The Sign of the Covenant (Part Four: Our Children in the Covenant)

In the previous three parts, I attempted to make this argument:

The one people of God in redemptive history is an invisible covenant community (composed only of the regenerate) that manifests itself visibly (as a covenant community made up of regenerate and unregenerate people). The sign of membership in this community is commanded to be given to all children born into the visible community (Gen 17) forever. Scripture teaches that one day this community will take a visible form that consists only of the regenerate (Jeremiah 31). However, that day has not yet come and will not come until judgment (Matthew 13; 1 John 2:19). Since the covenant community, then, still has an invisible and visible form; and since the sign was commanded to be given to the visible community (of which children are explicitly a part); and since there has been no repeal of this command or indication that children are not still a part of the community; we must give the sign to our children.

It is this last part that I want to establish from Scripture in this post. As a reminder, I am aware that there are Baptist arguments to these things and I intend to address them in the last post or two in this series.

So, the children born to community members are to receive the sign, since they are still considered members of the visible covenant community to which the sign has been given (by God's command forever).

Are our children still members of the visible covenant community? Please keep in mind that "still" is a key word in this sentence. We do not have to establish that God has worked this way among his one covenant people in redemptive history. He undoubtedly has. Abraham being saved by grace, through faith, received the sign afterward. But Isaac, a child of promise (together with all male offspring in Abraham's line forever) is commanded to receive this sign prior to faith. Some in the OT fell away from the visible community because they were not members of the invisible community (sound like 1 John 2:19?). This potentiality did not keep God from commanding that those born into the community receive the sign.

So if God was working this way, and commanded that it be this way forever, on what basis can we stop calling our children members of the visible covenant community and therefore withhold the sign from them? I submit that we would need some compelling evidence. Complete silence in asserting their continued membership would not be enough. We need a positive command or instruction to stop giving them the sign; to stop calling them covenant children.

Simply put, no such command or instruction exists. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that children are no longer members. Nowhere are we told to stop giving them the sign. The entire Baptist argument hangs on this: Jeremiah 31 teaches (and Hebrew 8 confirms) that the community now only consists of the regenerate. I am currently answering this argument in the comments section of Part 2, here.. Baptists then argue that since it is only made up of the regenerate, it must exclude our children. They then complete the argument by asserting that we cannot give the sign to those that aren't regenerate, and therefore aren't community members. I believe this argument is biblically and logically inconsistent. I'll come back to it in my last few installments. For now I want to show that not only is there no command or instruction to stop calling them covenant members and giving them the sign, but we find them being referred to in covenantal terms in the NT.

These passages and their use by Presbyterians are no secret. Baptists have been listening to Presbyterians quote them for years. I have tried to be careful to frame my use of them in a way that Baptists will find compelling. As a Baptist, I found that Presbyterians often failed to take the Baptist paradigm into account when arguing these passages, and so their arguments fell flat for me. I may not be any more successful, but I have tried to recognize this at least.

Acts 2:38-39. In this passage, Peter, preaching the gospel, asserts that the covenant promises are for them (the Jews), their children, and all who are far off. Here we find the two categories of covenant member in Gen 17 and Exodus 12:48-49: Israel and her children, and those born outside Israel. These are those to whom the covenant belongs and who are therefore members of that community.

Here is a crucial aspect of the argument. If we hear Peter as his Jewish audience heard him, we will find something quite interesting. Israel received the command to circumcise their children as covenant members around 1700 years before Peter preached. So for 1700 years (obedient or not) Israel had been taught by God's law that her children belonged to the covenant community and should receive the sign. This Jewish audience of Peter has just heard him reiterate this relationship between the children and the covenant. If you had been there, knowing the law of God, would you hear Peter and assume that children are no longer members of the covenant? I don't see how you could.

Let me put it a bit more starkly. If the baptists are correct, at Pentecost, the children of the 3000 converted, children who were covenant members up to the inauguration of the NC, were simultaneously excommunicated from the covenant community.* I am not trying to use shocking language in order to upset anyone. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that this would have been the effect, and it is a startling effect! These children (by the admission of both sides) would have been covenant members at least right up to the point at which the baptist believes the nature of the covenant people changed. At which point, according to the baptist view, children previously in the covenant community would have been removed.

As an alternative, Presbyterians believe that Peter at Pentecost has reiterated the OT shape of the community. He has connected the children of covenant members with the covenant community by identifying the promises as theirs. It is difficult to see how the Jews present would have come to any other understanding of Peter.

Acts 16. Furthermore in Acts 16 at Lydia's conversion as well as the Jailer's conversion, both households are given the sign despite no reference to their regenerate status. We are told that Lydia (the head of her household) believed (16:14). As a result, her entire household received the sign (16:15). In 16:34, it is again the Jailer's faith that is pointed to as the basis for all the baptisms in his house. In both cases language is used that is inclusive of the entire family. In fact, in the case of Lydia the language inplies everyone living under her roof, descended from her or not. This is the import of the "household" language. In the Jailer's case, it says "all his family." There is no reason to believe that any are excluded. Baptists often point out that we don't know if there were children present. I think this misses the point. The baptism of the household and family follows from the conversion of the head. Why should this exclude infants? The baptist answer is that infants can't have faith and repentance. But we do not see faith and repentance from the family members of any age in these two stories. I'm not arguing there was none. I'm pointing out that the author didn't feel it important to say so. It was enough to point out that the head had converted, and therefore the entire household received the sign. This is completely continuous with Gen 17! (see also 1 Cor 1:16)

1 Corinthians 7:14. Paul uses this same paradigm in 1 Corinthians 7. He says that the converted status of one parent makes the children of that marriage holy. We do not believe Paul is here saying they are regenerate. In what sense, then, are they holy? In the same sense that children of covenant members have always been holy, or set apart. They are covenant members themselves.

Ephesians 6:1-4. Consider Paul's instruction to children here. Baptists will dismiss this passage since the children seem to be old enough to take instruction, but this fails to take the context into account. Paul is reiterating the covenant command and promise given to Israel in Exodus 20:12. The gentile children of the Ephesians believers are treated as the covenant children of Israel in Exodus. Paul does not recognize any difference in status. Furthermore, children are capable of receiving instruction much earlier than most Baptists will grant an age of accountability. In other words, a two year old can receive instruction (and we should be giving it to them!). So Paul's instruction could conceivably be to children too young to have "made a decision." They are addressed (this is important) not as children who have made a decision, but as children who belong to covenant members and therefore are given the commands that belong to the covenant community.

I try to avoid arguments from silence. They are polemically weak. But this doesn't mean they are always without force. In this case, where is the confusion on the part of Israel? Where is the argument from the parents in Israel? Acts and the Epistles should contain some record of the dispute. Israel, for whom their children have been covenant members since Abraham, have just been taught that their children are no longer members until they confess faith! The 3 year old that was a moment ago a covenant member, is now no longer. Your 3 year old has been dismissed from the covenant until such time that they can confess faith. Would you silently accept that? Would you not hope to receive some authoritative instruction or teaching to this effect? Is this teaching anywhere in the NT? If it is implicit, why do we not see any careful teaching? Even if this was accepted submissively by the first Christians, you would at least expect it to require some careful teaching on the part of the apostles to those Jewish members of the church. Instead, there is not a deafening silence on the subject, but a clear continuity between the OT and NT. It teaches that our children are still members of the covenant community.

An example of such upheaval is the subject of circumcision itself as the sign. The sign is changed (again, I'll address this in a future post). It is no longer necessary to circumcise. Instead, the sign of membership is now baptism. The Jews in the church are a bit perplexed by this. Some even reject it. It requires the Jerusalem council to address this. Paul sets out to explain why this is so. Why is there no similar unrest and teaching with regard to the radical change in who receives the sign?

Conversely, Baptists (if they deny the covenant relationship between their children and God) are left with no other way to describe their children than as covenant strangers. Their children do not stand in any special relationship to God. They are the strangers of Ephesians 2:11-22, having no hope and without God in the world. This was not the position of the unregenerate infants in Israel; the circumcised. They had the promises of God and were raised up in them. The Baptist (it seems to me) cannot say this.

Conclusion. How can we argue that our children are no longer members of the visible covenant community when Scripture never says as much; never instructs us to treat them as strangers to the covenants of promise; never excuses us from giving them the sign that God commanded they receive forever in Gen 17; and instead reiterates their place in the covenant promises (Acts 2:38-39); speaks to them as though they are members just as much as the children in Israel (Exodus 20:12 and Eph 6:1-4); calls them "holy" by nature of their relationship to a covenant member (1 Cor 7:14); and uses the same language of household and the sign that is used with respect to Abraham (twice in Acts 16 and in 1 Cor 1:16)?

The sign is for the visible community, of which our children are still a part. Therefore we should give them the sign in obedience to the command of God.

*Thanks to Jay Bennett for pointing out this argument made by Westminster Divine, Stephen Marshall.

What a weekend!

My weekend started out with a day on a local lake sailing with friend and church member, David. We had great 12 knot winds that kept us heeled over and moving along at about 4.5 knots in his 27' sloop. The 170 was flying and we were heeled over so far it was in the water (which just almost came up to the toe rail) part of the time. We sheeted out the main, which helped with the weathervaning and kept us a bit more upright. After 3 or 4 hours of this we called it a day. From the lake I swung by the house and picked up Ian for a Father/Son campout sponsored by the children's ministry at the church. We pitched tents at Henry Horton State Park and had some great conversation while the boys ran around like crazy. Smores and hot dogs and hot chocolate and such rounded the trip out. Just one night this time. I'm hoping to do some serious backpacking with Ian next year. We got back Saturday and rested a bit while I watched my Gunners go down to Hull City (only promoted to the Premier League this year!) at home. Sunday, I started a short series on covenantal infant baptism in SS that I think is going to be fun and should challenge some in our class that don't yet embrace the view. Then after worship and SS we went to watch Ian run in a cross-country meet (3/4 mile). This was his second meet and there was improvement already! From there I met up with friend and church member Mark for a scooter ride down the Natchez Trace Parkway. Perfect day for a ride. The Parkway is a narrow winding road through the hills of Tennessee (400 miles long going all the way to Natchez, MS). There's no commercial traffic and the speed limit is 40mph. Can't wait for the trees to get full blown reds and oranges and yellows going. Another 4 weeks and it should be a spectacular ride. We wrapped the weekend up with a small group meeting at the home of some friends. We stayed busy, but it was fun!

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Three: The Sign)

In previous posts I have sought to establish that the people of God is a single community that stretches from one end of redemptive history to the other, and that this community has always been an invisible community (exclusively regenerate) expressed visibly as a community of both regenerate and unregenerate.

In this post we finally come to the sign of membership in this covenant people. God has graciously given a sign to his people that they are members of this redemptive community. I want to take a look at Genesis 17 and see what principles we find there with regard to the sign.

My assertion is that the sign is to be given to the members of the visible community forever.

Instead of quoting the passage here in its entirety, take a few moments to read Genesis 17. A recent reading of this will be a considerable help to you in following along. Based on this passage I want to make the following observations/assertions.

1) The covenant signified is an eternal covenant. (vs 7-9, 13, 19)
2) This covenant is with Abraham and his offspring, forever. (vs 7-10, 12)
3) The sign given is circumcision, and the sign (circumcision) and the thing signified (the covenant) are so inseparable as to be called the same thing (vs 10).
4) The sign is given to 8 day old boys, prior to their confession of faith. (vs 12)
5) Therefore, all children born to the community (not just Abraham, but to his household) are covenant members (vs 12).
6) All members receive the sign regardless of apparent regenerate status. (vs 10, 12, 13, 23, 27)
7) The sign is commanded forever with repercussions for disobedience. (vs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

We can add two more insights from the instructions given for Passover in Exodus 12:43-49...

7) Any foreigner wishing to convert to the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob must first receive the sign of membership in the community (circumcision). (vs 48)
8) Having done this, he ceases to be a foreigner. (vs 48-49)

So the one covenant people of God is given a sign of their membership (circumcision). This sign is to be administered to all members of the visible community, both those born into it and those coming by confession. And this is to be done forever.

We should note, however, that already in the history of redemption salvation is by grace through faith. Paul reminds us of this in Galatians 3:1-6. So the above observations are true of a community in which salvation is by grace through faith, just as is true for us now.

Once again, I'm not aware of any particular disagreement between credobaptists (those that only baptize confessors) and paedobaptists (those that also baptize covenant children) on these points with regard to what was true in the OT. And in fact, baptists teach and practice in perfect accordance with these points with regard to foreigners converting. And this brings us to a crucial point. Baptists teach that now there is only one way to join the community: Adult conversion.

Put another way, our children are no longer members of the covenant community according to baptist doctrine. And it is on this basis that they refuse the sign to their children who have not made a confession.

On what basis do they teach that children are no longer members of the covenant? On the basis that the covenant community, which they admit in the OT was visible and mixed, is now only made up of regenerate people. I want to be careful here. You see, baptists admit that the church is a mixed group, and that they give the sign to unregenerate people (unknowingly). I must admit to being confused about this. I don't see how they can refuse the sign to their children on the basis of their not being regenerate, then give the sign to people of whom a percentage will prove not to be regenerate. I don't see how they can give the sign only to the invisible community. And that's the crux. They claim the sign is only for the invisible community, then administer it to a visible community. And if they are willing to concede that they administered it to a visible community, why not recognize the biblical pattern of including children in the visible, covenant, community?

I have sought to establish that the sign is to be given to the members of the visible community forever. This certainly seems to be true on the basis of Genesis 17. It was certainly true in the OT period, and if we take "forever" seriously, I think we must at least contend with the possibility that this means until the weeds are finally pulled from the wheat and Christ's bride is glorified.

So let me summarize my argument up to this point. There is only one people of God in redemptive history. This one people is an invisible community (made up only of regenerate people) that manifests itself visibly as a community composed of both regenerate and unregenerate people. Despite this mix, God has commanded that the sign of membership in this community be given to this people forever, including their children.

So the next question is, "Are our children still members of the covenant community? Has something happened to exclude them?" I will attempt to answer that in my next installment.

A preview of my argument:
If my argument up to this point is true, and we find that children are still members of the visible covenant community, then we must give them the sign of membership. This sign is baptism (which I will seek to establish as well in a future post in this series).

If you're reading along and seeking to understand, I hope you will please comment or send me an email! Have a great weekend everyone! I'll be back late Saturday.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Two: The Nature of the Community)

I want to perhaps pick up the pace in this post. I'd like to go ahead and make the basic argument and see what kind of questions you have. My last post didn't generate any discussion, so I assume we are all on the same page. With that, let's move forward.

Not only is there only one people of God in redemptive history, the nature of this people has not changed. Of course there was, at the time of Christ, a tremendous inclusion of gentiles. This was foreseen and foretold in the OT and realized in the NT. But these gentiles, as we saw in the last post, joined the one people of God. They did not replace them, nor are they a second people of God. So the other question we must ask, is did the character of this one people of God change with Christ's ministry? Specifically, was it a mixed community in the OT (elect and non-elect), but a pure community now? Those who baptize only adults argue (taking one of several different tacks) that the character did change and now indeed only the regenerate are members of the community. In other words, the community is no longer mixed. It's important that we come to some agreement on this before moving to the next part of our argument.

There is certainly some truth to the argument of the baptists. It is true that there is a community comprised only of the regenerate. We call this the invisible church. Since baptism is a visible sign, however, and since we cannot know who is regenerate (thus the nomenclature: invisible), there is a problem with this view. How do you properly identify members of an invisible community? The fact that baptists have members fall away (from the faith) at least as often as paedobaptist churches, would seem to indicate that ocasionally they give the sign to one who is not elect.

Instead, we recognize that this invisible church has a visible manifestation. And the nature of that visible manifestation is that it is mixed. Before proceeding, we all need to come to agreement on this (or you need to at least understand it). The one people of God throughout redemptive history has always been an invisible community (exclusively regenerate) manifested visibly by a mixed community. This did not change as a result of Christ's earthly ministry.

Most baptists will agree that this principle is clearly true in the OT. The visible community had men and women that demonstrated themselves not to be of faith. They were in the visible community, but were not regenerate. Esau, for example, was not only a child of Abraham, but of Isaac as well. As such, he would have been circumcised. The text doesn't say that he was. But whether he was or wasn't is frankly beside the point. According to the command of God to Abraham in Gen 17, he should have been. Here we clearly have a covenant member who by the command of God should have (and probably did) receive the sign. Yet, Paul describes Esau as one who is not elect in Romans 9. Again, this is a generally accepted principle.

However, once we come to the NT, there is the assumption that this community is no longer mixed. This is based upon Jeremiah 31. For those that like to read, check out The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, chapters 7 and 8, edited by Gregg Strawbridge. For those wrestling with this, I highly recommend the entire work. Jeremiah 31 speaks of a New Covenant. In verses 31-34 particularly, this covenant is described in wonderful terms. The covenant people won't break this covenant. The law will be written on their hearts. There won't be any need to teach one another to "Know the Lord" because they will all know Him from the least to the greatest.

Christ at the supper says, "This cup that is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." So Christ, in his death, inaugurated the New Covenant. This leads baptists to argue that we are no longer a mixed community. All the promises of Jeremiah 31 have come true. Therefore this community only consists of those who have the law written on their hearts, etc. In other words, it only consists of the regenerate. Therefore we can only give the sign to the regenerate.

In response, those who practice paedocommunion argue that Jeremiah 31, while new in a sense, is not new as though all the other covenants are null and void. God's covenant with Abraham was a covenant forever. The promises made there are the promises Paul says are now ours in Eph 2:11-22. The New Covenant didn't supercede the previous covenants, it was the further revelation of the one covenant of grace. Notice the other covenants didn't supercede either: The Mosaic (Exodus 19-24) didn't supercede Abraham. The Davidic (2 Samuel 7) didn't supercede Moses. As such, it also has a curious quality. It is "already" and "not yet". The covenant has been cut, to be sure. It is being fulfilled, but is not yet completely fulfilled. As the warning passages in Hebrews clearly indicate, it is possible to break covenant in this age. But Jeremiah 31 says we won't break covenant anymore. We are still required to say to our neighbor and to our brother (not to mention our children), "Know the Lord!", but according to Jeremiah 31, this won't be necessary anymore. Jeremiah 31 describes the glorified state, which is in the midst of becoming a reality! So we say it is already, but not yet. (This distinction is not limited to Presbyterians but is widely recognized by many scholars and pastors from a broad group of traditions)

Furthermore, Christ clearly teaches in Matthew 13:24-30 that the church is to be mixed and shall remain that way until the harvest.

So we have, in the NT church, a community that is still visible and invisible. The visible is still a mix of elect and non-elect. I'm going to stop this post here and pick up with the next. We'll look at the sign itself and that will be the end of my argument proper. I'll then address the most common baptist objections. Post your questions or arguments in the comments section. Again, I'm going to wait a day or two before posting the next segment.

SOLD!

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow! We officially closed on our house today! We aren't homeowners! We no longer have a mortgage! Woohoo!

Pledging Allegiance

No, this isn't a post about Obama not putting his hand over his heart. Politics are thin on this blog. There are other blogs for that. This has to do with my finally picking a side in the English Premier League.

English fans are nuts. They are bonkers for their team. When they sing during a match, they become a part of the experience. But for the most part, they cheer for the team they're stuck with. You root for the hometown team. Where does that leave us Americans, then? None of them are my hometown team. I've wondered, how do I choose a team to root for? (If you're a football fan reading along, and I don't suspect there are any of you doing so except Mike, chime in with who you follow and why).

At this point you might be saying, "Why choose? Why not just enjoy them all?" I think that misses the whole idea of sport. Sport is drama. It's great literature. It is an unfolding story of triumph and loss. Victory against insurmountable odds, or the hope of it against an odds on favorite. Not caring who wins just misses the whole point!

Now, it would be easy to pick a team like Manchester United. Even Americans that don't like soccer have heard of them. Chelsea is another easy pick, being one of the most successful teams of the decade. These teams have going for them the likely win. They are the favorite in nearly every match unless they meet each other. It feels cheap to choose them. On the flip side, no one wants the odds on loser. Teams sure to be relegated will only leave me looking for another team next season. No, I need someone just outside the top. Someone who fights for every win. Someone that has the chance to win it all, but isn't favored to do so. This season that looks to be Liverpool, Manchester City, or Arsenal.

There's one more factor, though. It isn't just about the win. Otherwise I could follow along just watching the standings. It's about the football. Is it solid technical play? Is there creativity? Is it "the beautiful game"? Among our three remaining options, there can be no doubt, can there? Arsenal is the pick.

And so, proverbial rain or shine, this is my team. And as an added bonus, there is something appealing about their logo: The Cannon. They are the Gunners (or Gooners if you spell it as it sounds). As a Redleg (Artilleryman), I can't help but feel a kinship.

Now some out there will be rolling their eyes at this point. You couldn't help but notice I chose the team currently atop the standings. Seems a bit hypocritical at first glance, I know. But there is a lot of season left. A lot. And history teaches us that Arsenal will fade as the season progresses. So they aren't necessarily as sure a pick as they seem. That said, who knows how the season will end up? That's the whole point. And if the devastating pounding they laid on Bolton this weekend between about the 15th and the 30th minute is any indication, we're in for a season of great football.

Attention Football Fans!

This Sunday morning Chelsea and Man United are scheduled to play. This could be some entertaining football. You can catch it on FSC. It's on in the morning here, so I'll be recording it to watch later in the evening. It is also scheduled to be rebroadcast from 10 to midnight. Just a heads up!

The Sign of the Covenant (Part One: One Covenant People of God)

The premise I want to assert in this post is that Scripture teaches that there is only one people of God throughout redemptive history.

To some this may sound strange. Maybe you've never thought about it or maybe you've just assumed it. But I can't take that chance. We need to proceed (as much as possible) in agreement on this fact. So what do I mean and can I prove it from Scripture?

I mean that Scripture is held together by a central theme: God is glorifying himself by redeeming his people from their sin by means of a redeemer; that the phrase there, "his people", means that the object of his redemptive acts (in other words, those to whom he has made the promise to redeem them, and to whom he is keeping his promise) are a single community, defined by their relationship to God: He is redeeming them.

Now the Old Testament case is pretty straight forward. In fact, as far as I know, everyone on both sides of the argument can agree on this: In the OT, there is only one people of God. That people is Israel. God calls them his special possession in Deut 7:6...“For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”

This is also easily demonstrated by the entire OT narrative. God is the God of Israel. He gives them a land, a law, is their King, blesses those that bless them and curses those that curse them. He punishes them as a father does his children and then destroys those nations that he used as the instrument of judgment. I don't think I need to belabor this point. If you need more evidence, please let us know in the comments section.

One last point. God uses an important metaphor when speaking of his people in the OT. He calls them his bride. In Hosea they are a wife unfaithful to him. Isaiah uses this imagery to speak of
Israel several times. 62:5 is one such example: “For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.” Jeremiah uses this as well in 2:2 and 2:32.

The argument, however, arises once Christ has finished his earthly ministry. After the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ we come to the Acts of the apostles. In this Scripture we find the gospel going out to the gentiles and what seems to be a new designation, the Church. Is this church separate from Israel? This is important. If we answer no, they are not a separate people, they are part of the one people of God, then that continuity will give us a very particular perspective on the OT. When God speaks to Israel in the OT, he speaks to his ONE people. What he has said to them, he has said to us. If we say yes, they are separate from Israel, then this discontinuity will cause us to more easily dismiss much of what is said in the OT. I don't mean we will ignore it. But it will be a message for "them" in many regards and not for "us". So what do we find?

Paul teaches in Romans 11 that the gentiles have been grafted into the tree which is Israel. Look at 11:17 and 24. The gentiles are grafted in. The tree (in 24) is "their own" (that is, Israel's). Notice there are not two trees. There is one tree just as there is one people of God. And what makes them one people? It is the root they share. The root is Christ. (11:18)

Keep reading. Look at 11:25-26. Paul distinguishes between ethnic Israel and gentiles in v25. A partial hardening has come upon Israel (that is, ethnic)* until the fullness of the gentiles has come in. But in vs 26 Paul uses Israel in speaking of both together! "And in this way, all Israel will be saved."

"And" obviously connects the thought to the previous verse. "In this way" refers to the partial hardening of the Jews so that all the elect among the gentiles can be brought in. The result of these two actions, the hardening and the coming in is that "all Israel will be saved." To say it another way, the reason there is a partial hardening is so that the gentiles will come in and therefore all Israel will be saved, since without the elect gentiles, some of Israel would be lost. If Paul is applying the term Israel to the gentiles in the NT, how can we argue that they are not part of the one people of God?

But we aren't finished yet! Go to Ephesians 2:11-22. Paul here teaches that the gentiles "were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." That's pretty strong language. What is the situation of these gentiles (at the church at Ephesus) at the time that Paul is writing to them? Look at vs 13. "BUT, NOW in Christ Jesus you who once were far off [as he has just described in the previous verses] have been brought near [the opposite of being far off, and therefore the opposite of everything Paul had just asserted about their previous condition] by the blood of Christ." So what is the opposite condition? These gentiles are now united to Christ, citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, recipients of the covenants of promise, having the only sure hope and the God of Israel as their God. This is not a separate people of God, but a people that has been joined to the one people of God. And in case we missed it, Paul says it outright for us in vs14-15. "For he himself is our peace, who has made us BOTH ONE and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility...that he might create ONE NEW MAN in place of the two, so making peace." Is there any doubt that God only has one covenant people? One people to whom he has made the promise of redemption and in whom he is working out this promise?

Let me close by bringing you back to the OT image of a bride. God's people, Israel, are to him a bride in the OT. In Revelation the church is called the bride no fewer than four times: 19:7, 21:2, 21:9, and 22:17. If Israel and the church are not the one people of God; if they are not one and the same "person", then what are we to make of God's calling us both his bride?

The reference in Rev 19 is in the context of the wedding supper of the Lamb. The Lamb is Christ. The bride is his church. The two are finally to be joined in an amazing celebration that is clearly part of the culmination of redemptive history! Those that teach two separate peoples of God also teach that this supper takes place in heaven during the Great Tribulation when God's other bride, Israel, is still on the earth. Does this make sense to you? It is especially confusing when one considers that the image of a wedding feast is entirely Jewish. This image steeped in Jewish cultural meaning will not be attended by God's bride, Israel. Instead, it will be attended by his other bride, the Church. I'll leave it to you to work out the disturbing implications of this.

Scripture teaches that there is only one people of God throughout redemptive history.

This is my assertion. Are we all on board? If not, let me know. What passage(s) of Scripture do you think I have failed to take into account? I want to make sure we have a well-founded assertion that most of us can agree upon before we move on.

*I concede for the sake of argument that this is a reference to ethnic Israel in vs 25. Whether it is ethnic or not does not effect my argument. However, there is a case to be made that the reference is not to ethnic Israel, but to spiritual Israel. I have no interest in wrestling with that in this context.

The Sign of the Covenant OR Why We Baptize Our Covenant Children (Introduction)

This is the first post in a new series on baptism. There are several specific questions surrounding Baptism such as its mode (sprinkle, pour, or "dunk"?) and the proper object of baptism (children and adults, or only adults?). Jared Nelson has published an outstanding review of the modes and their basis over at Dead Theologians. This series, however, is primarily concerned with the latter. I will seek to establish that it is not only reasonable but even biblical and therefore proper that children are to receive the sign of the covenant by the fact of their birth to a parent who is a covenant member in good standing. In other words, I'm hoping to offer a convincing argument that the Presbyterian view is biblical. If it isn't convincing to you, the reader, then perhaps it will at least serve as an explanation of our view.

I recommend several resources if you are interested in giving this a serious go. The first is a book edited by Gregg Strawbridge, entitled The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. This is a series of essays addressing many of the best arguments for and the most common arguments against, covenantal infant baptism. I also recommend a little pamphlet by Jay Adams entitled The Meaning and Mode of Baptism. There are other good works out there and as I recall them or other Presbyterian brothers here point them out to me I will edit this part of the post. I may even provide a more thorough reading list at the end.

The outline* for my argument will be:

Part One: The One Covenant People of God
Part Two: The Nature of the Covenant People
Part Three: The Sign
Part Four: Our Children in the Covenant
Part Five: Answering Baptist Objections (perhaps in two or three parts)
Conclusion

* This outline will change as we proceed. It's a working outline that will help me keep myself pointed in the right direction.

When I have this conversation with Baptists, they are often confused with how I start. Instead of baptism, I begin with the subject of covenant. It doesn't seem to be related to them. This is because they have usually not been taught the theological concept of covenant. This is a crucial foundation for the Presbyterian view.

The issue isn't as simple as "No babies get baptized in the Bible, so it can't be right." We're going to have to take a more complete view of the Bible than that.

As I publish a post, I'm going to wait for some discussion below it. The series is structured as a series of premises. If you accept each premise then by the end you should understand, if not agree with, the Presbyterian view. By allowing the discussion to simmer a bit for each premise, we can work out finer points I might have missed in the post, or I (or other readers) can offer more depth of defense for that premise. More importantly, though, I hope it will create a sort of workshop environment in which those really interested in understanding or even considering embracing the view can take a little time to absorb the argument and ask questions of their own before we charge off to the next premise. So don't be shy! No question is silly! Please ask your questions. You never know who also has the question and just can't bring themselves to post!

So if you're with me, let's go! I'll try to have the first post up in the next day or so.

Why did you leave the Baptist church? (Conclusion)

So to answer in brief, I left the Baptist church because:

1) I had friends that shepherded me well from the Presbyterian tradition.
2) I am no longer in agreement with the doctrine of the Baptist church, particularly their system of doctrine or lack of such, their view of the church, of worship, of the doctrines of grace, and of children. I find myself instead drawn to the confessionalism of the reformed covenantal church.
3) I am drawn to and convinced by the historical background of the PCA and likewise concerned about certain historical facts re: the SBC.
4) These shortcomings manifest themselves in a lack of regard for theological training, weak standards in ordination (if they even have ordination...the last church I served at didn't), and eventually the increasing moral and ethical failure of many of their pastors.

In contrast, the PCA, though flawed in its own ways, is confessional in its theology, rooted in history; has a theology that is consistent with Scripture throughout; has a form of government (plurality of elders) that takes man's sinfulness seriously and seeks to guard the peace and the purity of the church; embraces the history of the church and descends from men such as Calvin, Beza, and Knox; and recognizes the moral failures of its pastors as aberrations to be addressed and not simply "the way things have always been".

Most of those for whom this is written are somewhere in the greater baptist church. My intent was not to offend. To the contrary, I hope you will test what I have said and see for yourself if you aren't already keenly aware of these problems in the Baptist tradition. Don't be content with poor theology and feel-good worship. Test your church and your pastor to see if they are faithful to the Scripture. Question those things that are not biblical. Do so humbly and in submission, but question them nonetheless.

If you are on the bubble and considering changing over yourself, I suspect baptism is the last big hurdle. I offered a brief defense in an earlier post in this series. I am considering beginning a series just on this subject. However, if you want to discuss it in more depth, I'd encourage you to post in the comments section. There are others reading that will also be able to help you as you struggle with this. If you can't post publicly, by all means send me a private note. I'd be happy to help you think through it.

To my Baptist brothers that are fighting the good fight, please don't take discouragement from this series. I haven't said anything you don't know to be true yourself (ok...maybe the infant baptism part). Hang in there and continue to minister to your people. But if they despise you and send you away late one night after Wednesday evening worship, maybe it will finally be time to come home. We stand ready to receive you. Won't you come? Won't you come? (haha...couldn't help that last bit.)

Why did you leave the Baptist Church? (Part Four: Leadership Problems)

The Baptist church is struggling in the area of leadership. I see their troubles falling into two broad categories.

Qualification
The Baptist church, as a result of the independence of their local churches, does not have any denominational standard for ordination. Some require this, others require that. Some don't seem to require anything. Let me describe my experience in the churches in which I've served and worshiped, including my own licensure in the SBC.

A seminary education is only sometimes required. It is not uncommon for a church not to require a seminary degree or equivalent for ordination. In some cases where the degree is required, they are not very discerning with regard to the institution. One pastor I served under never received his undergrad degree, received his grad degree from a small free will baptist school that was unaccredited in Oklahoma, and then got his "doctorate" from an online seminary that was also unaccredited.

The man being ordained in most cases needs to be able to express a sense of calling to the ministry. This sense of calling is not to be questioned. It is internal and the deacons doing the examination are not in a position to question it (although in extreme cases they might anyway).

The man will then be examined with regard to his doctrinal views. The deacons I've known were often not equipped to ask the proper questions here, nor to evaluate the answers they received. This portion is often left out of the exam altogether. Most commonly the questions focus on the five "fundamentals".

The man is not examined in most cases with regard to his knowledge of Scripture.

The man is questioned with regard to his moral stature. He will almost always be asked about divorce. In most cases divorce is an automatic disqualifier, with prejudice.

There may be a brief reading of 1 Tim 3 and discussion of the qualifications found there, but unless there is some glaring deficiency, the man is passed.

The assumption in these exams is typically that if the man is called by God, we cannot question it without an extreme dysfunction making itself obvious in the man's life.

Men can be ordained without an external call to ministry. If you believe you are called, even if no one is calling you, you can be ordained. A man can be ordained with no indication that he will do anything other than sit in the pew the rest of his life.

This is not an uncharitable account. This is how most Baptist churches choose their ordained ministers. The process can be even simpler for deacons, who then go on to rule the church in some cases.

The problem here should be apparent. Far too often men that are not qualified or equipped are filling their pulpits. The result is often what I address next.

Moral and Ethical Failure
I admit I can only speak anecdotally here. But I shouldn't have to produce a poll (although there may be one...anyone know of one?). The people of Israel in the Old Testament didn't need a poll to know that their leaders were consistently leading them astray. My many years in the SBC, combined with the many churches that I have been in, combined with my connection to many more churches and pastors as an SBC pastor in a large church in a major metro area in the South has had the effect of placing me on top of a proverbial hill from which I am able to survey the SBC landscape quite well. What I see is a church whose pastors are experiencing moral failure far too often. I see college presidents using the school and its assets for their own personal gain and playing hardball politics to get their way at the expense of their students, their faculty, their administrators, and anyone else that gets in their way. I see pastors doing the same with their congregations. I see deacons letting them get away with it. Pastors are engaged in the use of pornography and even when caught are not admonished (this is an actual case I am familiar with). Pastors are running off with their secretaries or some other woman in the church and are unrepentant. All men may be subject to these failures, but it is in the SBC that I see it becoming commonplace. I do not relish or take delight in saying such things! I do not declare this victoriously! I say it with a broken heart. My experience is that the leadership of the SBC, as a body (even though there are certainly many godly men in SBC leadership...these things shouldn't be true of the majority before they are considered a problem!) is sick. There are remedies, but I do not believe the people of the SBC have the means or the will to address it.

There are, thankfully, not only godly men remaining, but some of them are standing up and recognizing the terrible problem with which their denomination is faced. These men have so far been largely ignored. Their ministries are hailed as vital to the health of the denomination. Some congregations sign up to do better, but for the most part these beacons are only given lip service. Cases where they are having an impact are simply too few (relative to the mammoth SBC) to make a difference denominationally. Mark Devers' IX Marks Ministries comes to mind. The Founders Movement does as well.

In short, I believe that as a result of their theological indifference, some poor theology and practice picked up historically from such men as the heretic Charles Finney (I use this label formally not lightly), and their almost nonexistent ordination standards, the SBC is finally beginning to reap the consequences in the form of leadership that is all too often weak morally and theologically. This consistent experience washing over me like waves on the beach finally wore me down and together with the other reasons given in this series, caused me to leave the SBC.

Why did you leave the Baptist church? (Part Three: Historical Background)

There's much I could say here, but I think I want to stick to the central point of the role history played in my departure.

As a student of church history, I discovered a richer theological heritage behind the reformed churches. It's as simple as that. The theology of the PCA doesn't just take a dip in the thought of the Puritans and the reformers. It stands in the middle of the stream of their theological thought and baths in it. The study of historical theology in seminary exposed me to most of the major theological traditions, particularly since the Reformation. In discovering them for myself under the tutelage of Dr. John Hannah, particularly, I came to love these doctrines. I loved them because they fed my soul. I loved them because they reflected the most consistent explication of the Scripture that I had yet found. I loved them because they not only had the glory of God as their stated aim, but because this aim was accomplished throughout. I loved them because despite the fact that you can hold them and NOT be charitable or pastoral, being charitable and pastoral is easiest when you hold to these doctrines. I came to love them because I came to be convinced that they are true.

It doesn't really matter, then, does it, what the history of the Baptist church is, except that it isn't this? When I embraced these doctrines as a Baptist it was made clear that I was no longer a Baptist, so I did the sensible thing. I left. And based upon my study of church history, those that made it clear I wasn't a Baptist appeared to me to be right. Reformed Covenantal theology has no place in the Baptist church.

So the part history played in my departure is really best stated this way: I fell in love with someone else's history.

Two more posts and we'll be through!

Next: The results (in my broad experience) of the Baptist theological and historical stance.

Why did you leave the Baptist Church? (Part Two, B: Theological Differences)

In the last post I explained that the Baptists don't really have a system of doctrine that keeps them from holding to contradictory doctrines and leaves them at greater risk of doctrinal error. Their view of the church is the first example of this. In this post we will consider the doctrines of grace, their view of worship, and their doctrine of children. These two posts together sum up the primary doctrinal differences.

The Doctrines of Grace
This is often called Calvinism. It is also often explained using the five points, or TULIP. This is adequate, but is not sufficient, quite frankly. The Doctrines of Grace are really an acknowledgment that God reveals himself in Scripture to be about the business of glorifying himself, and that he is doing so, among other works, primarily through the work of redemption. In this work, God is sovereign. We, the objects of his wrath or mercy, are subject to his will, and as clay on the wheel are in no position to question his will as though he might make a mistake. This in no way calls into question the doctrine of God's love. For those who are objects of his mercy, no greater love is known than the love of God for his children. This is the uniformly held and confessed conviction of the leadership of the PCA and much of its membership.

These doctrines are warmly embraced in some corners of the SBC. But generally speaking they have been tolerated at best, and rejected for the most part. In fact, debate over these doctrines is the coming storm in the SBC. Leaders such as Ergun Caner at Liberty are calling Calvinism a cancer on the SBC that must be excised. Calvinists in the SBC, even under the best of circumstances, are suspect and typically not welcome. As a Calvinist, it was hard to miss the fact that they didn't want me. And frankly, having to argue over such basic and fundamental doctrinal truth took its toll on me as well. I began to long for a church that took these doctrines for their own and embraced them as biblical truth without suspicion. The PCA was one such denomination.

Worship
What a mess the evangelical church is in over the issue of worship. This should be much grieved by all of us. There are two basic approaches to worship. One is that we should worship according to the means taught in Scripture. The other is that we can worship however we want as long as Scripture doesn't forbid it.

Presbyterians hold to the first (or at least they have historically). Baptists hold to the second. The result is that a historically rooted Presbyterian worship service has a form and structure that unites it with the church throughout history. There is a call to worship, hymn of praise, confession of faith, preaching and reading of the Word, communion and baptism, confession of sin both corporate and private, hymn of thanksgiving, and benediction among other things.

Baptists have typically abandoned this form of worship in favor of a form of worship developed by itinerant revivalists in the 19th century such as Charles Finney. These revivalists came into town with a big top circus tent, started each service with a hymn sing designed to put the people into an emotionally vulnerable state, then proceeded with a sermon calling them to repentance, which they then accomplished by walking an aisle and praying the sinner's prayer (a prayer devised by the revivalists, but found nowhere in Scripture). The Baptists embraced this form of worship because they could not compete with it. In this form it is disconnected from historic worship and the church in history generally.

Baptists don't have to worship this way to be good Baptists. Gunny, my token Baptist pastor friend (haha...you know I love you Gun), follows a form of worship that is much more regulative (connected to historic worship). I hope more pastors will follow his lead on this.

In evaluating each form: its biblical basis, historical basis, intended purpose, and understanding of the church, I found the Presbyterian form (often called the regulative principle) to be more persuasive.

The Doctrine of Children
Because we understand the people of God to be continuous throughout the Scriptures (as also the commands and promises of God to his people), we take seriously the membership of our children in the covenant community. They are members by birth, just as the children born into Israel were in the OT. This doesn't mean they are regenerated or that they necessarily will be. But they are members of the covenant nonetheless. We assume they are elect until they prove otherwise. We teach them faithfulness to the revealed law of God with the expectation that they will remain faithful throughout their lives.

God has given a sign to his people of their membership in the covenant. In the Old Testament this sign was circumcision. It was given to adults converting to Judaism. But it was given to children born into Judaism. In neither case did it depend upon regeneration. The adults came into the community by confession. The children by birth. The same sign was given to both. God commanded the sign of covenant membership FOREVER. Therefore, because the substance of the sign, that is Christ, came and fulfilled the prophecies concerning the messiah, the sign changed. It's substance (the thing it represented) did not. It still represents membership in the covenant community. However, instead of circumcision, the sign itself is now baptism. Baptists recognize this implicitly by refusing membership in their churches until one has been baptized. So what is the disagreement? The difference is in our answers to the question: Who is a covenant member? Baptists agree with everything I said above about the Old Testament. But they say that a change occurred with Christ and that the covenant community no longer includes our children. It now only includes those that have been regenerated. So if you want to know which is right, the best course is to study the Scripture and see if the Bible teaches that children are no longer a part of the covenant. If they aren't, the Baptists are right and the sign should be withheld. If they are, the Presbyterians are right and the sign should be administered. It's really as simple as that.

In my own study I came to the latter conclusion. I'll post a separate series explaining the argument in detail in the coming weeks, God willing.

But the doctrine of children is deeper than baptism. I came to believe that the Baptist view of their children's relationship to God is often confused or inconsistent. I don't think they give it much thought, really. Their doctrine treats their children as enemies of God, without hope or promise, until they make a confession. This is how gentiles were treated (and actually were according to Paul in Eph 2:11-22!) in the OT. But this is not how the children of Israel were treated. Baptists recognize this in their practical application. They instinctively "dedicate" their children (an act neither commanded nor encouraged in the Scripture) and then raise them up in the faith as though they were set apart from children of unbelievers. Such behavior (while I wholeheartedly encourage and support these loving acts) is not consistent with their doctrine of children.

Conclusion
So to conclude the theological section, let me sum up. My experience in the SBC demonstrated that the lack of a system of doctrine leads to doctrinal...sloppiness (I can't think of a better word...anyone?). Their view of the church did not resonate with my reading of Scripture. I mourned their rejection of the doctrines of grace. Their worship comes from a place that I believe is foreign to Scripture and the historical worship of the church. Their view of children is confusing at best (though it works out well enough in practice, except for their failure to give their children the sign of membership). These are the primary doctrinal issues that led me away from the SBC and into the PCA.

Addendum: This is a good place to say that I have not and don't plan on discussing all the other denominational options out there. This series isn't assuming that the PCA is the only acceptable church and the SBC is the only alternative. I came from one and went to the other. Please keep in mind that this series is autobiographical. I write not because I think my transition is special and noteworthy. Quite the contrary. I am one of hundreds and what is becoming thousands of people making the same transition from the SBC to the PCA. This has been a source of great curiosity to some (in both denominations). My objective in writing is to shed some light on why many of us are doing it.

Next, more on how the study of church history moved me out of one and into the other.

Why did you leave the Baptist Church? (Part Two A: Theological Differences)

The next two posts will focus on the theological differences between that SBC and PCA that led to my move into the PCA.

System of Doctrine
Pastors that are seminary trained know that reading the Bible and trying to form doctrine apart from a systematic approach is ill-advised. Most denominations have some sort of system that helps them understand Scripture. This system gives order to their many doctrinal convictions and helps insure that they are consistent from one doctrine to another. The PCA follows a system of doctrine commonly called Covenant Theology. This system understands God to be revealing himself to us in relationship, and particularly through relationship that involves promise and fulfillment to a specific people chosen by God. The test for any system is to ask if it accords with scripture. And what we mean by that is essentially: Does my system help me understand Scripture consistently? Does my system contradict Scripture in any way? Does my system make sense of the difficult passages without doing injury to any other passage of Scripture or to my system? This is a crucial point. Having such a system protects us from doctrinal error (especially when coupled with an understanding and appreciation for historical theology and a confession to which all subscribe). It also binds us together. We are one in Christ, to be sure. But this manifests itself in our common faith.

In contrast, the SBC most commonly has no system. There are options available to them. They could claim New Covenant Theology, or Dispensationalism. And some of them do choose one of these. But most of them simply don't have a system. Because of this my experience has been that they don't teach much theology and often when they do it is inconsistent. They teach original sin, but in their Baptist Faith and Message (both 1963 and 2000) they implicitly deny it. They teach an age of accountability when in fact the Bible offers no support for such a doctrine. Their language is often incautious (is that the right word?). For example, I have often heard in Baptist churches that "people are dying and going to hell because you won't tell them about Jesus." I've been told over and over "I don't believe in election..." (and this from a pastor once) when of course election is biblical. Even the Arminians only sought to redefine it, not deny it. When someone does seek to ask hard theological questions I have on many occasions heard the teacher (be they pastor, lay person, or evangelist) make a joke and shake it off as pointless to think too hard about such things. This being my consistent experience, after spending more than 20 years in Baptist churches and being a member in good standing in quite a few, I could not help but begin to despair that things would improve.

The Church
As a result of our reading of Scripture and our covenantal system, Presbyterians understand that God is not doing his great work of redemption with regard to individuals alone, but by means of a covenant community called the church. This church was started immediately after the fall and is made up of all those who have believed throughout history. In the Old Testament it was primarily ethnic Israel, although gentiles were not entirely excluded. God revealed even then that it would involve all the world. In the New Testament the gospel exploded onto the gentile scene, changing the ethnic makeup of the church. We all, believers throughout history, belong to this one people of God and are the recipients of his promises to that people. Because we understand that the church is that people, and take seriously the language of body and bride applied to the church, we have a high view of the church and its connectedness. This means that we practice church discipline. It means we have a high view of the sacraments as means of grace given to us by God for our good. It means that we believe in a plurality of elders in leadership, and the submission of believers to one another under the leadership of the elders God has given them (both as a church and as a Presbytery and as an Assembly) and finally to Christ as the head of the church.

In contrast, the Baptist church has taken not a biblical model for its self-understanding, but a political one. The Baptist church is congregational. This means the congregation (theoretically) has all the authority. This is based upon a democratic model of government and reinforces the sense of "right to rule" in each member. It fosters an environment in which "that pastor isn't going to tell me what to do" and "I was here before that pastor came and I'll be here after he leaves" (a veiled threat to have a pastor removed). Any Baptist pastor can be removed by a meeting of the congregation and a simple vote without even having the pastor present. There may be a few exceptions to this, but they are isolated. This system leads to power plays and struggles among "deacons" (I've never understood the basis for deacons ruling the church). The most effective point against this church government is that few churches adhere to it in actual practice. Most baptist churches are either Episcopalian (the pastor is the absolute monarch of his church) or Presbyterian (the deacons or board of trustees act as a defacto session, ruling the church as a body). Few Baptist churches actually let their people rule, and when they do, it is often a disaster. Ultimately it is the indebtedness of their form of government to democracy that I believe fails to serve them well. Christ's kingdom is not a democracy, therefore it is not appropriate to run it as such.

Next: Part Two, B: The doctrines of grace, the doctrine of worship, and infant baptism.

Why did you leave the Baptist church? (Part One: People)

As I get in touch with old friends through Facebook, the question most often asked is how or why I became a Presbyterian after being a Baptist all my life. It's a fair question. I want to answer it over a series of posts in the coming days. My goal in doing so is not to make "converts" (although the PCA stands ready to receive you with open arms). Nor am I trying to bash Baptists (although relating the negative things that drove me away will perhaps give that impression). I ministered in the Baptist church for several years; first as the Discipleship Pastor at a church of several thousand; then as the Spiritual Formation Pastor at a church that I helped plant. I loved and still love my friends in the Baptist church and those folks to whom I ministered. In the end, though, I couldn't stay. This is the story of why.

I came to faith along with my family in an independent baptist church in Anchorage, Alaska. It was unapologetically fundamentalist. This means it was arminian, dispensational, and legalistic. But I felt loved by the church and the adults that gave their time to the children. I learned about the Bible and heard the gospel regularly. After moving a couple of times in the Air Force, we found ourselves in Izmir, Turkey. Also new to Izmir was an Air Force chaplain (PCA) by the name of Bobby Gardner. Bobby and dad spent time together and Bobby began to teach my dad the doctrines of grace. Dad was faithful to teach us what he was learning from Bobby. My initial reaction was to recoil and reject the doctrines of grace. This was the beginning of my long journey into the reformed faith.

I eventually began to consider the doctrines of grace. I didn't understand them. I embraced what I thought they were, and then would discover that I hadn't understood and so I'd keep thinking and growing in my understanding. This process spanned more than a decade. I didn't have too many people to talk to, but would continue to discuss it with my dad occasionally. All this time I continued to worship in the Baptist church.

Twenty years after meeting Bobby Gardner, I applied and was accepted to Dallas Theological Seminary. I was still a dispensationalist. I knew better than to embrace legalism, but wasn't sure what the alternative looked like. I was finally able to say with understanding and conviction that I was a Calvinist. During the course of my five years at seminary I ran into several people that played an important role in my transition. First was Dr. John Hannah, professor of Historical Theology. In my study of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen and others under Dr. Hannah (not to mention Dr. Hannah's wonderfully pastoral care for his students and obvious love for the reformed theology of these great men in the history of the church), I came to understand and love reformed theology.

At the same time, I was being lovingly encouraged by friends at seminary (Jason Helopoulos, Clay Daniel, and others) to question my dispensationalism (and my view of baptism and the church). The quiet confidence these men had in their theology, combined with their patient approach in our conversations slowly won me over. I was struck by the ease with which they parried my arguments. I was overwhelmed by the way that they answered my objections not merely by going to Scripture, but by going to Scripture broadly. They would sweep from end to end showing me how their view was in accord with Scripture and mine was not. They would constantly poke holes in my logic, showing how inconsistent my views were. And on at least one occasion one of them did this without looking up from the task he had in front of him. It wasn't that he didn't care. My arguments simply didn't require much effort. Frankly, I think my efforts to argue bored him. I just didn't have anything to stand on! For my friends reading along at this point, you know I've always liked to argue. And whether I'm right or not, I rarely cede the point. In my conversations with these guys, I just never won. And then they loved me anyway.

The next person in this litany is now the southwest area director for RUF (Reformed University Fellowship). His name is Keith Berger. Keith takes a group of guys down to the BVI each year to spend a week sailing. Through a series of unforeseen circumstances, I ended up on his boat (by means of a connection: the son of Bobby Gardner, Greg, with whom I have been best friends since Turkey). During the course of the week Keith had an opportunity to demonstrate grace to me, and did so in a way that no Baptist pastor ever had. Don't get me wrong, Keith's no Mother Theresa. But maybe that was what caught my attention. Keith ministered to me in a way that recognized my sin and didn't make light of it, but applied grace to it nonetheless. I'll bet to this day Keith wouldn't even know what I'm talking about. It seemed to come to him that effortlessly. I had seen this same sort of grace in Dr. Hannah.

Finally, while Greg was visiting Dallas 3 or 4 years ago, he encouraged me to swing by Park Cities Presbyterian Church one day. We went into the office and asked to see a pastor. Out came Ron Williams. Ron spent the next 2 or 3 hours talking to Greg and I about PCPC and the PCA and where he grew up, etc. Ron and I went on to have lunch several times over the next few years. He's the one that finally shepherded me out of the Baptist church and into the PCA. He didn't talk me into it. As a matter of fact, having been Baptist once himself, he told me to stick around the SBC as long as I could and only leave when I couldn't stand it anymore. I followed that advice and it served me well. When I finally met with him and told him I wanted to make the change, he helped me get into the required pastoral internship (required by the PCA in order to eventually be ordained). PCPC had such an internship and I was accepted.

There are several reasons I left the SBC for the PCA. The first and foundational reason was the key people that played such an important role in my growth in understanding. Some of these folks may not realize the part they played, or how important it was. Few of them set out to convert me. But by persistent gracious attention they did just that.

The remaining posts in this series will follow this outline:

Part 2: Theological Differences (a post in two parts)
Part 3: Historical Background
Part 4: Leadership Problems
Conclusion

I hope you enjoy reading along!

Seeing Red

About five weeks ago my new Vespa started giving me fits. I took it in and they worked and worked but were unable even to diagnose the problem. So after many twists and turns, it's finally been worked out. Instead of getting my silver scooter back, though, they gave me a new bike. It's the same model Vespa, but in red instead of silver. So I'm back in the saddle again. And none too soon. The beautiful Middle Tennessee Fall weather is only a few weeks away.

Human Interest Element

I'm following a blog I recently discovered. A 16-year old is solo circumnavigating the world in a 36' Islander (sailboat). Go to www.zacsunderland.com to get all the goods. Make sure to visit the blog. This is where the action is. He's crossed the Pacific so far, just completed the Torres Strait in the last day or so and is heading to Darwin right now. It looks like a great story. If he completes the trip and does so in the timeframe planned, he will become the youngest solo in history. There are pics, videos, etc. on the website. Enjoy!

Lake Days

If yesterday was perfect for a hike around a lake, today was a perfect day to be on the lake. It was in the 80s and sunny. So when our friends the Spurgeons asked us if we wanted to go out on the lake this afternoon, we jumped at the chance. The boys had a great time and we really appreciated the time spent getting to know the Spurgeons a bit better and relaxing out on the lake. What a great weekend!

Over the hills and through the woods...

We are loving Nashville! Today we drove about 15 minutes to Radnor Lake State Natural Area and hiked a little over 2 miles through some beautiful lakeside forest. You can see the pictures here. The temps were perfect...around 67. We packed some sandwiches and drinks and headed out. When you're at the park, it's hard to believe you're so close to downtown. Twenty minutes at most would put you right downtown. We saw several groups of whitetail deer and a gaggle of Canadian Geese. The park even has bald eagles, although we didn't see any today.

This trip was also a little test to see how Ian would do hiking. He did great! I'm starting to plan a trip to The Great Smokey Mountains National Park in the Spring. He'll have his own pack and we'll be on the trail for about 4 days. I'm hoping on his first big trip we can do at least 8 miles a day, but we'll just have to see. I'm going to take him out again to Radnor, just the two of us, and do about a 5 mile hike (you can't do much more at Radnor without doing a second lap). There are two trails in particular that include a significant climb (one to the top of the highest point in the Nashville Basin). This should give me some idea how he'll do. We'll keep adding distance and weight until we are able to do 8 miles with packs. That should get us ready for the GSMNP in the Spring.

What a great place to live!