A New Baggins

Ron Henzel is now a Baggins on this blog, with editing and moderating powers. Maybe we should nickname him Bungo, Drogo, Frodo, or some other famous Baggins. You guys decide. Anyway, give him a warm welcome. I’m very happy to have him come on board. Just for our readers’ interest, it is my plan to introduce several new Bagginses in the next few months, in order to have more content. They will all be trusted, confessionally Presbyterian or Reformed authors. Bon Appetit!

About these ads

24 Comments

  1. February 25, 2014 at 10:31 pm

    Hey Ron, welcome to the team!

  2. Reed Here said,

    February 25, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    Welcome Bandobras “Bullroarer” Took.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hobbits

  3. Ron Henzel said,

    February 26, 2014 at 7:05 am

    Thanks, everyone! And thank you, Lane, for the privilege of helping out with a blog that has been a great help to me over the past several years!

  4. John Bugay said,

    February 26, 2014 at 7:58 am

    Congratulations Ron — I’m hoping you spend a lot of time taking on Roman Catholicism from your unique perspective.

  5. paigebritton said,

    February 26, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Hello, Ron!! Glad to see you here! Looking forward to your thoughtful input. :)

  6. Ron said,

    February 26, 2014 at 9:52 am

    Good stuff. You’ve made it to the big leagues, Ron. I hope you discussed this with your wife and counseled with your fellow elders. It will be a sanctifying experience, no doubt. Just remember though. The One who wields the blunt instruments who visit this site (myself included) has great skill!

  7. tominaz said,

    February 26, 2014 at 10:20 am

    Baggins folk always had room for one more at the table. Welcome, Ron.

  8. Jack Bradley said,

    February 26, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Ron, glad to see your new Baggins status. Now, in true Tolkien fashion, just one simple initiatory question.

    True or False:

    Charles Hodge: “The status, therefore, of baptized children is not a vague or uncertain one, according to the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. They are members of the Church; they are professing Christians; they belong presumptively to the number of the elect.”

    L. B. Schenck, p. 135

  9. greenbaggins said,

    February 26, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Jack, I had to laugh at your comment here (not making fun of you laughing, just laughing at something that seemed incongruous). You are someone who has been ardently defending FV folk, and have other non-confessional views, and you are here administering an initiatory rite for a new Baggins here on GB. I just think that that is amusing.

  10. Jack Bradley said,

    February 26, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Well, I hope you sensed my tongue-in-cheekiness. I do want to see if Ron, as well as the FV folk, is confessional on this.

  11. Ron said,

    February 26, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Yup, we’re to grant that status to our children. The evidence of their election is their birth into Christian homes.That evidence improves upon credible profession. Now if only God was as limited in his understanding of their status as we, then FV might have a seat at the Reformed table. Sadly, FV reclines comfortably at Rome’s table.

  12. Jack Bradley said,

    February 26, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Thanks for confirming your confessionalism, Ron. Sadly, you’ve also further confirmed your lack of judgment regarding FV.

  13. Jack Bradley said,

    February 26, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    I really do encourage everyone to read Schenck. He recovered one of the long-lost riches of covenant theology: covenant succession.

    p. 11: “We must take the position that those who profess their faith in Christ as their personal Savior are presumably Christians. Likewise, we must accept the children of believing parents as presumably God’s children, on the basis of the covenant promise of God. In the first instance, the ground of such belief is profession of faith; in the second instance, the covenant promise of God. One is certainly no less a ground for assurance than the other.”

    p. 13: “Baptism has no significance for Calvin if it does not mean admission to the visible church on the ground of the covenant promise, which includes the presumptive regeneration of the children of the covenant.”

    pp. 14-15: “From what has preceded, it may be clearly seen that Calvin certainly did not believe in baptismal regeneration; namely, that the sacraments in themselves conferred the grace of regeneration in some mysterious way… He held that baptism confirmed and sealed to us what was already true in the promise of God… Baptism does not confer upon infants the power of becoming sons and heirs of God: but because they are in that position and degree in relation to God, the grace of adoption is sealed by baptism. Otherwise, he said, the Anabaptists rightly deny infants this sacrament.”

  14. Ron said,

    February 26, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    Jack,

    1. So why isn’t Reformed enough?

    2. What will Jesus mean when he says “I never knew you…,” and how do you reconcile your answer with the allegation that He considers them saved as we are to consider them saved?

  15. Jack Bradley said,

    February 26, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Ron, you’re really going to have to sharpen your questions if you’re going to be an official baggins. I’ll be away for a few hours, but look forward to seeing something a bit less rhetorical and a bit more cogent.

  16. Ron Henzel said,

    February 26, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Jack,

    My comments should always come up with my full name and Gravatar. The Ron with whom you’ve been dialoguing is our good brother over at the Reformed Apologist web site.

  17. Jack Bradley said,

    February 26, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    Ron H, my apology. Since the other Ron responded to my initial post, I thought it was you.

  18. Ron said,

    February 26, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    Jack,

    Cogency must be a shortcoming of mine, so please bear with me. What is it that you don’t understand?

  19. Tim Harris said,

    February 26, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    The (denial of paedo-communion) does not equal [(a belief about a child's election) OR (a belief about a child's covenant status)].

  20. Phil D. said,

    February 26, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    Ron H,

    Glad to see you in this new capacity! I’ve always enjoyed and benefited from your posts here.

    …And whuda thunk that within hours your introduction thread would be hijacked into a discussion of FV and paedo-communion…

  21. Ron said,

    February 27, 2014 at 7:14 am

    Ron,

    As a new moderator, why not relocate these posts in one of the other threads wherein proponents of this movement (that has destroyed so many churches) ignored similar questions and arguments. (Actually it wasn’t the movement that destroyed churches but the people caught up in it.) Just hate to see the congratulation thread hijacked like this.

  22. Ron Henzel said,

    February 27, 2014 at 7:36 am

    Jack,

    Ron is right. I’m moving the discussion to the “Leithart on Justification and Baptism” post, which is where you earlier posted the same quote from Hodge. Let’s discuss it over there instead of here.

  23. greenbaggins said,

    February 27, 2014 at 8:57 am

    Phil, that’s what happens to all the threads on GB, though. It’s like the cat that always falls on its feet. ;-)

  24. Jack Bradley said,

    February 27, 2014 at 10:59 am

    Ron & Lane,

    Guilty as charged. I sincerely do apologize for hijacking this thread. It was not my intent, but it obviously was the result.

    Ron, thank you for your post. I will respond shortly.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 350 other followers

%d bloggers like this: