Comments on: Sermon C: 1 S Epip; Bap: Rom 6:4 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/ Theological distinctions between Law & Gospel Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:52:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Tom Baker http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/comment-page-1/#comment-503 Tom Baker Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:14:00 +0000 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/#comment-503 The primary mission of Jesus was not to help us become saved but to save us. He is not an Example to help save ourselves; He is a Savior Who does all the work without any help from us. The primary mission of Jesus was not to help us become saved but to save us. He is not an Example to help save ourselves; He is a Savior Who does all the work without any help from us.

]]> By: kirk taylor http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/comment-page-1/#comment-498 kirk taylor Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:23:00 +0000 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/#comment-498 "Only Christianity teaches that God not only demands perfect obedience and perfect motivation but that there is NO HELP that God can possibly give you."<br/><br/>Thanks, Tom. I borrowed that "radical"<br/>statement for my opening line in last Sunday's sermon.<br/><br/>Kirk, Gospel Outreach of Portland “Only Christianity teaches that God not only demands perfect obedience and perfect motivation but that there is NO HELP that God can possibly give you.”

Thanks, Tom. I borrowed that “radical”
statement for my opening line in last Sunday’s sermon.

Kirk, Gospel Outreach of Portland

]]> By: Bud&amp;Kristin http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/comment-page-1/#comment-497 Bud&amp;Kristin Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:16:00 +0000 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/#comment-497 Larry,<br/>Coming from an evangelical non denominational background, I have seen exactly what you have talked about. Isn't it ironic that "decision theology" is rife with man's work? Something that a lot of people claim they are trying to get away from? Yet faith has been formulated and methodized into a work. It is almost as if modern evangelicalism is an "egocentric" religion.<br/><br/>Tom,<br/>I am new to the whole podcasting world and even though your show is not on the radio around here (we only get Moody Bible Radio), I will continue to listen to Issue Etc. and Law & Gospel on my MP3 player at work. Thank you for a wonderful show. Larry,
Coming from an evangelical non denominational background, I have seen exactly what you have talked about. Isn’t it ironic that “decision theology” is rife with man’s work? Something that a lot of people claim they are trying to get away from? Yet faith has been formulated and methodized into a work. It is almost as if modern evangelicalism is an “egocentric” religion.

Tom,
I am new to the whole podcasting world and even though your show is not on the radio around here (we only get Moody Bible Radio), I will continue to listen to Issue Etc. and Law & Gospel on my MP3 player at work. Thank you for a wonderful show.

]]> By: Tom Baker http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/comment-page-1/#comment-496 Tom Baker Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:49:00 +0000 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/#comment-496 Thanks for your comment Ned and your copy of "Seduction of Extremes" is being mailed Monday.<br/><br/>Larry, once more you have provided another example of how keeping Law and Gospel straight makes a big difference in how baptism applies to our lives. To a great degree, decision theology and Roman Catholic theology are two sides of the same coin as both finally find their true assurance not in the promises connected to baptism but in their changed life. Thanks for your comment Ned and your copy of “Seduction of Extremes” is being mailed Monday.

Larry, once more you have provided another example of how keeping Law and Gospel straight makes a big difference in how baptism applies to our lives. To a great degree, decision theology and Roman Catholic theology are two sides of the same coin as both finally find their true assurance not in the promises connected to baptism but in their changed life.

]]> By: Larry Hughes - KY http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/comment-page-1/#comment-495 Larry Hughes - KY Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:30:00 +0000 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/#comment-495 It was this whole idea of baptism being a gift from God that turned the corner and opened up more the richness of the Gospel for me in my own life. For years under SB doctrine baptism was not a gift but a terror to me, when I first heard of it as a gift TO ME, God’s name ON ME, that changed everything. Then baptism became not a club the devil used to try to destroy me with, how do I know I had faith or such to receive the “badge” of baptism, but rather a weapon against him. It’s very clever how the devil has set up a devise concerning baptism among Christians. I told my wife, “It’s one thing to note Rome’s wrong idea concerning baptism and correcting that, quiet another to formulate a doctrine which is not biblical/Gospel so much as it is against Rome. This is the error of our former denomination and many. They are not formulating a doctrine of baptism that is Gospel but simply against Rome and by doing so they loose much.” It occurred to me one day, having been a former SB, that Rome and “believers only” are in common on baptism. The thing I used to hear and say myself would be something like, “Of course we don’t trust in baptism, we don’t trust in a man’s work.” It occurred to me that’s simply affirming what Rome teaches about baptism, that it is a man’s work. The main difference between say SB (and the like) and Rome is in the administration of the work, but in both camps it remains a “man’s working”. It shows itself in yet another parallel, another point I never thought of before. In my former denominational affiliation we would say, “We don’t trust in our baptism, not trusting in man’s works, but Roman Catholics do trust in their baptism.” But occurred to me that is the BIGGEST error ever. Roman Catholic DON’T trust in their baptism any more than “believers only”. I told my wife, “don’t you see, that’s why the entire system of works developed in RCC…they really don’t derive assurance from their baptism. It’s merely a beginning work among many and the parallel in “believers only” is exactly the same minus the infants. That’s why assurance is never had and rededications, rebaptisms, aisle walking forever, repraying the prayer, promise keepers and a plethora of ‘protestant’ works develop among many in that thinking like I myself did so much. Neither Rome or believers only trust in their baptism because fundamentally it is viewed as a “man’s” work and not a gift FROM God, a giving of His name.” The response that even I use to give and believe as true about Roman Catholics “believing” in their baptism is completely off base, they don’t and that’s why everything else for comfort, which never comes, develops and surfaces. It’s a tragedy really. The devil fundamentally has given the same error in both camps, a version of “hath God really said” about baptism. And by doing so turns many from this wonderful Gospel in the water. It is of course right to reject all works, but baptism is not man’s work, there’s the “hath God really said (this is my Name given to you”. But it is right to trust in baptism as it is the name of God and the Gospel and much much more of that very gift. But it is so very true what Luther said reason cannot see or accept that for reason ALWAYS seeks out something “to do”, only faith via seeing the Gospel in the Sacrament can see and live off of it.<br/><br/>Blessed is the name of Christ Jesus,<br/><br/>Larry KY It was this whole idea of baptism being a gift from God that turned the corner and opened up more the richness of the Gospel for me in my own life. For years under SB doctrine baptism was not a gift but a terror to me, when I first heard of it as a gift TO ME, God’s name ON ME, that changed everything. Then baptism became not a club the devil used to try to destroy me with, how do I know I had faith or such to receive the “badge” of baptism, but rather a weapon against him. It’s very clever how the devil has set up a devise concerning baptism among Christians. I told my wife, “It’s one thing to note Rome’s wrong idea concerning baptism and correcting that, quiet another to formulate a doctrine which is not biblical/Gospel so much as it is against Rome. This is the error of our former denomination and many. They are not formulating a doctrine of baptism that is Gospel but simply against Rome and by doing so they loose much.” It occurred to me one day, having been a former SB, that Rome and “believers only” are in common on baptism. The thing I used to hear and say myself would be something like, “Of course we don’t trust in baptism, we don’t trust in a man’s work.” It occurred to me that’s simply affirming what Rome teaches about baptism, that it is a man’s work. The main difference between say SB (and the like) and Rome is in the administration of the work, but in both camps it remains a “man’s working”. It shows itself in yet another parallel, another point I never thought of before. In my former denominational affiliation we would say, “We don’t trust in our baptism, not trusting in man’s works, but Roman Catholics do trust in their baptism.” But occurred to me that is the BIGGEST error ever. Roman Catholic DON’T trust in their baptism any more than “believers only”. I told my wife, “don’t you see, that’s why the entire system of works developed in RCC…they really don’t derive assurance from their baptism. It’s merely a beginning work among many and the parallel in “believers only” is exactly the same minus the infants. That’s why assurance is never had and rededications, rebaptisms, aisle walking forever, repraying the prayer, promise keepers and a plethora of ‘protestant’ works develop among many in that thinking like I myself did so much. Neither Rome or believers only trust in their baptism because fundamentally it is viewed as a “man’s” work and not a gift FROM God, a giving of His name.” The response that even I use to give and believe as true about Roman Catholics “believing” in their baptism is completely off base, they don’t and that’s why everything else for comfort, which never comes, develops and surfaces. It’s a tragedy really. The devil fundamentally has given the same error in both camps, a version of “hath God really said” about baptism. And by doing so turns many from this wonderful Gospel in the water. It is of course right to reject all works, but baptism is not man’s work, there’s the “hath God really said (this is my Name given to you”. But it is right to trust in baptism as it is the name of God and the Gospel and much much more of that very gift. But it is so very true what Luther said reason cannot see or accept that for reason ALWAYS seeks out something “to do”, only faith via seeing the Gospel in the Sacrament can see and live off of it.

Blessed is the name of Christ Jesus,

Larry KY

]]> By: Ned Crandall http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/comment-page-1/#comment-494 Ned Crandall Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:38:00 +0000 http://www.lawgospel.com/2007/01/03/sermon-c-1-s-epip-bap-rom-64/#comment-494 Thank you Pastor Baker. I use your comments in preparing for my bible class in our Senior Center in Big Spring, TX. Ned Crandall Thank you Pastor Baker. I use your comments in preparing for my bible class in our Senior Center in Big Spring, TX. Ned Crandall

]]>