About Me – On Baptism

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.


In short, I am credo-baptist.

This means I see value and biblical support for the baptism of a professing believer in Christ. This does not include the baptism of infants.

I have long since viewed baptism this way and came to it naturally by simply reading the Scriptures. I’ve read and listened to many an argument for infant baptism (paedobaptism) and do not find the arguments convincing. Even my current studies continue to reaffirm what Scripture clearly teaches – credo.

I know there are some dedicated paedobaptists out there who are likely triggered by that last comment but this post isn’t about debating. This is about where I, the author of this site, am at.

I do want to make a distinction though. There’s another practice often associated with infant baptism that is extra-biblical but there’s also nothing truly wrong with it either. That would be baby dedications and these often involve the parents pledging, before the church, to raise their child right before the Lord. This isn’t a necessary practice or even a required one by Scripture but I also see nothing wrong with it.

I bring these dedications up as they are often confused with infant baptism since they are not uncommonly done alongside it.

Infant baptism isn’t the biblical pattern. In addition, the earliest Christians didn’t do this practice and once they did start doing so, they did it based on very different reasoning than what people do today.

FYI: once infant baptism did become a things, not everyone practiced it and they based it upon the thinking of trying to secure the child through the grace imparted through the act. The reasoning simply wasn’t what you typically see today.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

See more in the master list.

Quote #22 – Robert Paul Martin

A church without a confession of faith may as well advertise that it is prepared to be a harbor for every kind of damning heresy and to be the soil for any who are given to growing the crop of novelty.

From the Introduction by Robert Paul Martin in Dr. Waldron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

Quote 21 – Augustine

by the preaching of predestination, the preaching of persevering and progressive faith is not to be hindered; and thus they may hear what is necessary to whom it is given that they should obey. For how shall they hear without a preacher? Neither, again, is the preaching of a progressive faith which continues even to the end to hinder the preaching of predestination, so that he who is living faithfully and obediently may not be lifted up by that very obedience, as if by a benefit of his own, not received; but that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord. For “we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.”

Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance, Chapter 36

Quote #18 – Scripture

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

Revelation 2:10 (ESV)

Quote #17 – Augustine

But love is greater gift than knowledge; for whenever a man has the gift of knowledge, love is necessary by the side of it, so that he is not puffed up. For “love does not envy, does not vaunt itself, is not puffed up.” (1 Cor. 13.4)

From: On Grace and Free Will by Augustine, chapter 40

About Me – Calvinism

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.


Personally, I don’t like to be associated to the name of a person to describe my views but the term has become common and thus it is used. Even so, I don’t think John Calvin would have been thrilled either.

This website is actually named because of my position in Calvinism. As I have an aversion to using a person’s name, I turn to “monergist” which translates to “one who believes in one work”. “Gratia” of course means grace so taken together we get: “one who believe in the one work of grace”.

I came up with the title as historically there was another famous monergist who sparred with Saint Augustine and that would be Pelagius. In the case of Pelagius, he believe in the one work of man’s will. Still a monergist but definitely not the same sort as myself.

If you want more details about Calvinism, I’ve already written on the topic and you can check out the articles related here.

To be clear, I’m not one of those sort that is going to says something like, “If you’re not a Calvinist, you’re not a Christian!” I don’t agree with that sort of thinking at all!

I would submit that Arminians and others are theologically inconsistent/incorrect/etc. but one’s understanding of Calvinism isn’t absolutely necessary to become a true follower of Christ – that begins simply with what we find in the Gospels. In other words, the tenets of Calvinism aren’t essential for you to understand to come to faith in Christ (despite them being very much involved as you do) though it is inevitable that you’d come to understand the Scriptures involving them as you grow in your faith – whether you come to the same conclusions as Calvinists or not is a different story entirely.

I fully expect to be before Christ one day among those considered Arminian, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc. who were true believers in Christ in this life, and I won’t be surprised to hear Christ correcting us all on some point or another.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

See more in the master list.

Greek Word: σταυροω

Today – stauroo

In the Greek: σταυροω

Pronunciation (Erasmian): stow-ro’-oh

Definition/approximate English equivalent: Ι crucify; to crucify, to stake down.

Example of its use:

  • Matthew 20:19 (Tischendorf): καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰς τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι καὶ μαστιγῶσαι καὶ σταυρῶσαι, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθήσεται.

Notes: This word is a verb. In Greek, verb endings change (and sometimes the beginnings too) to fit its use in the sentence. The verb communicates not just its meaning but also person and plurality. Verbs have no tense but they do have aspects. In the above example, we see one of the more unique endings as this is an Aorist Active Infinitive verb form. Think “to” verbs as in “to crucify” rather than “I crucify”. Following with this uniqueness, this form of the verb doesn’t have person or plurality. There is only the action.

There are additional verbs joined to it before joined by the “kai” which often acts like “and”. If you look, you’ll notice they too end in σαι/αι and are also Aorist Active Infinitive (aspect/tense form – voice – mood).

As an additional note: you will find teachers who refer to aspect as “tense form” or even “tense” but they do not mean it in the exact same sense as English tenses – usually. There just isn’t a 1 to 1 equivalence to be found. There are generally two camps, however, among Greek scholars – those who says tenses exist and those who says there’s no such thing, there’s only aspect. Sort of muddies the waters I know but I point this out to help you decipher why different teachers may refer to things differently.