours.’...Piper’s argument fails to recognize that people can decide not to imitate the sins of a leader, but they cannot do that with laws. Laws require obedience. But millions of people have seen and decided not to imitate Trump’s character flaws. The most frequent comment I hear from Trump supporters is something like, ‘I don’t like his insulting tweets or his personality,  but I’m supporting him anyway because he has brought about good laws and policies.’”

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

5 Awesome Mausoleums, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Church councils

A combined paragraph of my thoughts, the writing of James Madison Pendleton, and Edward Thurston Hiscox.

Councils and presbyteries may be called and convened to give advice in cases of the moment. They are not standing bodies; they are advisory only, and not authoritative. Baptist Churches are independent and autonomous under their Head, Jesus Christ. There is no court of appeal, whose decisions can nullify those of the individual church. Councils are advisory bodies that have unquestioned utility. Biblically-informed brethren are called to give scriptural advice in cases of serious and unresolved difficulties. There is good in hearing and heeding Godly counsel. There is danger if churches assume councils have authority over the churches. There is no higher earthly authority in ecclesiastical affairs, than the individual church. Each church acts under the truth of the Scriptures and leadership of the Holy Spirit, and, ultimately, will answer to her Head.

Monday, October 26, 2020

In other words, agitation and propaganda

  • agitprop, noun. Propaganda; especially, political propaganda promulgated chiefly in literature, drama, music, or art (agitation-propaganda, borrowed from Russian Agitprop).
  • ambitus, noun. The action of seeking to obtain an office or position through underhanded means; esp. the use of bribery to gain electoral support.
  • chicken-pecked, adjective. Designating an adult (esp. a parent) who is ordered about by a child. Compare henpecked.
  • Christophany, noun. An appearance or manifestation of Christ, especially before the incarnation. Also: this appearance or manifestation as a phenomenon.
  • communis opinio, noun. Common opinion; prevailing doctrine, or generally accepted view, often in an academic field (from the Latin).
  • coram Deo (Latin phrase). In the presence of God; in Christian theology summarizes the idea of a Christian one’s life in the presence of, under the authority of, and to the glory of God (coram, before; in the presence of + Deo, God).
  • deleatur, verb (intransitive). ‘Let it be deleted’: used as an instruction to indicate that a word, sentence, etc., should be deleted from a page or text.
  • dictate, verb. To say or read (something) aloud for another person to transcribe or for a machine to record.
  • dictitate, verb. To speak or say repeatedly.
  • dulciloquy, noun. A sweet or pleasing manner of speaking; sweetness of speech. Also: an instance of this.
  • ethnobotany, noun. The traditional knowledge and customs of a people concerning plants; the scientific study or description of this.
  • garboil, noun. Confusion, turmoil; disturbance, tumult; discord, controversy; also: an instance or state of confusion, disturbance, discord, etc.
  • headwark, noun. Pain in the head; a headache.
  • henpecked, adjective. Browbeaten, bullied, or intimidated by one’s wife, girlfriend, etc. Compare chicken-pecked.
  • ovidian, adjective. Belonging to or characteristic of the Latin poet Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso), born 43 b. c., died a. d 17; resembling the style of Ovid.
  • rooked, adjective. Deprived of money through fraudulent or underhand means; swindled, fleeced.
  • ruderal, adjective. Of a plant: growing on waste ground or among rubbish, esp. as a pioneer.
  • schlep, verb, (transitive). To haul, carry, drag.
  • woodhenge, noun. (The remains of) a prehistoric monument consisting of a circular or elliptical timber structure (usually interpreted as a circle of large free-standing timber posts), typically surviving only as one or more rings of postholes.

The doctrine of creation

“Understanding and believing the doctrine of creation in the book of Genesis is foundational in accepting, listen carefully, that the Holy Bible is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world.”
John MacArthur
“It is not accurate to say that the days are God’s days. God ad intra does not have days. Creation is an act proceeding outwardly from God…. Appealing to the eternal Sabbath is also of no avail. Although God’s Sabbath is certainly endless, that cannot be said of the first Sabbath…. The use of the term ‘day’ in Genesis 2:4 is figurative, but in Genesis 1 figurative language is not used. What one must show is another place in Scripture where a first, a second, a third day, etc., are just as sharply separated and and nevertheless describe periods of time. The ‘day of the Lord’ of the prophets refers to a specific day—that is, a day on which the Lord appears for judgment, even though His judgment may last longer than one day.” 
Geerhardus Vos


Sunday, October 25, 2020

My Home Above

The following text is probably found only in Cooper Revision of The Sacred Harp. John Wesley Miller (1862–1931), a singer, composer, and music teacher, wrote both text and tune around 1913, and it was included in The Sacred Harp, Eighth Edition. He was a member of the revision committees of the 1907 and 1909 editions of the Cooper Sacred Harp Book.

The song’s title is My Home Above, and it is found on page 524 of The Sacred Harp, Revised Cooper Edition, 2012. The hymn itself is Long Meter (8,8,8,8), and in the particular style of the song, adds a chorus that is 8s. with 6 lines. When the song was written it was dedicated to fellow singer M. J. Harmon of Tyler, Texas.[i]

The hymn reminds us that this world is not our permanent home, but a place of tenting. Christians do not expect to find rest in this world, but in that home above the skies, where there are no aches, or sobs, or sighs. The blessing of the temporary rest and transitory home is to spend our days for Christ.

1. While tenting here I have no home,
I’ll work and toil ’till death shall come,
For in this world I find no rest,
I’ll seek a home among the blest.

2. My home is not beneath the skies,
Where tempests rage and storms arise;
I have a home that’s built above,
Where all is peace, and joy and love.

3. There in that home above the skies,
They know no aches, or sobs, or sighs;
But all is joy and peace and love,
And Christ shall lead the host above.

Chorus:
O Lord, if I must live this life,
Then let me spend my days for Christ;
Let not my work of life be vain,
Lord help me sing a sweeter strain,
O Lord if I must live this life,
Pray help me spend my days for Christ.

[i] I believe this was Moses Jethro Harmon, who lived in Tyler, but later moved to Fort Worth, Texas.

Saturday, October 24, 2020

Bolo, bogo

BOLO -- Be on (the) look-out

BOGO -- Buy one, get one (free)

FOMO -- Fear of missing out

FUBU -- For us, by us

YOLO -- You only live once

Friday, October 23, 2020

History of the Interpretation of Acts 19:4-5

I have engaged in some recent discussions of John’s baptism and Christian baptism (as in, whether the same or different). There are several ideas about the baptisms in Acts 19:1-7.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Several years ago, I read in John Gill’s (1697-1771; Particular Baptist) commentary concerning Acts 19:4-5. He introduced this idea, that those referred to being baptized in verse 5 are not the 12 in Ephesus, but the people who heard John. In other words, no “rebaptism” occurred in Acts 19:1-7. I considered this novel idea unique to Gill – I had never heard it before. I simply dismissed as odd. Recently I have noticed a few others who made this claim. First is the quote from the commentary of Gill.
Verse 4
Then said Paul,.... In reply to their answer, understanding them that they were baptized by John, he takes it up, and gives an account of John’s baptism: showing how agreeable it was, and that it was the same baptism with the baptism of Christ, being administered in his name:

John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance; which required repentance antecedent to it, and was a fruit and effect, and so an evidence of it:

saying unto the people; the people of the Jews, the common people, the multitude that attended on his ministry:

that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ; so that he preached faith in Christ, as well as repentance towards God; and made the one as well as the other a necessary prerequisite unto baptism; which shows, that his baptism and Christian baptism are the same.

Verse 5
When they heard this,.... That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him:

they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John’s baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John’s baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle’s name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Acts 19:4 then what he did, Acts 19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles μεν and δε, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle’s speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza’s ancient copy adds, “for the remission of sins”.
My curiosity became whether there is any history of this interpretation or if this is just someone’s odd claim that a couple of other people followed. I have found the following comments, which you may find interesting.

Horatio Balch Hackett (1808-1875; American Baptist clergyman)
Hackett claims that “older writers” maintained “that Luke records these words as a continuation of Paul’s remarks” in order to “rescue the passage from those who appealed to it, in order to justify rebaptism.” He concluded that, “No one, at present, contends for that interpretation.” (A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles, H. B. Hackett, Boston, MA: John P. Jewett & Co., 1852, p. 266)
Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711; Dutch Second Reformation):
This misunderstanding is a result of separating the words of verse 4 from those in verse 5, and by acknowledging the words of verse 4 to be the words of Paul, but deeming the words in verse 5 to be those of Luke, the writer of this history—as if he were recounting what followed upon the instruction of Paul. This, however, would have to be proven. These words integrate very well when one conjoins verses 4 and 5, and considers them to be the words of the apostle Paul. He instructed the disciples in verse 4 about the manner in which John baptized and taught, and thereupon declared that all who heard it were obedient and believed John’s preaching, were baptized by him.
Francis Turretin (1623-1687; Reformed):
Acts 19:4-5 does not prove that the Ephesian disciples, who had John’s baptism, were rebaptized by Paul. For the words “when they heard they were baptized” (akousantes de ebaptisthēsan, v. 5) are not the words of Luke narrating what followed Paul’s discourse to them, but rather a confirmation of the Pauline oration to those Ephesians, by which he teaches that those who had received baptism from John, had been baptized in the name of Christ and so had no need of a new baptism.
William Attersoll (English clergyman, died 1640)
For first of all. the words in verse 5, And they which heard it were baptized: are not the words of Luke the writer, but of Paul the speaker, continuing his speach of John’s disciples and hearers, and are not to be understood of the twelve, as appeareth by the two Greek conjunctions, which are used by the makers of that tongue to join and to disjoin, having relation one to the other, and knitting together the parts of the sentence answering fitly each to other, as may be seen in many places, wherefore, Luke speaks not here of Paul’s baptism, but Paul speaks of John’s baptism. He sets down the office of John verse 3, then the prose cuts both the parts of it, mentioning his preaching verse 4. and his baptizing verse 5. Again, these twelve abiding at Ephesus dwelling far from the land of Judæa where John preached and baptized were living about 30. or 40, years after the death of John, could not hear his doctrine from his own mouth, or receive baptism at his hands. Now, whereas they are said to be baptized to John’s baptism, the meaning is, they embraced & professed the same doctrine which John preached by word, and sealed with his baptism.
Joannes Drusius, (1550-1616, Flemish Protestant clergyman, Quaestiones Ebraicae, lib. i. q. 8, 3., 1599)
Du Veil refers to Drusius observing on verse 5 “that this verse is taken, as if they were Luke’s words, which they are not. ‘The apostle Paul,’ saith he, ‘speaks of John’s baptism, which he proved to be the same with Christ’s baptism, partly by his doings, partly by his sayings, as being one that preached Christ to come, and baptized such as believed in him: and this is it which be saith, they were baptized in the name of Jesus; such as, to wit, while John preached, embraced the faith of Christ, of which number those disciples were; but because those believers had not as yet received the gifts of the Holy Ghost, therefore the apostle asks them, by who baptism they were initiated, and when he knew the matter, laid his hands upon them, and immediately the Spirit coming down upon them they began to speak with tongues and to prophecy, even as Luke mentions in the context of this history.” (A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, C. M. Du Veil, London: J. Haddon, 1851, p. 406; Charles-Marie Du Veil, ca. 1630-ca. 1690, was a 17th century Jew who converted to Catholicism, then later became a Baptist)
John Calvin (1509-1564; French Protestant Reformer)
Other some deny that baptism was repeated; because they were baptized amiss by some foolish enemy of John. But because their conjecture hath no color; yea, the words of Paul do rather import that they were the true and natural disciples of John, and Luke doth honorably call them disciples of Christ; I do not subscribe to this opinion, and yet deny that the baptism of water was repeated, because the words of Luke import no other thing, save only that they were baptized with the Spirit. (John Calvin’s commentary on Acts)
Arator (6th century Christian poet)
Hillier indicates Arator saw a “rebaptism” here when he discusses that the incident has not relevance to the church’s teaching on rebaptism because these were two baptism of a different nature. (Arator on the Acts of the Apostles: A Baptismal Commentary, Richard Hillier, Oxford: Clarendon press, 1993, p 26).
Cassiodorus (circa AD 490-ca. 583) in Complexiones
(Acts 19:1) And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came, etc. While Apollo was at Corinth, it came to pass that Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, where, having found certain disciples, he asked if they had received the grace of the Holy Ghost when they were baptized. They declared that they were entirely ignorant of that name, but had been consecrated in John’s baptism. Paul baptized them while invoking the Trinity, and the Holy Ghost came upon them, making them able to prophesize in various tongues. Paul, staying there for three months, preached about the Lord Christ in his customary manner.
John Chrysostom (circa AD 347-407)
I am not sure I understand what Chrysostom is talking about much of the time, but it seems clear that he believes Paul baptized the 12 at Ephesus. (Homily 40 on the Acts of the Apostles)
Others any of you know about?

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Answering a Question I Get, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Boomtown Pandemic, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.