Denise at SurphSide has now completely closed the comments on her silly little tirades (Part I and Part II) against Luther as of this evening–probably because people actually made good points, were supporting Luther’s words with Scripture and basic theological reasoning, and were asking the right (hard) questions. They were also beginning to show her that she was implicating Calvin by extension of her own anti-sacramental arguments.

Why on earth was she reading Luther in the first place?! That’s what I can’t figure out. After all, his writings are clearly not a part of the Bible. Why would she have any interest at all? He was most definitely a “High Faluten” [sic] with university training and everything. He was even a professor (gasp!). Oh the horror!

In all seriousness: Keep up the good work, iMonk. You’re spot-on so often, it’s truly amazing.

-Quick…

“The fundamentalist school where I was educated did not have a philosophy department because ‘all you need is the Bible.’ They offered one course in philosophy to meet state requirements for students in the educational department. . . The opening lecture of the course always dealt with Paul’s statement in Col. 2:8 ‘see to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which dependson human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.’ No attempt was made to put this verse in the context of Hellenistic philosophical thought or in relationship to the growing threat of first-century Gnostism. It was treated as a blanket statement against the study of all philosophy, a stance that would be taken in that course to teach how the study of philosophy was a waste of time”

Good luck getting an answer out of Denise at Surphing. I asked her to make an effort — any effort — to understand Luther’s definitions of terms and pressed her to get the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church so that she could at least start to understand sacramental theology by looking up definitions (apart from my very basic attempts at explanation).

In response I was called a “High Faluten”[sic], which is evidently anyone who demands any kind of precision, logic, or clarity in their theological conversation. Now, I’m a decently-read layman and nothing more, so I don’t know how I fit into her special ‘evil seminarian’ category, but evidently I do.

In the end she deleted several of my posts and banned me from the comments. All for asking basic, honest, clear questions and suggesting that she just might not understand what Luther had in mind when he penned the words she was attacking. Guess she don’t want no one with no edjeekayshun ‘splainin’ nuttin’ ’bout that thar hereetic Luther.

Thankfully, she left up her reponses to me–the ones where she opens up wide and inserts her foot all the way back to her tonsils. Yes, they are mostly non sequiturs in relation to what I had posted, but they still reveal that she is clueless. Funny stuff indeed.

In hindsight, it probably did make her mad when I added a P.S. to a post that said: “Herr Doktor Luther called. He said he wants his Solas back, especially Sola Scriptura. He says you’re abusing them horribly!” But by that point I already realized I was getting nowhere with her.

Best of luck,
Quick…

And remember this, both Rome and Luther claim salvation by grace alone through faith alone. However, they add works to that grace. Therefore such a claim is empty.

Beats me, maybe she didn’t read the bit about faith latching onto the promises of God in baptism? She quoted it herself.

tmscot01: you may want to read the comment thread to Surphing’s post. Just reeking of Landmarkism isn’t enough, she goes on to claim that

There were true believers outside of Rome and prior to the Reformation … that DID get it right

and argues that the Reformation failed because Rome didn’t reform.

I’m off to get her to answer to her insinuation that holding baptism in contempt isn’t sin. Still an’ all, I want to see her do Calvin. I need a laugh.

“I grew up in the Charismatic movement, but God delivered me out of it,and I thank Him for that. My heart is to show other believers the error of various movements(e.g. the Word Of Faith, Seeker Friendly, and Emergent Church movements) as well as warn people about false teachers”

Wow! That profile sure beats the heck out of mine! (“married. no kids”. . . etc) As a Baptist who has married an LCMS girl, we seem to be doing quite fine on the Baptism. Then again, we are “married. No kids.”

The more interesting bit to me is the standard used for judgement. I see no recognition of a difference between what is explicitly stated in Scripture and what is reasoned from Scripture. As an Anglican, I recognize the profound problems that can lead to, but I guess if you’re not denying the Resurrection, it’s okay to assume and pre-decide and redefine in order to make a point, right?

But hey, baptism is a “work” and negates dependence on God’s grace, and has for a thousand years. The speech we use to pray, on the other hand, is not a work. Somehow. The vocal chords vibrate themselves, or God vibrates them, in a way that somehow bypasses our brains. Of course, God doesn’t do that in a way that gets us wet.

Wait a minute, how can baptism be considered a work when an infant is involved? The infant does nothing at all, not moving toward the water, nor speaking a prayer. Perhaps infant baptism is the most pure expression of salvation by grace alone there could be!

And yes, I’m being sarcastic to make a point. It’s irony. If a random “Reformed” Baptist can speak where Scripture is silent, so can I, right?

Yeah, it sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn’t it? And yet…

I also did not realize that Jesus refused the vinegar on the cross as a statement of abstinence, which certainly must have been on his mind at the time. It is just as likely that he was showing us he was a wine connoiseur!