Omnia ad Dei Gloriam

Blog Organization

2010-12-16T18:06:00.004-06:00

I'm trying to transition off of this blogger account and onto wordpress. I've had a few wordpress accounts for the last couple of years, and I've finally settled down into 4 blogs that I plan on updating regularly.

My faith related blog is called Cure of Souls.
My sailing blog is BVI 2010.
My scuba diving blog is called The Misadventures of a Landlocked Diver.
And finally, my genealogy research is collected at The Bradley Project.

After spending a couple of years in both "worlds", I've found Wordpress to be far better and easier to navigate. Having all my active blogs in one place will be easier for me as well. I've put most of my old posts from here onto the appropriate blogs (or will have in the next few days). I will also keep this blog intact. For my three followers, I hope you join me over at wordpress!

Books Every Lay Person Should Read: Living in God's Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen

2010-12-10T11:46:00.004-06:00

Our next book is Living in God's Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen.

Who is the author? David is a professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California and an ordained minister in the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church).

What is the book about? The book explains in mostly general terms how we are to live as Christians in the culture.

Why is this book worth reading? Where to begin? First, the book is thoroughly biblical and soundly theological. In fact, even if you don't agree with his conclusions about interacting with culture, you will come away from this book with a profound understanding of God's redemptive work, the place of Adam in that work, the centrality and priority of Christ in that work, and who we are and how we fit into that work. This alone is worth the price of the book. However, these things have implications for how we relate to culture. There is a popular idea that is growing more and more common among groups such as the "emergents" that somehow we are suppose to "redeem" culture. This leads churches to use the tithes and offerings they have received and dedicated to use in God's kingdom in inappropriate ways, it confuses Christians about who we are and what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf, and it leads to a loss of focus on the part of the Church. This book will reorient your understanding of the Church and how it relates to culture. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Brief? It may stretch the definition of brief for the average reader, but it qualifies!
Easy to read? This book will stretch you. But with careful reading, most shouldn't have any trouble.
Biblically and theologically sound? Check
On an important topic? Check

Books Every Lay Person Should Read: Just Do Something by Kevin DeYoung

2010-12-10T11:36:00.005-06:00

Our first book up in the series is Just Do Something by Kevin DeYoung.

Who is the author? Kevin is a pastor in the RCA in Lansing, Michigan.

What is the book about? This book deals with the question of how to know God's will.

Why is this book worth reading? There is a lot of confusion out there among those who identify as evangelicals. People typically aren't sure how to know God's will or they are too confident that they know His will. One paralyzes and the other becomes coercive. Kevin does a great job of laying out a biblical understand of God's will, what we can know, what we can't know, and how we are to live as those who wish to please our Father in heaven. Even if you aren't currently struggling with a major life decision or you think you know what God's will is, I highly recommend this book.

Brief? Check
Easy to read? Check
Biblically and theologically sound? Check
On an important topic? Check

Books Every Lay Person Should Read: A Series

2010-12-10T11:28:00.003-06:00

I'm going to start a series of posts here on the blog recommending books that I think are well-written and thoughtfully argued; on topics that are of importance either because they are so commonly impacting the lives of believers, or they are so commonly misunderstood, or they are simply important, period; and which are written at a length or level that most lay people will be willing to stick with it and get through the book.

As a pastor I'm always thinking about this when I read books. Is this a book I can recommend to the people to whom I minister? And so, to keep track of those books, I'm going to post them here with a brief review of each.

Another guiding principle in this project is that I generally just want to find one book to recommend on a given subject. I know on most subjects there are several great books at least. And perhaps I will list a very brief biography at the end of some of the posts, pointing folks to more reading if they wish to do it. But finding a book that is clear, concise, biblically and theologically sound, written for the non-professional-theologian, on an important topic, is actually hard enough that just finding one will often be a challenge.

So I hope the three of you who follow this blog will find these recommendations helpful. Enjoy!

Final Report

2010-07-02T12:07:00.003-05:00

Well, the 38th General Assembly of the PCA is adjourned.

Here are some highlights:

1) The Assembly instructed the AC to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of holding Assemblies every other year.

2) The new funding proposal for the AC was approved, requiring some amendments to our standards which will have to be ratified by the Presbyteries and voted on again next year. This basically will require each church to pay a percentage of their annual budget to fund the AC in order for their elders participate at the Assembly.

3) Overture 20 (to study the possibility of virtual attendance at GA) failed.

4) Overture 24 (17-point call to renewal in the PCA) was adopted with amendments.

5) All of the Themes, Goals, and Means of the Strategic Plan were adopted with the following exceptions:

Means (Specific) #4 under Theme #2: Establish standards for voluntary certification of men and women for specific non-ordained vocational ministries. Failed.

Means (Specific) #2 under Theme #3: Ruled out of order. (It dealt with AC funding which had already been addressed).

6) The MNA committee recommended that Overtures 12, 17, and 22 be answered in the affirmative with amendments. This passed. The substance is that the Department of Defense has asked the religious organizations which sponsor military chaplains to give insight into the impact of removing the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the Armed Forces. A letter was submitted in these overtures to answer that inquiry. Some of the language in the letter was tweaked and it was approved by the Assembly. We normally don't approve letters to politicians or the government, but in this case that government has asked the church for its input, so it was deemed proper by the Assembly.

7) This brings us to the Overtures referred to the Overture Committee. See my post below for the Overtures Committee's recommendation for each overture. All of the recommendations I list below were adopted by the Assembly.

In order to understand what this means in each case, you'll need to review the Overtures and the committee's recommendation. However, I'll summarize a few key overtures.

Overture 15, which is a significant rewrite of BCO Chapter 5, was passed.

Overtures 7, 2, 9, 13, and 16 all had to do with women and the diaconate. All were answered by reference to the Assembly's answer to #7. Seven was answered in the affirmative with an amendment. The result is that the Assembly approved an amendment to BCO 9-7 adding the following language: "These assistants to the deacons are not officers of the church (BCO 7-2) and, as such, are not subjects for ordination (BCO 17)."

If you didn't already know we don't ordain women to the office of deacon, this might come as a surprise to you. But the fact is, this language changes nothing of substance in our polity.

That's the substance of this General Assembly. Women's relationship to diaconal ministry, the Strategic Plan together with the new AC funding proposal, and a letter to the government on homosexuality in the military.

Next year GA is the first week in June at Virginia Beach. See you then!

The Latest from the PCA GA

2010-07-01T18:41:00.002-05:00

We have recessed until after worship this evening. We'll reconvene around 9pm. The new AC funding plan has been approved, but must go to the Presbyteries this year for approval, and then be reaffirmed next year at GA.

We are about halfway through the Strategic Plan and everything has passed so far.

We'll hopefully complete the Strategic Plan tonight and I suspect have to push overtures off to tomorrow morning.

Update.

2010-07-01T16:59:00.003-05:00

Just a quick update. We are still debating the Strategic Report. However, barring some unanticipated speech or action, it seems to be passing quite easily. Lots of discussion and speeches against, but when it comes time to vote, it's all passing.

We are 30 minutes from a recess for dinner. Worship follows dinner. We will either have to reconvene at 9pm this evening and then continue work in the morning, or simply continue work in the morning.

Here we go.

2010-07-01T13:22:00.002-05:00

The Assembly will reconvene in a few moments (1:30 pm). We basically have two reports left this afternoon. At 2pm will be a special order to receive the AC's Strategic Plan. Following this the Assembly will take up the overtures recommendations from the Overtures Committee. They are sending the following overtures to the floor with the stated recommendations:

No recommendations will be made with regard to Overtures 12, 17, and 22. They were sent to this committee in error.

Overture 5: Answer in the Negative
Overture 18: Answer in the Negative
Overture 14: Answer in the Negative
Overture 28: Answer in the Affirmative as Amended
Overture 11: Answer in the Affirmative
Overture 15: Answer in the Affirmative as Amended
Overture 7: Answer in the Affirmative as Amended
Overtures 2, 9, 13, 16: Answer by reference to the GA's action on Overture 7
Overture 10: Answer in the Negative
Overture 25: Answer in the Negative

They are asking that we not be on the WIFI during the session, so I will post results afterwards.

General Assembly 2010

2010-06-30T10:18:00.002-05:00

GA 2010 is in full swing. Committees began meeting on Monday and last night we began with our first assembly worship service. We elected a moderator (Harry Reeder) and will begin business this morning at 10:30.

There are a few links you'll need if you're following along this week.

First, you can watch online at:

http://byfaithonline.com/page/pca-news/2010-general-assembly-live-stream

Once on the page, click on the link to start the live stream.

Next, I will be posting primarily about overtures. I won't take the time to explain each overture (there won't be time!). Instead I'll use the overture numbers. If you would like to understand each overture a bit better, you can read the overtures themselves here:

http://www.pcaac.org/2010GeneralAssembly/2010overtures.htm

Click on each overture and it will open as a pdf. In each overture, scroll down to the "Therefore" statement to find out what they're asking the Assembly to do.

These overtures go through a committee which sends them to the floor with a recommendation to affirm or reject the overture. These recommendations will then be voted on by the Assembly. Two issues of particular concern this year are the ongoing discussions re: women in diaconal ministry and the presentation of the denomination's strategic plan, which has been a source of concern for quite a few folks.

The Strategic plan will come to the floor at 2pm tomorrow (Thursday). This is a special order, which means that it really will come to the floor at that time. The overtures are scheduled for 4:30pm Thursday, but are not a special order, which means we'll get to them when we get to them.

So stay tuned!

The Duties of Parents

2010-04-15T12:17:00.004-05:00

To say I've been delinquent on the blog isn't at all true. I've stopped blogging altogether during the past year. Today's contribution should not be taken as any indication that I intend to begin again. However, in my reading today I came across something I just had to share (although due to my inactivity, who I am sharing it with is a valid question).

I'm currently working through a little book entitled The Duties of Parents by Jacobus Koelman. As a parent myself, I'm looking for wise counsel on how best to raise my boys up in the Lord. Koelman was a Dutch pastor of several hundred years ago, but his counsel remains sound in so many parts.

A heavy emphasis (historically) among the Presbyterian and Reformed churches has been family worship and catechizing your children. Catechism is the use of question and answers to train children in doctrine and piety. Two popular catechisms in our tradition are the Heidelberg and Westminster Shorter (the latter being a part of my denomination's confessional standards). But the practice of catechesis is broader than question and answer. It becomes a means by which we fulfill the command of Deut 6 - Always telling our children about God and his promises to his people.

While our churches have largely forgotten this discipline with regard to our children, there are those still committed to its practice. Many of them are gathered at a pastor's fraternal I attend in Jackson, MS each year. Although this subject isn't a focus of our time together, I am encouraged in personal conversations by what I hear. Not only that fathers are taking the practice seriously, but that they are also struggling in their attempts. It has so long ago ceased to be a part of our culture (as a Church) that it is foreign even to many of us who embrace it in principle.

Anyway...let's get to the quote. Koelman opens with an appeal to parents, who in his day and age were already abandoning the Christian training of their children.

The covenant whose seal they received demands faith and repentance. Should you not then nurture them in the knowledge of divine things and for faith and godliness? For you have not wished to lie before the Lord, as I may hope, and you are not sorry that you dedicated them to God in the sacrament. Then follow your conscience in this matter. Try to save them with all appropriate means prescribed by God; try to turn them away from evil and to spur them on to all good work. From you they have inherited the origin of evil, which is a thousand times worse than leprosy, gall stones, kidney stones, and similar physical ailments they might have inherited from you. It is fair, therefore, for you to do your utmost to seek their healing by trying to surrender them into the hands of the physician of souls, Jesus Christ, by making him known, recommending him, and leading them to him as it were by your hand - to him who said, "Let the little children come unto me" (Luke 18:16). He will bless and embrace them!

He continues in this vein for sometime. It is both convicting and encouraging. May our families (starting with our young pastors!) recover the practice of family worship and catechism for the health of the Body and the glory of God!

On Baptism

2009-11-20T11:16:00.004-06:00

I was recently asked about the difference between the Baptist and Presbyterian views of baptism. I wrote a series on this a couple of years ago, so I thought I would post briefly and point to it to make it easier to find. You can read the entire series here. However, you'll have to start at the bottom post and read the posts in reverse order. Read only the posts first, then if you want to read the comments, go back for those. The comments get really technical and will only confuse.

I also did a series answering the question "Why did you leave the Southern Baptist Church?". You can read that here.

To answer the baptism question briefly...

The real difference is this: Baptists do not believe their children are members of the covenant community, so they don't give them the sign. Presbyterians believe that they are members, so they do give them the sign. Who's right? Well, read the series linked above and you'll get my biblical argument for infant baptism and against the baptists.

Enjoy!

Autumn?!

2009-08-24T07:55:00.002-05:00

I wore a fleece to the office this morning! We are in the 50s! In August!

Here it comes!

2009-08-07T08:34:00.003-05:00

Premier League Football starts on the 15th of August! See the link in the right hand column for more info.

That's it.

2009-06-18T15:03:00.002-05:00

Although there's some business left to conduct (committee of thanks, etc), for all intents and purposes, the 37 General Assembly is over. Feel free to comment with questions about anything I've reported. Thanks to those that were following along. I'm glad I could help!

Overture #6

2009-06-18T14:18:00.006-05:00

We are now addressing the supplemental report of the committee with respect to #6 from earlier today.

The concern here is that we tighten up our constitution to protect our pastors and churches from legal action with regard to marriage between same sex couples. It was recommitted to the committee earlier because it was felt that the language of the overture did not adequately address what most felt to be a legitimate problem. By sending it back to the committee to perfect the language, we were able to avoid putting it off another year. The committee has proposed some very good amendments to the BCO in order to address the issue properly. We will vote momentarily.

The new recommendation of the committee is that the overture be affirmed with the stated amendments to the original overture. This will not grant constitutional authority to the section in question, but will provided the desired protection.

There was a question as to the approval process. Normally BCO changes must go down to the Presbyteries and come back next year. The Moderator ruled it does not in this case. The ruling of the moderator has been challenged and it will now go to a vote.

The chair was sustained. It now goes to a vote.

A 2/3 vote is required in order for the overture to pass.

There was a motion to recommit this to the committee.

After much debate, the question was called and defeated.

We are now debating the original question.

The committee's motion has passed with the required 2/3 majority.

Overture #5

2009-06-18T14:17:00.002-05:00

We are now addressing Overture 5 which the committee recommends be answered with reference to the decision just made on #10.

This has passed and #5 is answered in the negative.

Overtures 5 and 10

2009-06-18T13:00:00.017-05:00

(I will update this post as things unfold)

The committee has recommended that #10 be answered in the negative.

David Coffin has moved that the report be approved.

EJ Nusbaum has made a motion that we receive the minority report.

Mr. Coffin is now speaking for the committee report against the minority report.

Mr. Nusbaum is now speaking for the minority report.

Mr. Coffin is now rebutting.

The matter is now open for floor debate.

An argument was made that the minority report is our of order. This was rejected by the moderator. [By the way, I should have reported that Brad Bradley recused himself from the chair for this debate since he has signed the minority report]

The question was called, but the moderator said it was out of order. 60 minutes is provided for floor debate and it cannot be ended early by calling the question. We have roughly ten more minutes of debate remaining (up to about 3 pm). However, the Assembly may vote more time.

Among the many speaking for and against the minority report, Brian Habig is currently arguing for the minority report.

Debate has now ended. Mr. Coffin is now making his closing argument.

We are now voting.

This is going to be close! Division has been called.

There will be a vote count.

The minority report has been rejected by the Assembly by a vote of 446 to 427. How's that for close!

We are now voting on the committee report. It has passed. There will not be a study committee.

Back in session

2009-06-18T12:40:00.009-05:00

We are back in session and are approving the floor nominations to various committees.

Once we're done with this, we should return to overtures. I'm not sure if we'll take Overture 6 or 5 and 10 first.

The Minority Report re: Overture 10 reads as follows:

Recommended that the Assembly answer Overture 10 (as amended) in the affirmative. The amended overture, (with the amendments in bold, italics underlined [I'm just bolding and italicizing them in yellow- mtb]) is as follows:

Be it resolved that the 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America authorize the Moderator to appoint a study committee representing the diversity of opinion within the PCA, including up to two advisory members who may be women, to study and report to the General Assembly in the form of a pastoral letter that the General Assembly could choose to commend to the presbyteries for their study. This pastoral letter should address the following questions:

1) What sorts of roles may women fill in the life of the church that are faithful to the Scriptures?

2) Strike

3) With respect to (1) above, what elements of organization and accountability to ordained leadership can be commended to PCA churches that are consistent with the BCO?

4) Strike

We are now swearing in the nominees, so overtures should be coming right up...

EDIT: Among the names on the minority report: Kevin Twit, Brad Bradley, Bryan Chapell, Jeffrey Meyers, David Clelland, and EJ Nusbaum.

We are adjourned for lunch.

2009-06-18T10:31:00.001-05:00

Overture 18

2009-06-18T10:27:00.003-05:00

The committee recommended that #18 be answered in the negative.

The motion was passed with only one comment.

By the way, Dr. Ryken of 10th Pres Philly is the Overtures committee chairman.

Overture 14

2009-06-18T10:25:00.001-05:00

The committee recommended that #14 be answered in the negative.

The motion passed without discussion.

Overture 13

2009-06-18T10:24:00.002-05:00

The committee recommended that #13 be answered in the negative.

The motion was passed without discussion.

Overture 9

2009-06-18T10:23:00.002-05:00

The committee recommends that this be answered in the affirmative.

This passed with no discussion.

Overture 8

2009-06-18T10:19:00.003-05:00

(All overtures regarding presbytery boundaries are handled by another committee).

The committee recommended that this overture be answered in the negative. With no discussion this recommendation passed.

Overture 6

2009-06-18T10:13:00.004-05:00

The committee recommended that #6 be answered in the negative.

A motion was made to recommit the overture to the committee for perfection. This motion was carried with moderate discussion and so the motion will be recommitted.

EDIT: The committee will consider this during lunch.

Overture 4

2009-06-18T10:00:00.005-05:00

The committee has recommended that #4 be answered in the negative.

A motion was made to recommit the motion to the committee. This was motion was lost with moderate discussion.

The original motion passed with moderate discussion.

As a reminder #5 has been deferred (along with 10) to the end of the discussion.

Overture 3

2009-06-18T09:55:00.002-05:00

Overture 2 was ruled out of order by the Stated Clerk and the Committee.

The committee recommended that #3 be answered in the negative. The motion passed with only one question.

Overture 1

2009-06-18T09:46:00.002-05:00

The Committee recommended that #1 be approved with amendments. The motion was approved with moderate discussion.

Overtures to Come to Floor

2009-06-18T09:43:00.002-05:00

We are way ahead of schedule. We are now beginning to consider the overtures. A brief recess is in effect until the "lolligaggers" out in the hallway can be called in. We will take the overtures in order, except for 5 and 10 which will be considered at the end. Due to the speed at which these things happen, I will not review the substance of the overtures. Instead, let me point you to the overtures page. I will reference them by number and give you the answer given by the Assembly.

Thursday in Orlando

2009-06-18T08:22:00.002-05:00

Yesterday ended well. I attended the "Great Debate" between Ligon Duncan and Tim Keller on the role of women in Diaconate ministry. Keller did not argue for ordination, acknowledging that our standards are clear on that and that the proper means of discussing it is through the process of Constitutional Amendment. Instead, he argued for the place of women in a visible and recognized role in diaconate ministry (Commissioning, which our standards allow). I was a bit dissapointed that the practice of not ordaining men to the diaconate (a practice observed in a few of our churches which serves to establish equality between the men and women in diaconate ministry...you know: "If you can't bring the women up, put the men down") was not much addressed. But both men did well and Keller (surprise surprise) was very persuasive.

Thursday has started off well. I've just come from a seminar on Calvin's Doctrine of Creation by Sean Michael Lucas that was excellent. Between there and my seat here on the Assembly floor I ran into several folks who were either old friends or people I've followed through their blogs. In a few moments the Assembly will open with the singing of a psalm and then we'll get down to business. Today will be less informational type reports and more action related. In particular the Assembly will be voting on the recommendations of the Overtures Committee. As I said below, I'll be posting as often as I can today to update you on the outcome of the votes.

I would like to reiterate something said by both Duncan and Keller yesterday. In case you aren't aware, the issue before us today with regard to women is not actually (immediately) about the diaconate. The overture(s) is simply to establish a study committee on the role of women in the church. However, because of the various issues related to the deacon question, there are many motives behind voting for or against the study committee. So as Keller said, regardless of how the vote goes, let's avoid reading too much into it. Such a study committee may result in tightening our standards, for example. So let's not overreact. (Either with joy or fear!)

How GA Works

2009-06-17T13:38:00.003-05:00

The work of the Assembly is done largely in committee. We have standing committees that are staffed and work throughout the year. These committees are responsible for Covenant College, Covenant Theological Seminary, Mission to the World, Mission to North America, Reformed University Ministries, etc. Then we have committees that only meet occasionally, or perhaps even just a day or two before the Assembly. These committees, such as the Committee on Inter-church Relations, conduct the business assigned to them and produce a report. The Overtures Committee is another such committee, reviewing the overtures submitted to the Assembly and recommending action to the Assembly in each case.

Once the Assembly convenes, it consists primarily of receiving the report of each of these committees. Sometimes these reports are information only, giving us an update on the work of the committee (such as the "State of the Seminary" type address that Bryan Chapell is making now regarding Covenant Theological Seminary of which he is President). Other reports, such as the Overtures Committee, will make reports that require action on the part of the Assembly.

Today we have primarily received informational reports. Together they constitute a fairly comprehensive picture of the "State of the Denomination". Soon we'll recess for Dinner and then return for evening worship. Unless we get way ahead of the docket, we won't begin to address the Overtures issues until tomorrow. Keep reading here for updates tomorrow. I'll post results as each overture is decided.

Day Two Off to a Good Start

2009-06-17T09:05:00.004-05:00

I'm in the Assembly Hall as I write, waiting for the Wednesday session to begin. I've just come from a seminar in which Doug Kelly presented a paper on Calvin and His Catholicity. The thesis was that "catholic" refers to far more than "universal", which is primarily a reference to the quantity of time and space (through all time and in all places). Instead (from the Greek kata- and -holos) means "according to the whole" and is a reference to quality more than quantity. In other words, the word catholic (which is certainly not properly applied to the Roman church), is a reference to that church and those people who are submitted to all of Scripture. We are not only Sola Scriptura, but Toto Scriptura. Not only Scripture Alone, but All of Scripture. It is this way in which Calvin used "Catholic", intentionally avoiding the application of the term to the Papists, who he did not think worthy of it. Not only is this Calvin's conception of "Catholic", but it is this concept - submitting all belief to the revelation of God contained in the Scriptures and allowing no other authority, which is the "vision" driving Calvin's work. Kelly opposed this to the once common belief that Calvin had an organizing principle (such as sovereignty, predestination, or the Glory of God) into and out of which all his thought flowed. It was a wonderful session. More later.

Oh! One more thing! Our denominational magazine has this headline this morning: "Assembly Elects Bradley as Moderator". I need to get that banner size to hang in my office. It's likely the closest I'll ever come to being elected!

Day One Recap

2009-06-17T09:01:00.002-05:00

In addition to the opening session last night in which Brad Bradley was elected moderator, I was able to eat lunch and dinner with a group of men involved in Turkish ministry. Several are Turkish pastors and the others are MTW missionaries. It was good to get connected with them and discuss Turkey (where I lived from 1988 - 90). The day ended late with some fellowship shared with other pastors in my presbytery. All in all, a good day.

Brad Bradley Elected Moderator of the 37th General Assembly

2009-06-16T20:53:00.003-05:00

Brad Bradley is a ruling elder at Park Cities Presbyterian Church of the North Texas Presbytery where, among other things, he leads the work of the Southwest Church Planting Network.

GA 2009 - Monday

2009-06-16T08:31:00.003-05:00

Hello from Disney's Coronado Springs Resort in Orlando, Florida!

Although the PCA General Assembly won't officially begin until this evening, much has already taken place. Committees meet on Monday and Tuesday morning and conduct business which is then reported to the Assembly throughout the rest of the week. Although all the committees are engaged in important business, the Overtures Committee is perhaps the one that receives the most attention from those following along. Theological controveries and constitutional amendments, for example, are brought to the committee in the form of overtures asking the assembly to act in a particular way. Yesterday two overtures (essentially identical) asked the Assembly to appoint a study committee on the role of women in the church. This request stems from the current discussion on women serving as deacons in either an ordained or non-ordained status. Both (being discussed together) will be sent to the Assembly with the recommendation that the Assembly NOT form this study committee.

[EDIT: A minority report will be filed with reference to the committee's recommendation on overtures 5 and 10]

Other overtures dealt with amendments to the BCO. While in most cases there seemed to be a concensus that these overtures dealt with legitimate issues, their proposed solutions were deemed insufficient to resolve the problem. Another overture asked the Assembly to send a letter to the President about homosexuals serving in the military. This one was resoundingly voted against with virtually no discussion.

As I type I'm sitting in the gallery of the Overtures Committee on Tuesday morning as they discuss/wordsmith the grounds for their votes (they send grounds to the Assembly along with their recommendations in order to help the Assembly understand why they made a given recommendation).

The rest of today will be pretty relaxed. I'll be attending a lunch hosted by the MTW team in Turkey, then sitting in on some seminars this afternoon. We'll meet together for worship this evening to officially open the Assembly.

TTFN

2009-05-24T16:29:00.003-05:00

Well, another season of Premier League soccer is behind us. Manchester United took the title again this year. But it's the relegation contest that was most interesting. Hull City, new to the EPL this year, managed to hang on, despite losing to Man U today. Newcastle United, long time EPL side, were relegated, along with Middlesbrough and West Brom Albion. Promoted from the Championship (the league one step below the EPL) and playing in the EPL next season are the Wolverhampton Wanderers, Birmingham City, and either Sheffield United or Burnley (determined in a playoff tomorrow, Monday the 25th of May).

EDIT: Burnley won, 1-0, earning promotion to the EPL and ensuring that Sheffield United will spend another year in the second tier.

Manchester United Win Premiership!

2009-05-16T10:03:00.002-05:00

They tied Arsenal today to pick up the last point they needed. Since no one can catch them on points, this means the season is theirs. But Premiership isn't done yet. There is still a battle to determine which three teams will be relegated to the lower league. The teams finishing bottom three must play next season in the Championship, which is the second level of professional football in England. Today is match week 37 of 38. Next week is the end of match play.

Meanwhile, don't miss the Champions League Final between Manchester United and Barcelona on May 27 at 1:30pm central time. Barcelona is sure to win La Liga (the professional league in Spain), so this final will be the best in Spain vs the best in England. I think Man U will win handily, but one never knows.

Finally, don't miss the FA Cup final. FA Cup is played each year in England and this year began with almost 800 teams. It's now down to two, Chelsea and Everton. They play May 30.

The Sin of Denim?

2009-04-17T08:45:00.003-05:00

George Will in this week's column goes off on denim (really he's going off on American culture and picks on denim as its symbol). There was this great line in the middle of the article...

"Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy's catechism of leveling"

Nice.

Twin Lakes Fellowship 2009

2009-04-15T07:20:00.002-05:00

I've reduced my blogging of late. It got to be too much. I guess it felt too self-indulgent. At any rate, I've closed the other blog and haven't been blogging here much. I'm at a pastors "fraternal" (it's like a conference, only less focus on speakers and more on networking for support of all kinds). It's put on by Ligon Duncan and First Pres Jackson. There are about 250 of us here at FPJ's camp property (which is gorgeous, btw). I may do a bit of blogging during the rest of the week, but let's stop short of calling it "live blogging". I have found that the "official" live bloggers are doing admirably. You can go here to keep up. I mention this only because Douglas Kelly preached a sermon last night that was simply amazing. I'd encourage everyone to take the time to listen to it. It's from Deuteronomy 23 and the title was "God Turns Curses Into Blessings". If you've never heard Kelly before, you're in for a treat (in more ways than one!). Scroll down a few posts on the blog to find the audio.

USA 3 - 0 Trinidad and Tobago!

2009-04-01T21:48:00.002-05:00

Ian and I went to a World Cup qualifier with friends here in Nashville this evening. The US played Trinidad and Tobago and won a smashing 3-0 victory. We were seated just behind and above the goal for the last two goals. To top it off, all three were scored by Jozy Altidore (a hat-trick!) and assisted by Brandon Donovan. The Boys had great possession tonight and looked solid. Between the weather and the matchplay, we couldn't have asked for a better night.

Ordination Exams Complete!

2009-02-12T20:27:00.002-06:00

Just a quick note to say that I have (by God's grace!) finished my ordination exams and will be ordained and installed as an assistant pastor in the PCA next Wednesday night at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville, TN. Thanks to all who have been praying for me and encouraging me!

Overheard...

2009-01-05T18:56:00.001-06:00

A saying the women of Alaska have about the men, by whom they are outnumbered...

"The odds are good, but the goods are odd."

Quoted by Roy Carter at the CPC men's lunch today.

English Football Roundup

2009-01-03T12:30:00.003-06:00

As we round the corner into 2009, it's time to get caught up on English Football. Three competitions stand out in English football (winning all three is called the "treble"). We'll take them one at a time.

English Premier League
This is the top 20 twenty sides in English football. We've reached mid-season and the January transfer window is open, but not quite newsworthy as yet. The top four are Liverpool, Chelsea, Manchester United, and Aston Villa, with Arsenal in a close fifth place. No big surprises here.

FA Cup
762 teams compete this year in the FA Cup! Teams from all levels of English football compete. The Premier League teams enter the competition in round three, which began this week. Notable results so far...Arsenal has won their match against Plymouth Argyle, Chelsea had to settle for a draw against Southend United, while Manchester City took a 0-3 drubbing from Nottingham Forest at home! Liverpool is leading Preston North End 0-1 as I write this. If you needed a better reason to watch English football than the fact that they don't have commercial breaks, FA Cup is your reason. This is good stuff.

UEFA Champion's League
Think World Cup for European club sides. As of now Liverpool, Chelsea, Man U, and Arsenal are still in the running. Group stage is over. First knockout round begins 24 February.

You can follow all these as well as World Cup Qualifying in the column on the right. Enjoy!

The Goddess of War

2008-11-25T17:51:00.002-06:00

We (Leslie, Ian, I, and my parents) had the rare privilege of receiving a private guided tour of Nashville's Parthenon today from a former curator. This is the same Parthenon that attacked Xavier earlier in the year. For a few dollars apiece, we entered the first floor and toured a hall full of photos recalling the Centennial celebration that served as the setting for the Parthenon. On the second floor is the replica of the Parthenon interior. It's incredibly well done, perhaps missing only the reflecting pool which would have stood between Athena and the entrance. Athena stands over 41 feet tall and is gilded in gold almost all over. To put it in perspective, can you see Nike standing in her outstretched right hand? Nike stands 6' 4" tall. If you live in Nashville and haven't ever been inside, it's well worth the trip. Attach yourself to one of the many school tours going through and you'll learn quite a bit! Many thanks to the kind member of our church that spent her morning guiding us through the world's only complete replica of this amazing piece of history.

Gunners Ruled Out by Math?

2008-11-15T18:14:00.004-06:00

For those that don't understand the English Premier League, there are twenty teams that play each other once away and once at home. Each match is worth 3 points. Draws are worth 1 point and losses earn the team a big zed. This means that each team plays 38 matches, for a potential 114 points. The side with the most points at the end of the season is the Premier League Champion side.

Although the Football Association (FA) has been around since 1863, the current English Premier League arrangement has only been around since 1992. That means 16 seasons are on the books. The first three seasons had 22 teams, so we're going to toss those results for math's sake. That means we have 13 seasons in our database. In those 13 seasons, no team has won the title after dropping more than 39 points. In an average season, the winner drops 30 points. In the past 3 seasons the winners have dropped no more than 27 points, and averaged dropping only 25 points.

This brings me to my point. With only 13 matches booked, Arsenal has already dropped 16 points. We are quickly approaching the point at which an Arsenal title would require a miracle season. Hang in there, Gunners! For better or worse, there's a lot of season left.

This time I mean it...

2008-11-07T13:09:00.003-06:00

Some of you may remember that a few months ago I set up a wordpress blog for more ministry related stuff. I've spent the better part of the day transferring old posts over there and getting categories set up to make it easier to navigate. From here on out (and I mean it!) I'll be posting my faith and practice thoughts over there. If I engage in a series, I might post here to mention it and point my readers over there, but I'm going to try and stick to just family and personal stuff on here for the most part. You can find the new blog here.

That Time of Year

2008-11-05T10:55:00.004-06:00

It's that time of year here in Middle Tennessee. This is our first Fall here, and it's shaping up to be all we had hoped. Crisp temps in the morning with great mild days in the afternoon. I went for another scooter ride this past Sunday and the fall colors were not disappointing. If you're local, make sure to get out on the Natchez Trace Parkway this week or this weekend at the latest before the colors are gone!

(Photo taken Sunday just off the Old Trace Trail)

Praying the Hours

2008-11-04T16:17:00.005-06:00

More than a year ago I posted some thoughts on the concept of time and its Christian observance. I have had to set it aside as I go through the long process of ordination in the PCA (which, God willing, will end in February with a positive outcome). But I came across something in my reading the other day that I thought I would post here.

In my Presbyterian context, such high liturgy as praying the hours is looked upon by some with a bit of suspicion. Perhaps it doesn't help that I come from a broad background, so I will be suspect for a few years anyway. :^) But I was a bit tickled to find this quote:

But, although it has already been stated above that, lifting up our hearts, we should ever aspire to God and pray without ceasing, still, since our weakness is such that it has to be supported by many aids, and our sluggishness such that it needs to be goaded, it is fitting each one of us should set apart certain hours for this exercise. Those hours should not pass without prayer, and during them all the devotion of the heart should be completely engaged in it. These are: when we arise in the morning, before we begin daily work, when we sit down to a meal, when by God's blessing we have eaten, when we are getting ready to retire.

But this must not be any superstitious observance of hours, whereby, as if paying our debt to God, we imagine ourselves paid up for the remaining hours. Rather, it must be a tutelage for our weakness, which should be thus exercised and repeatedly stimulated.

And who should be the author of such sweet thoughts? None other than John Calvin, Institutes, Book III, chapter 20, section 50 (Battles trans.). I just love it when I find a Calvin quote to support my high church impulses. Now if I could just find a source establishing the practice of midnight Christmas eve services in Calvin's Geneva...hmmm...

Obama/Palin '08

2008-10-14T21:28:00.004-05:00

You heard it here first, folks. The good people of Harlem are voting for Obama because of his pro-life position, determination to stay in Iraq until the job is done, and decision to call Sarah Palin as his VP.

Now before anyone gets their fruit o' the looms in a bunch, I think this cuts both ways. They could just as easily have attributed Obama's policies to McCain and jumped a bunch of McCain supporters, only airing the silly responses and casting away the informed voters. So my point isn't "look how stupid Obama voters are" nearly so much as it is "look how stupid the American public can be" and "oh my gosh...are these people REALLY allowed to vote?"

(HT: Reepicheep)

Obama: President

2008-10-14T14:38:00.008-05:00

This post originally spoke out against Obama as a candidate due to his pro-abortion stance. My views have not changed. However, the circumstances have. Obama is now the President-elect. Therefore I've removed this post since it can no longer have the intended effect of undermining his support as a candidate.

In its place I want to remind all confessors of Jesus Christ, regardless of how you cast your vote, that daily the merciless dismemberment, burning, and stabbing of the innocent unborn continues. In very few cases does it have anything to do with rape, or endangerment of the mother's life. It is most often simply a form of birth control - the removal of an inconvenience. Let us pray that our new president will break his campaign promises to proliferate this injustice. Let us pray that our society will come to see the horrific nature of this crime. Let us pray that we as a church on earth cannot be accused by future generations of being silent while this took place.

It is no more true under Obama than it would have been under McCain: God is sovereign and our hope and trust can only be in Him.

Lord, have mercy.

Five Smooth Stones: The Historical Case for Infant Baptism

2008-10-10T09:12:00.001-05:00

Although not a post in my baptism series, this is meant to supplement it. I want to address, as briefly as possible, the historical evidence for infant baptism. It is often argued that the practice was a late development. Some even argue that there is no example of it until the late fourth century. My objective in this article is to demonstrate by citing the church fathers that this is not correct. I cite five Fathers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries here that show the evidence that we currently have. If other historical evidence comes to my attention, I'll write a subsequent post.

Ireneaus
Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor (probably Smyrna, modern Izmir) around 130 to Christian parents and is believed to have been the disciple of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was in turn the disciple of the apostle John (author of the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and Revelation). His teacher, then, was taught by an apostle. He spent much of his ministry in Lyon, France (a missionary church of Polycarp) as the Bishop. He died a martyr around 200. This means most, if not all, of his ministry and writing was within 100 years of the death of John. In Against Heresies 2.22.4, he writes, "For [Christ] came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Because the Fathers did not admit a division between baptism and salvation, this is a clear statement of infant baptism in the church. Irenaeus could not have included infants in that list if they were not being baptised by the church. Here we have a Bishop in the church, within 100 years (late 2nd century) of the death of John, trained in Asia Minor by Polycarp disciple of John, remembered as the great heresy slayer, serving in France, making reference to the baptism of infants as normative in the church. It is difficult to see how he might favor infant baptism if the church he oversaw was planted by Polycarp, the disciple of John, unless infant baptism is apostolic.

Tertullian
Tertullian was born in Carthage (or at least the province of) around 145 or 155 to pagan parents. He was trained in Rome and is often referred to (in modern writings) as a lawyer, which may have been his line of work. He converted around 185. His writings certainly carry a wonderful logical sense of themselves and sound like the work of a lawyer's mind. He gave the church the word "Trinity" as well as many wonderful writings for which we are thankful. His ministry (as an elder - he doesn't seem to have ever served as a Bishop) in Carthage was from about 190 to 200. Again, this puts his writings about 100 years after the death of John and the end of the apostolic age. Tertullian's support for our view comes in a round about way. We disagree with his argument, but in making it, he reveals the normative practice in his day and time. Tertullian argues in On Baptism Chapter 18 that baptism should be delayed (not only for children, but for anyone unmarried). He makes reference to the practice of parents speaking for their children in baptism (a clear indication of the very young age of the child and the child's inability to confess Christ), and argues against it. He recognizes that they appeal to Christ's teaching, "Let the little ones come unto me and forbid them not." His argument, however, is not based upon the Baptist objection, but upon the view that once a person is baptized, he or she may no longer sin without putting themselves in grave spiritual peril. He does not, however, make any attempt to argue that the practice is not biblical, apostolic, or orthodox. Nor does he say those baptized as infants should be rebaptized, or that their infant baptism isn't true baptism. He offers his point of view as a pastoral suggestion only. The value in his writing, then, is in witnessing to the apparently acknowledged practice of infant baptism in Carthage at the end of the 2nd century.

Origen
Born to Christian parents around 185 in or around Alexandria, Egypt, Origen was a lay person in the church known among other things for his role as a teacher of new converts (he led the catechetical school at Alexandria, famous throughout the Church at the time). His father was martyred when Origen was about 17 years old. His works span the period of the first half of the third century and represent to some degree the events and views of Alexandrian Christianity in the early third century. He says in his Homily on Leviticus, 8.3, "In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants." In his Commentaries on Romans, 5:9, he argues that this "usage" came from the apostles. "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." Origen may be mistaken. But no one takes him to task until after the Reformation. Who is likely to have a better take on what was and was not apostolic? Origen (a teacher in the church born about 90 years after the apostolic period to Christian parents), or an Anabaptist of the 16th century?

The Apostolic Tradition
This writing of the early church is thought to have been composed by Hippolytus of Rome who died about 235. This makes its writing roughly contemporary with Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Hippolytus is believed by most to have been Bishop of Portus very near Rome. The Apostolic Tradition has been tentatively dated to around 215. In this work, chapter 21.4, Hippolytus teaches, "The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family." Here is one more example from the period of a Bishop teaching the baptism of children too young to answer for themselves. This time in Rome. Notice also that the language of baptism here is household, further reinforcing our argument on that point.

Cyprian
Cyprian was born in 200 and died in 258, placing his testimony in the same period, but slightly later than the above witnesses. He was a disciple of Tertullian and Bishop of Carthage in North Africa. With regard to the subject of infant baptism, Cyprian argues (on behalf of 66 presbyters meeting in council) in Epistle LVIII, "But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently." Cyprian goes on to argue that there is no reason to delay baptism to the eighth day. Instead, infants may be baptized upon birth. He argues instead that they should be baptized, teaching in the same letter, "how much more, then, should an infant not be held back". Cyprian accepts the principle of baptism as the NC circumcision, but just as the sign changed from circumcision (bloody) to baptism (unbloody), so the requirement that it be applied on the eighth day is now changed to allow for immediate application. Again, it should be pointed out, that Fidus (to whom the letter is addressed) is taking issue with the normative practice of the church of baptizing infants. He does not object to their baptism, but only to baptizing them "early". He thinks they should wait to the 8th day. He is appealing to the rite of circumcision as his motivation, and the council does not take issue with this, but argues that his application is too legalistic. This discussion takes place in the context of the early 3rd century church (again, about 120 years after the apostles). And the view presented is not one man's, but that of an entire council of presbyters in North Africa!

Conclusion
The testimony of these five demonstrates that in the churches 100-150 years after the apostolic period of the church, the baptism of infants was practiced in Asia Minor, France, Egypt, Carthage, and Rome. Given the geographic scope of these writings, the prominence (even in their own day) of these men and their writings, and the indication in each that infant baptism was not unorthodox or heretical, but the normative practice of their churches, I return to the question of my previous post. Does it seem probable that such testimony would exist if infant baptism were contrary to the clear teaching of the apostles? Certainly these men are not infallible, nor were their churches. And there are other things these men taught that we call into question. But on something as fundamental as who should receive baptism, does it seem likely they would (especially in the case of Irenaeus who is only once removed from the apostle John himself) not only allow but embrace such an inappropriate teaching? Two of these men were born into Christian homes (Irenaeus, c.130 and Origen, c.185). They advocate infant baptism, and no record exists of an "adult" baptism for either, making their own baptism as infants a likelihood. Allowing ourselves a bit of license on this account, Irenaeus' baptism in 130 as an infant, then, would have been performed by someone such as Polycarp, discipled by an apostle. We cannot argue this for certain, but it is not at all unreasonable given the evidence before us. And if these men did break with the teaching of the apostles, how do we explain the widespread nature of their break? Heresy has typically started in a local place and spread, but this practice has no such local beginnings. Indeed, since these earliest writings claim apostolic origin for their authority, no one can point to the time when infant baptism began in the church. And where are the writings against the practice? No one speaks up to say, "This isn't the tradition we received!" This argument is compounded by the fact that several of the men above are noted for their defense of the faith and the tradition handed down to them. They are recognized by all Christian scholars today as great men of the church who faithfully played their part in transmitting the faith to the next generation and fighting any heresy or aberration that might try to creep in. Is it likely such men, spread across the Roman empire, quietly introduced a new idea and no one spoke up?

My purpose has not been to establish the case for infant baptism beyond all doubt according to history. I merely intend to demonstrate that the evidence for such as an apostolic practice is not as scant as the credobaptist would have you believe. Their own requirement that only confessors be baptized is not nearly as well supported. Pointing to the example of such is insufficient for them. We teach the baptism of confessors as well. They are seeking to deny infant baptism, but there is no such text in all of the early fathers that teaches us to deny baptism to our infants. They seek to establish that only confessors can be baptized, but there is no such text that teaches this (only examples of confessors being baptized, which I've just admitted we agree with). Occasionally a Father, such as Tertullian, will counsel postponement, but then for reasons that the Baptist himself cannot agree with, demonstrating that he did not have their view in mind. Particularly lacking is any instruction to rebaptize those who were baptized as infants. Nor is there a single example of a child coming of age and then being baptized. The Baptist is left without any evidence for his view, then, for most of the 1500 years leading up to the Reformation. This should put the 100 year gap between the Apostles and any teaching on infant baptism into perspective.

*My title is a sort of tongue in cheek reference to my use of these five fathers to "slay" the Baptist argument that infant baptism is without early attestation. It's really just meant for fun. I hope none will take offense.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Six: Some Objections)

2008-10-08T20:09:00.002-05:00

My goal in this post is not to present an exhaustive list of Baptist objections. I'm not even sure these are their best objections. But as a Baptist myself at one time, these were the objections that kept me from embracing covenantal infant baptism. They were the objections I most commonly heard and employed. Although some parts of my posts have gotten a little technical, and although much of the commentary below the posts has been very technical, I'm trying to write for the average lay person for the most part. I'll try to simplify the argument in the summary in my final post. Here, then, are the objections most commonly employed.

First, if we are supposed to baptize infants, why don't we see any infant baptisms in the Bible?

If we concede that baptism has replaced circumcision, we do see infants receiving the sign in the Bible. If, however, we restrict ourselves to the NT, we need to consider the context. Acts is not concerned with answering the question of whether or not infants should receive the sign. Instead it is recording the spread of the Kingdom through the gospel. It records adult conversions and the baptisms that follow. This is what we would expect from such a narrative. This objection is an argument from silence and is therefore not effective. I could with equal force ask why we don't see any children being baptized when they come of age. Or why we aren't told of any women participating in the Lord's Supper. It's also important to remember that children were included in the covenant in the OT and would be assumed to be members of the NC unless they were instructed otherwise. So the burden is not on the paedobaptist to prove that children were baptized, but on the Baptist, to prove that they were not, having for some reason been excluded.

It should also be noted that of the (only) 12 recorded baptism events in the NT after (but including) Pentecost, 4 are certainly household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian Jailer, and Stephanus), and one other appears to have been (Crispus). It is no more legitimate for Baptists to insist that children were absent or not included in these baptisms than it is for Presbyterians to insist that they were. We simply cannot know the ages of those present based upon these records. But what we do see is that the text emphasizes that the baptism was a household baptism. This means the entire household. The Baptist argues that if infants were present, they would have been excluded. But the text does not say this. And the argument assumes the very point in question. In the case of the Philippian Jailer, it says he was baptized at once, "he and all his family." There is no attempt to assure us that infants were excluded. And before we laugh and say there was no need for Luke (the author of Acts) to record that for us, keep in mind: Infants were included in this rite of covenant membership for 1700 years. Their part would have to be assumed unless some instruction had been given otherwise. It is not silly to assume they were there and they participated. It is contrary to the biblical pattern to assume that they weren't. And yet their exclusion is not clarified by Luke.

This household language is also incredibly reminiscent of the OC. The language of covenant was "household" language. Genesis 17 speaks of circumcision being applied to all the males in his house. Dueteronomy 6 commands parents to instruct their children (because they are covenant children!). Paul issues instructions patterned on this same assumption (see Ephesians 6:1-4, for example, where Paul repeats the 5th commandment, with its promise, to gentile children). This is an identical pattern with regard to the sphere of the covenant. It is household in both cases.

Second, we cannot baptize infants since they are not regenerate (or saved, or have not confessed faith, etc). We don't know if they will grow up to be Christians.

It has been my contention throughout this series that baptism is not a sign given to regenerate people. We cannot know who is regenerate and who is not. We may be able to make a reasonable guess, but we cannot know for certain. Instead, the sign has always been commanded to a confessing people and their children. Let me put it this way. Abraham was saved by faith. Then the sign of God's promises to Abraham was given. This sign, which Gen 17 says is the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, is then commanded for his 8 day old boys. So even though salvation was already by faith, the sign of membership in this community of faith was commanded for those that could not express faith. If God worked this way in the OC, why can he not work this way in the NC? More to the point: God commanded this forever in Gen 17. This has never been repealed. "Forever" has never been clarified to mean: "for a little while." We have never been told our children are now excluded! I think this is crucial. God issued an explicit command forever and has never said children are now out. This idea is inferred by the Baptists from the lack of infant baptism examples in the NT. Should we ignore a command of God based upon an inference?

Furthermore, I will level the same charge at the Baptists: How can you baptize someone when they may not prove to be regenerate? Do you see how that works? This objection of the Baptists cuts both ways. Just because an adult can claim to have faith doesn't mean they won't turn out to be faithless (and unfortunately they sometimes do). Just because an infant can't confess doesn't mean they will turn out to be faithless. In neither case can we know. And praise be to God, he has not given us the task of discerning it. Even in the case of adult baptism, we give the sign to those that make a confession of faith with Christ as its object according to Scripture. We do not wait until we can prove their regenerate status (a task that is impossible for man).

Third, faith must precede baptism by NT example.

This is actually not much different from the first objection. And my answer will include a portion of my answer to the second. The NT examples do not exhaust everything there is to be said about baptism. This is clear from the fact that we also learn about baptism from non-narrative passages. Paul teaches about it in Romans 6 and Colossians 2, for example. What we learn from him there is more than we knew from just the 12 events recorded. Additionally, Isaac received the sign prior to faith. There can be no objection that salvation was somehow different under the OC. It certainly was not. When Paul says Abraham was saved by faith in Galatians 3:1-6, his point is that this is how God has always worked in salvation. So if faith did not have to precede the OC sign, why does it need to proceed the NC sign? Some biblical evidence must be provided that our children are not members of the covenant, or that they should now be excluded, otherwise the "forever" quality of the command in Genesis 17 compels us to give them the sign.

This objection is often brought up not only by general NT example, but specifically by Peter's instruction in Acts 2: "Repent and be baptized." Repentance (so the argument goes) precedes baptism. I believe this argument ignores the immediate context. Peter's audience was an adult audience. He was calling them to repentance. In such cases, faith does precede baptism. So this instruction is in no way contrary to what we would expect or teach ourselves in obedience to the Scripture. It is also, by the way, the pattern required in the OC for adult converts. Exodus 12:43-49 teaches that adults converting to faith in God must receive the sign. Their faith precedes their receipt of the sign. But this requirement is not extended to the children of those who are covenant members. In fact, notice that once this gentile has expressed his faith and received the sign, so does the rest of his household. This pattern is quite familiar to those who have read of the household conversions in Acts. The head converts and receives the sign, followed immediately by the application of the sign to his household.

Fourth, infant baptism is a late doctrine not found in the early church. Therefore it must be a corruption that snuck in after the apostles.

"Late" is such a tricky word. Is 100 years after the disciples too late? Now be careful. I didn't say this is when the practice started. This is the earliest attestation. There is no reason to believe it didn't start with the apostles. Baptists often point to these early sources and say this is when it started. That would be like pointing to the earliest reference to "Trinity" (Tertullian, late 2nd, early 3rd century) and saying this is when Trinitarianism started. I'm going to do a separate post in the coming days dedicated just to the historical evidence for infant baptism. But this is good stuff. We not only have evidence that it occurred. We have the testimony of the Fathers from this very period of the early church that they believed it was connected to circumcision. Did you catch that? The view of Presbyterians that circumcision is the precursor to baptism isn't a new idea. The New Covenant theologians might want you to think it only came along with the advent of Covenant Theology in the 17th century. But it turns out that we have evidence that the church linked baptism and circumcision logically at least as far back as the early 3rd century (200 to 250). That's 1800 years! And lest you are left thinking 3rd century sounds late: It's just over 100 years after the last apostle died! It's at or perhaps less than 200 years after Christ was crucified. And as far back as 200 or thereabouts we have writings from the Fathers that indicate it was being practiced as the normal practice all over the Christian world. What is more feasible: The Presbyterian argument that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles and we don't have any writings on it until 100 years after they died? OR the Baptist argument that within 100 years of the last apostle a great mistake has been made and adopted throughout the Christian world in which they baptize their infants contrary to the apostles, and we don't have so much as a letter or a book from anyone at the time decrying this great mistake?

History alone can't prove paedobaptism. But let's be very careful about believing the argument that history doesn't support infant baptism. Of the two options, history is far kinder to the view of covenantal infant baptism. It not only has early support, it is the practice of the vast majority of the church throughout church history. So if we look back over 2000 years of church history, we find that most Christians practiced infant baptism throughout this period. Again, I'll post a survey of some of the most significant historical references in the very near future.

(Edit: The post is up. You can read it here.)

Finally, the theological system of Covenantal Theology is wrong. Since this is the system upon which the doctrine of infant baptism is based, and since it is not the system taught in Scripture, the paedobaptist is wrong.

Another way to say this is: If we can prove that CT isn't true, then we have undermined the entire Presbyterian argument for infant baptism. I'm willing to concede this point for the sake of argument. I disagree, however, that CT is not biblical. Anyone making such an argument has some burden to demonstrate how and where the system fails to account for some portion of Scripture. And the responsible thing is to offer some better system in return. Those who raise this objection attempt to do both. The system they offer is usually referred to as New Covenant Theology. I won't offer a critique of this system here. We've discussed this at length in the comments under a previous post. My friend, Jay Bennett, is also critiquing this view as published by Dr. Stephen Wellum. This writing is widely recognized by Baptists as the best argument they have yet put forward. I look forward to Jay's unfolding response.

In short, however, I will offer this critique. The fundamental argument of NCT is that the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31 has been completely fulfilled, and in so doing, has completely abrogated (undone) all previous covenants. They also point to Hebrews 8 to support this view. This argument must be addressed (and has been, for example here). But it is not proving to be a difficult argument. The CT view is more nuanced and takes into account the broader testimony of Scripture. The NCT view is too optimistic about our current condition, making it difficult to explain our future hope if the NC in which it was promised has already been perfectly fulfilled. I'd encourage you to read Wellum, then read Jay.

The bottom line: If you are already a convinced CT, infant baptism is the only consistent position you can hold. If you deny infant baptism, you need to go back and reconsider your understanding and commitment to CT. Your only basis for denying infant baptism is a fundamental disagreement with the basic premise of CT: There is one eternal covenant of which the biblical covenants are unfolding revelations (Abraham, Moses, David, and New). My point in this paragraph isn't to draw lines and try to push anyone into or out of a particular group or label. But if you attend a Presbyterian church and willingly embrace covenant theology, but reject infant baptism, I'm sounding a little alarm for you. You need to rethink some things.

In the final post I will summarize my argument with proof texts (at least that's the plan!).

A Response to Wellum

2008-10-07T14:32:00.004-05:00

Under a post or two below, Blake White has interacted with my baptism series, suggesting I read Dr Stephen Wellum's "Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants". This has been recommended several times as the most effective critique of the covenantal infant baptism argument. I'm not in a position right now to offer a response to Wellum, but I would like to point you to a critique being published by my close friend, Jay Bennett. Jay has accepted a call to minister in the PCA in the St. Louis area and will be moving up there in the coming months. Without having read all of it (he's still getting to the meat of Wellum's argument), I am confident Jay's answer will be quite devastating to the Baptist critique of our view. Wellum's arguments are not new, but are only the usual arguments, well-crafted. I think you'll find Jay's style and substance quite persuasive.

As for my baptism series: I haven't forgotten about it. I'm working on the next post and hope to be done soon. I took the weekend off and haven't had a moment to get back to it yet. Part of it is a historical argument and I want to get my ducks in a row before publishing it. It's easier to do historical research poorly than just about anything else, and often with more devastating effects. Look for something in the next day or so.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Five: The Sign Transformed)

2008-10-02T14:18:00.002-05:00

This final installment will conclude my argument proper. All that is left is to demonstrate that circumcision is no longer the sign of the covenant. Christ instead has commanded baptism as the sign of membership in the covenant. This final post will be considerably shorter for this reason: As I will argue, I don't think Baptists disagree with this point (although they might protest a bit).

I think we all agree that there is a sign of membership, and that this sign is baptism. If you are a Baptist and you disagree, speak up! I think there may be some that will argue about this, but in the end they implicitly agree. Why do I say that? Because every Baptist church of which I have ever been a member or of which I have ever heard requires baptism in order to be admitted as a member. Since they do not believe in baptismal regeneration, it is perfectly consistent to argue that they see this as a sign of entrance and membership into the covenant community. This is further established by the argument that they make with regard to Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8. Their argument is that we cannot give baptism to infants because infants are no longer members of the covenant community. This argument assumes that baptism is the sign of covenant membership. Otherwise it is hard to see what support Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 has to offer the Baptist argument. And since we both agree that Baptism is now the sign of covenant membership, I'm not compelled to make an extended defense of the point in this post.

There is a finer point that will come up, however. Since we (and here I mean Presbyterians) believe that it is a sign of covenant membership, and since we believe (as do the Baptists) that circumcision was the OC sign of membership, we Presbyterians believe it is legitimate to take the principles found in the narrative surrounding baptism and bring those principles forward to the NT. This is legitimized by a single little word in the Hebrew of Genesis 17: Olam. Forever. While the outward form of the sign has changed, the thing signified has not. The covenant established with Abraham is an eternal covenant. It has Christ as its head (the one through whom the promises of the covenant are fulfilled). As such, the sign is commanded forever. So although that outward form changed, the principles underlying it did not. It is for our children. It is forever. It is about God's faithfulness to his promises, not about being our public profession of faith.

(On a side note, wouldn't circumcision be an odd sign to use for a public profession?)

Baptists, who, as I've demonstrated above, do see baptism as a sign of membership in the people of God, and do believe that circumcision was this sign in the OT, often do not wish to draw a parallel between the two signs. This is typically for two reasons. First, they do not believe that the church is Israel. They believe there are two people of God in redemptive history. Circumcision was the sign for Israel. Baptism is the sign for the church. If they were correct about God having two people, this might be a formidable argument. However, as we have seen, the division of the one people of God is a terrible mistake of exegesis and cannot be sustained. In fact, fewer and fewer dispensationalists (the group that started this theory) are even trying to argue for the separation anymore. They have incrementally withdrawn from this position over the past 50 years.

An alternative reason for softening or disregarding any parallels is a view called New Covenant Theology. This view uses Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 in order to make the argument that the one people of God is now entirely composed of regenerate people. These passages speak of a New Covenant that God will make with his people. Under this New Covenant the people will no longer be covenant breakers. They will no longer need to teach one another to know God because they will all know God. Hebrews 8 says that this New Covenant has superceded the Old Covenant, and is better than the OC. For this reason, these Baptists will argue that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31 has been completely fulfilled. The one people of God is now only the regenerate. And since the composition has changed, commands with regard to the circumcision of infants are no longer valid. (I've yet to get any answer to the question of what God meant in Gen 17 when he said your infants are to receive the sign "forever").

There are several problems with this view. First, the prophecies of Jeremiah have only been partially fulfilled. Certainly the New Covenant has been inaugurated by Christ (Luke 22:20). This has made certain aspects of the NC a present reality. But it has not changed the makeup of the community, which is still a visible community composed of regenerate and unregenerate people, as I've argued from Scripture (Matthew 13, 1 John 2:19). While those espousing the NC view often accuse us of an under-realized eschatology (in other words, failing to recognize that the promises are ours now), Scripture and experience tell us that theirs is in fact an over-realized eschatology (they claim too much for themselves right now). We instead find that the promises of Jeremiah are finally fulfilled in Rev 20-22. As for Hebrews 8, most of the most widely read and highly appreciated commentaries are in agreement: The OC is passing away, but is not yet deceased.*

The second problem with this view is that it makes it impossible to appropriately administer baptism. Since baptism is a sign given to the covenant community, and since (by their view) this community is only made up of the regenerate, and since we cannot know who is regenerate, then how can the sign be applied to anyone? Baptism is a visible sign. It must be applied to a visible community. But the New Covenant view of the community is that it is invisible. And here's the kicker: So they must apply the sign to the visible community. They argue that the sign is only for the invisible community, but are forced to apply it to the visible. You can feel their tension when they speak of trying to overcome this. They speak of doing their best to make sure the person is regenerate. While admirable in its own way, this only highlights the problem. Despite their best efforts, they admittedly will make mistakes. And for those that have been in the Baptist church, you will probably recognize how rampant these mistakes can be. Here is an article just written by a Baptist pointing to the problem of rebaptism in their churches, just as an example. If the standard for baptism is regeneration, no Baptist should baptize anyone with a clear conscience. And their attempts to separate the weeds from the wheat seem contrary to Christ's instruction in Matthew 13 (a parable about the kingdom, which is the church). The closest the NT comes to giving us license to do this is only after they are members, and then we call it discipline. Even this, however, is not based upon regenerate or unregenerate status. Otherwise, not knowing their status, we could never exercise discipline! Instead it is based upon covenant keeping and covenant breaking.

Additionally, Paul connects the concepts of circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. He says the Christians at Colossae had been circumcised. But this circumcision was not physical, it was spiritual. It was the circumcision of the heart spoken of in the OT. But when? When had this happened? Paul says in vs 12 it happened when they were buried with Christ in baptism. Paul says they were circumcised by baptism. This links the two signs in a significant way. It equates them as to their meaning. True circumcision in the OT was circumcision of the heart. But this is no sign (since it is invisible!). The sign of such was given to the visible community. Being buried with Christ in baptism (the spiritual reality of it) is no sign. It's the invisible reality that must be signified. But we give this visible sign itself to the visible community. Just as the two (circumcision and baptism) are spiritually the same, they are connected in their physical application as well.

So it appears that the argument isn't really about whether or not baptism replaced circumcision. Both sides agree that both are signs of covenant membership, and Paul connects the two logically in Colossians. So in some sense it certainly did. The argument is really only about who should receive this sign. I have tried to establish in my previous posts that children were once commanded by God to receive it forever, and that nothing has since transpired to rescind that order. Therefore our children are to receive the sign, and that sign is baptism.

As I said, this concludes my argument proper. In my next post I will line up some of the most common Baptist arguments and offer a response. In my conclusion I will offer the entire argument summarized in a single paragraph with Scripture proofs as applied in these posts.

* Harold Attridge (Hermeneia); Philip Hughes (Eerdmans); Paul Ellingworth (New International Greek Testament Commentary) to name but a few.

Now this is fun!

2008-10-02T11:24:00.002-05:00

In honor of their 10th anniversary, Google has posted their 2001 index. In other words, you can go here and enter your search string. The results are the ones you would see in 2001. You can then click on a link next to each result and actually pull the page up. It's a bit buggy, but has produced some fun results for me. I started seminary at DTS in 2001. So I checked it out, and sure enough...there's the old web page. Anyway...great break from work or study. Check it out!

(HT: JT at Between Two Worlds)

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

2008-09-29T13:56:00.005-05:00

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!

2008-09-29T12:23:00.002-05:00

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)

2008-09-25T14:54:00.011-05:00

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)

2008-09-25T09:27:00.005-05:00

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!

2008-09-23T21:27:00.002-05:00

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

2008-09-23T07:07:00.003-05:00

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!

2008-09-19T09:57:00.002-05:00

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)

2008-09-18T21:43:00.005-05:00

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)

2008-09-18T19:46:00.012-05:00

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)

2008-09-16T08:30:00.001-05:00

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)

2008-09-16T08:00:00.002-05:00

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)

2008-09-15T23:30:00.001-05:00

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)

2008-09-15T23:00:00.009-05:00

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)

2008-09-15T22:30:00.004-05:00

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)

2008-09-15T22:00:00.002-05:00

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

2008-09-13T15:26:00.002-05:00

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

2008-09-11T21:58:00.007-05:00

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

2008-09-07T20:40:00.003-05:00

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...

2008-09-06T17:35:00.004-05:00

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!

Premier League Ready To Go

2008-08-09T16:03:00.002-05:00

Next Saturday is the beginning of Premier League 2008-2009 Season. Go here to see the schedule for the weekend's matches. On the right of this same page you will see the running standings for the season.

A reminder for those who have been away for too long: Premier League consists of the top 20 teams in England. Each team plays the others twice, once at home and once away. Wins earn the side 3 points, draws 1 point, and losses no points. The champion is the side with the most points at the end of the season.

To watch the matches in the US, tune into Fox Soccer Channel. Their broadcast schedule for PL is here.

Enjoy!

Parthenon, 1; Xavier, 0

2008-07-26T12:43:00.005-05:00

With Leslie's sister Karen in town with her four girls, we decided that today was a good time to go see the Parthenon. For those that don't know, Nashville, the "Athens of the South", has the only full scale replica of the Parthenon in Athens in the world. It's not a replica of the current ruins, but of the original building in its heyday. It's quite impressive sitting in the middle of Centennial Park just off the Vanderbilt campus. Well, our youngest, the fearless Xavier, decided to walk along the edge of a large step and see if he could balance himself. He couldn't. His head bounced off the first step, and then the next. He came away with a bloody nose, scrapped knee, and two large spots on his forehead. These spots may look like scrapes in the photo, but they are in fact nothing of the sort. They are two large areas where blunt force broke all the vessels in his little forehead. We'll have a lot of explaining to do at church tomorrow. But no more than last week when our same child pulled the fire alarm at the end of the Sunday school hour. We're making quite an impression here, I'm sure.

Spreading Out

2008-07-26T12:39:00.004-05:00

From here on out this blog will only be for family posts. I've started a new blog for thoughts and notes related to my ministry. Of course, these two things are not to be put in separate boxes, and occasionally I will cross-post thoughts or stories related to my family and faith. But many things, like the post that I'm going to follow this one up with, fit more neatly in the family category, while notes on my study of Jonah, etc, will fit more neatly in the ministry category. So there you go. It isn't finished yet, but for the sake of not having to come back and edit this post later, you can find my new blog at mtbradley.net.

Scooter Lesson No. 1

2008-07-15T17:10:00.003-05:00

They say that when you ride a motorcycle you should pay very careful attention and anticipate what each car around you may do and be ready to act. The problem that makes this so is that "the people in the cars are NEVER looking for you and therefore never SEE you." I found out today that a far more annoying party cannot see me: Traffic lights. You may or may not be aware that most traffic lights are not on a regular pattern, instead they look for traffic in each lane in order to determine who gets what signal and for how long. I don't know if this is done by weight or by magnetic detection or what. But whatever is required to "be detected" I don't possess on my scooter. I sat at a light through two cycles last night without getting a green because I was the only one wanting to go straight in my lane. Today I didn't get a protected left turn (where I always get one in my car) because there "wasn't anyone" in my lane wanting to turn left. As far as the traffic lights in Green Hills are concerned, I and my scooter just aren't there.

Scooter Days

2008-07-14T10:50:00.002-05:00

We got a scooter on Saturday! I took the boys for a spin around the driveway and then went on a fun ride of my own through the neighborhood. My ride in this morning sealed it. I'm hooked. With temps in the high 60s or low 70s and no traffic between the house and the church, I was in heaven. Now I wish I had a longer commute! (Just kidding, Lord!!!)

We Made It!

2008-07-01T09:06:00.003-05:00

Another update to let you all know we made it. The drive was only 10 hours! So we are closer to Dallas than my in-laws who live in El Paso. Anyway...I'm at my desk on my first day at the office. Leslie and the boys are at home getting stuff sorted out. Our household goods arrived yesterday and Mayflower did a great job with the move. Nothing important was damaged or missing. You wouldn't believe the weather here in Nashville. Simply breathtaking. I sat in the shade and was almost cold yesterday as the breeze blew through the front yard in the middle of the day.

The Lord continues to bless us far beyond what we deserve. Thanks for your thoughts and prayers.

Adios!

2008-06-27T05:34:00.002-05:00

Seven years?! That's the longest Leslie and I have ever lived in the same house in either of our lives. It has been a tremendous seven years, too. God called us to seminary in 2001, provided a house, a means of income during school, several great learning opportunities on different church staffs, and he called us out of the SBC and into the PCA. Not to mention my graduation from seminary. My parents have been here for the last 3 or 4 years, living just 12 minutes away. That has been a luxury we haven't had since we were married! Back then my parents lived in Germany and hers in Hawaii, while we were in Tennessee. God has been so good to us, including this latest move. We leave for a wonderful job in a great city, and the church has already been so welcoming and is taking great care of us.

So we leave with mixed emotions. Glad to be going where we're going to do what we'll be doing, but sad to leave behind great friends and family and a place that has been home longer than anywhere else. Thanks to all those that have been a part of the last seven years. Keep in touch!

A Time for Broken Clubs

2008-06-23T09:27:00.003-05:00

I broke my first golf club this past week while playing golf with Hal. I was in some tall grass behind some trees and had to chop the ball hard to get it to shoot through and out onto the fairway. Unfortunately, my follow-through was a bit more substantial than I expected and my rented Taylormade 4 Iron wrapped around a tree. This potentially round-ruining incident turned out to only cost me a few dollars in the end. In the meantime I could only laugh. My ball ended up sitting pretty in the middle of the fairway, so at least it wasn't a complete loss.

Home in Time to Move

2008-06-22T22:03:00.003-05:00

This is just a quick update. We're back from our reunion trip to Florida. We had a great time catching up with family. I think my cousin-in-law's post summed it up very well. Tomorrow we begin a four day process of packing and loading and driving to Nashville. If all goes well we should be in Nashville by Thursday night and receive our household goods by the end of the weekend or first thing next week. We expect a stressful week and appreciate your prayers. We'll be a bit out of sorts as far as net reading and posting for a week or two. See you on the other side!

Turkiye Wins!!!

2008-06-15T15:46:00.005-05:00

If you aren't following Euro 2008, you are missing some fantastic soccer! Turkey just came from behind 2-nil to win 3-2 with two late goals followed by a red card shown to their keeper, leaving them a man down for the last two minutes of play. They now finish the group #2 and pass through to the next round where they will play Croatia. The first half was dominated by the Czechs, whose defense was solid, taking them into halftime with a 1-0 lead. They came back in the second with a second goal, certainly leaving Turkey for dead. But the momentum changed quickly with the Turks pressing shot after shot. With 5 minutes left in regulation Turkey scored their second goal, tying the game up. The discussion turned to penalty kicks to provide an equalizer, but Turkey struck again within minutes, taking them ahead by one, where they remained until the whistle. Wow! Great match! The only remaining issue is the red card shown to Turkish keeper, Volkan in the last moments of the game. For some inconceivable reason the Turkish keeper, Volkan, shoved a Czech player who (as you can imagine) played it up quite a bit, falling and rolling over. So Volkan will not be available for the Turks' match against Croatia.

Blog Reading Efficiency (or A Cry for Help)

2008-06-13T21:55:00.002-05:00

OK. I blog. And the rant that follows is too ironic, I get that. But I'm going to say it anyway because it's true. And I need your help. The fact is, that no responsible and productive member of society can possibly read all the great blogs out there. And by "great" I mean well-read and influential. By "great" I mean the "what did you think of the latest post on abcdef today?" kind of "oh, I assumed you had read it" sort of "doesn't everybody read it?" kind of great. The fact is, despite posting with fair regularity on my own blog, I just haven't paid much attention to the blogosphere. And, perhaps to the shame of those that call themselves my friends, I can't muster the motivation to even care that much. But, in returning to the web after the 36th GA, I decided to see what the buzz was on the events of this week. It was then that I realized that I didn't know where to begin reading! I follow half a dozen friends' blogs. Only 3 are Presbyterian and none of them have even commented on GA. So I am issuing a

CRY FOR HELP

Please post in the comments section of this post what you believe to be the top three must-read PCA blogs. Yep...I said PCA. I'm tired of reading famous reformed baptist blogs (read: Tim Challies...no offense intended Tim). If you can't come up with three PCA blogs (or OPC or any other reformed and Presbyterian denomination), then let's at least stick with reformed and covenantal and not baptist (no offense Gunny). I'm not a baptist hater. It's just that I'm trying to immerse myself right now. And since I've come out of a baptist context, every time I read a reformed baptist blog it feels like this hand from the deep trying to pull me back into that world. I'm trying to get something different. Any help?

36th GA on the Books

2008-06-13T10:46:00.003-05:00

Another GA has passed. Just a very quick recap. Paul Kooistra served as moderator. And if I kept track properly, I believe all the Overtures Committee's recommendations were passed by the Assembly.

Of interest were overtures to amend the BCO with regard to membership. None of these passed. Also receiving much attention was an overture (#9) to appoint a study committee on the question of women serving as deacons. The committee recommended that no study committee be formed, noting that the BCO is very clear on the subject, and that any problems should be addressed through overtures to amend or by way of reference.

There was a minority report from the overtures committee on Overture 9 spoken to on the floor by Bryan Chapell. Although discussion made it clear the report had support the minority report was rejected in favor of making the committee's recommendation the main motion. After another period of discussion the recommendation was approved by a clear majority, not requiring a count. Thus the PCA has declined to form a study committee on this issue. I have to say...after sitting through the overtures committee's hours worth of discussion as well as the full discussion on the floor of Assembly, I am very encouraged by our rules. Regardless of your position on the issue of women in diaconal ministry, if you had been in the discussions, I think you would have been proud of your elders. I have no doubt that in the coming days and weeks the blogosphere will debate the decision of the Assembly. I hope that if you participate you will temper your remarks regarding the process and the men that were involved.

I also want to say that I LOVE General Assembly. Seeing old friends and watching the charitable interaction between our fathers and brothers is incredibly encouraging. I believe next year is in Orlando. I can't wait!

The Beautiful Game

2008-06-07T21:56:00.003-05:00

I know most Americans just don't get the appeal of football (ie - soccer). This post is not an attempt to change your mind. However, for those that already get it, I've added a new section in the right hand column. Scroll don't a bit and you'll see what I've done. It can be tough for us American's to keep it all straight. There seem to be more Cups being contested...some national, some club, some here, some there. Even if you understand it, it can be hard to keep up. With the list I've put together, I'm hoping to provide you with three things. First, the title of the contest with a link to its web page. Second, a brief description of who generally participates and how often. And third, where they are in competition. Some of these things take several years (like World Cup), others are contested every year (like the Champion's League). I follow World Cup, EUFA (European national and club cups), the English Premier League (England's top 20 teams), and the FA Cup. Between the months of August and May that's a lot of football. Fox Soccer Net broadcasts much of it. ESPN, et al broadcast a bit as well. If you have questions, send them my way and I'll try to answer them. Otherwise wikipedia does a decent job of lining it all out. By the way, Euro 2008 began today. It's being broadcast on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN Classic and ABC. Go here to find the schedule and listings. Enjoy!

Shepherds or CEOs?

2008-06-05T08:41:00.005-05:00

The comparison is not new. Nor is the point one which has only recently been made by many within the church and especially among pastors. Even on this blog I have made it clear in posts past that I am no fan of the bigger better faster model of the church. We not only need to be changing what we are doing and how we are doing it, but we need to be careful about the words we use to describe it. When we speak of "branding" a ministry or "retooling" our "programming" we have implicitly imbibed not only the language but even the thought patterns of Wall Street and Madison Avenue. Christianity Today has recently published a wonderful little article that touches on our approach to leadership in the church which also tangentially addresses the language we use to describe our work. So many have heard the Shepherd vs CEO comparison and have nodded knowingly about the need to be more like a shepherd, and yet so few are engaging in the hard work of tending a flock instead of attending shareholder meetings. When will we stop fretting over numbers? When will we stop evaluating ministry success by the size of their arena?

If you are serious about being a shepherd, begin thinking like a shepherd and using terminology more consistent with shepherding. We tend and we feed. And what is that food that we are to feed our sheep? Christ! Moralism, while it tastes good in your mouth, does little to fill a belly. Permissiveness and enabling may keep the sheep content for now, but since they are effectively leading themselves, they will end up feeding on the wrong things, drinking from contaminated springs, and bedding down among wolves. Shepherds mend. Shepherds chastise. Shepherds sing over their flock. Shepherds answer to the owner of the sheep. And when the owner calls a shepherd, he does not call him to provide quality programming for the sheep. He does not require of the shepherd a long-range plan for peak efficiency. He does not speak to the shepherd of "metrics". He asks, "Do you love me?" And if you will answer yes, his response is "Feed my sheep."

The Pure Delight in Obedience

2008-05-30T09:23:00.006-05:00

In reading Geerhardus Vos this morning (Biblical Theology, pg 32), I came across this little gem:

To do the good and reject the evil from a reasoned insight into their respective natures is a noble thing, but it is a still nobler thing to do so out of regard for the nature of God, and the noblest thing of all is the ethical strength, which, when required, will act from personal attachment to God, without for the moment enquiring into these more abstruse reasons. The pure delight in obedience adds to the ethical value of a choice.

This quote comes in the context of Vos' discussion on the choice before Adam and Eve and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The choice before them, in its most basic form, was not truly to eat or not eat, but to choose their Creator over even their own perceived good. Theirs was not to reason themselves to obedience, but to obey out of the pure delight of conforming to the will of their Creator.

I can't help but reflect on our own tendency, especially in the church in America, to forget this in favor of our supposed rights. Whether overtly or subtly, I'm afraid that all too often we forget that God deserves our obedience even when we don't understand or can't reason ourselves into following His revealed will. Too often we tell God, consciously or subconsciously, that He will have to be patient and wait for us to decide whether or not obedience "makes sense" in the given context. We treat Him more like a lame duck president than the Sovereign King that He is.

Father, forgive us, your children, for our obstinacy and the hubris with which we all too often approach your commands. May we see the reasonableness of your instruction, but obey instead for the pure delight of our personal attachment to you.

Isn't it a bit ironic?

2008-05-30T09:18:00.002-05:00

I heard a commercial on the way into work this morning on the radio. They were advertising a pill to help cure you of your addiction to...wait for it...pills! I'm just wondering who will invent the pill to help you get off the pills that got you off the pills!

Memorial Day

2008-05-26T20:30:00.000-05:00

What a great Memorial Day! We spent the day lounging (see above pic!) at my parents' house around the pool. It was a warm day in Texas and the pool felt nice. I knocked out a few more pages of reading in Berkhof. But much more important than that, Ian learned to ride a bike! We haven't been in a neighborhood that was good for bike riding. Ian had a bike, but it was at my parents. We tried to teach him to ride last year, but a hard spill ended that session. But 5 minutes of work this morning and he was riding like a champ. He even went on a bike ride with my dad around the block!

We're getting ready to sit around the table out back and eat some burgers and fries. I hope your Memorial Day has been as laid back as ours!

Home Sweet Home

2008-05-26T18:26:00.003-05:00

We just got back last night from a great weekend in Nashville where we met some members of the class I'll be teaching in my new position. We also spent Friday looking for a home in Nashville. We found something far better than we expected. It's a home built in the 1930's just 5 minutes from the church in the Green Hills area. There is an amazing YMCA just a few minutes up the road and a great shopping district as well. We've wanted to live where we work and play for sometime now, and it looks as though we'll get to do that in Nashville! We had a wonderful time of worship on Sunday and met a few folks that are friends of friends. The PCA is a small world and I'm really enjoying just how easy it is to find connections to friends from all over.

Just a few more weeks and we'll be packing and driving out! We couldn't be more excited. In addition to the transition, my thoughts are turning more and more to my ministry at Covenant and preparing for ordination in the Fall.

More News on the GA Front

2008-05-22T07:27:00.002-05:00

There have been 3 more Overtures to the General Assembly regarding the issue of women being ordained as deacons. In addition to Overture 9 from the Phildelphia Presbytery mentioned in my previous post, Western Canada (Overture 15) has essentially concurred with the Overture 9, and Rocky Mountain (Overture 17) has requested that the scope be extended (if Overture 9 is approved) to a broader discussion of the role of women in church. Also, Central Georgia has responded (Overture 19) to the first two (9 and 15) by requesting that no committee be formed. The language of this overture is especially strong, indicating that the churches of Central Georgia see no need to visit this issue. It may turn out to be a considerable discussion this year after all.

In other overtures, I think my favorite so far this year is Overture 3 from Southeast Alabama Presbytery. This overture seeks to amend the BCO in order to correct language that would seem to imply that transfering to a non-PCA church requires an act of church discipline. It also (and this is the part I like) requests that the BCO be amended to include the Apostle's Creed in the membership vows, noting that there is no trinitarian statement or confession required for membership in the PCA at this point.

And finally, there are some names emerging for moderator that are interesting. North Texas Presbytery's own Rev. David Clelland is mentioned, as well as Dr. O. Palmer Robertson, Dr. Tom Kay, and Dr. Paul Kooistra.

While I'm happy to update you on these things and plan to continue doing so, I get most my information from following the overtures on the PCA website as well as by subscription to byFaith Magazine online.

Prince Caspian by Any Other Name

2008-05-18T19:41:00.002-05:00

I reread CS Lewis' Prince Caspian last night in anticipation of taking my son to the movie this afternoon. It's such a wonderfully simple and well-told tale, I had no doubt Hollywood would struggle to tell it. Taken from a purely cinematic point of view, the movie is well done. Better, in fact, than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It still suffers from shallow characters that are not well-developed. The story feels rushed a bit, for some reason. And despite this, it is nearly an hour longer than it needs to be. But all in all, it isn't a bad way to spend nearly two and a half hours.

Of course, with such a literary classic, it's difficult to take it merely on its cinematic merits. As an adaptation of a classic work, it fails miserably. One of the tag lines for the movie is "Everything you know is about to change forever." In fact, it did. Everything I knew about the book changed in the movie. As a great fan of classic literature, and one who enjoys (in general) screen adaptations, I am not oblivious to the various problems that virtually require screenwriters to change some stuff up. But in the case of this movie, virtually everything changed. In fact, there is an entire 30 minute battle sequence that never even occurred in the book. Characters were portrayed precisely contrary to the book. For example, in the book, High King Peter is very sensitive to the fact that while he is High King, the current King is in fact Caspian. Caspian, likewise, recognizes the pre-eminence of Peter and submits gladly to his authority. In the movie, each is jealous of the other's authority. Each blames the other for failures. And in the end they draw swords and are ready to engage in mortal combat. Aslan is more absent in the movie than he is in the book. Details are scattered willy-nilly throughout the movie with no apparent pattern. In fact, almost nothing is left in place. With very few exceptions, all details shared in common between book and film are dislocated in the movie. The result is a deeply disappointing adaptation. Readers will grant license, but in the end, they want to see the characters they read about. The Peter of this film is not CS Lewis' creation. In fact, he is quite contrary to the Peter that the readers of Narnia have come to love. Susan, whose unbelief is obvious in the book and is a foreshadowing of her absence in The Last Battle, is far too optimistic in the film. They even added an awkward love interest story line between her and Caspian. It's a shame, too. The book should adapt very well to film. There is much action and plenty of time to develop characters within the framework of the book. Lewis' writing is a goldmine of CGI sequences that should have kept the folks at Weta, et al, busy for years. Instead, very few of these opportunities are taken advantage of (such as the dancing tree sequence in Lucy's dream).

So as a film (apart from its literary origins) I'd give it a 3.5/5. This is about the same or perhaps a small improvement over the film adaptation of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. However, as a Lewis fan and avid reader of the Chronicles I have to give it a 2/5. I'd call that strike two.

Home For Sale

2008-05-16T08:28:00.004-05:00

We're scheduling packers and the house is on the market. Anyone looking for a 3 bed/2 bath with office? Nice big privacy fence in the back with in-ground sprinkler system, covered back patio with an outdoor ceiling fan. Quiet neighborhood with no crime and neighbors that are easy to get along with. Send me a note. We're ready to sell!

Battle at Kruger

2008-05-14T21:58:00.002-05:00

Ok folks. In case you fit into that group of people that both reads this blog and HASN'T seen the Battle at Kruger video, check this out. It's eight minutes of pretty amazing footage from Africa. Trust me, you will enjoy this.

An Update

2008-05-13T18:13:00.003-05:00

Things are on track. We've been working hard the past two and a half weeks to get our house ready to list and we should actually put it on the market this week! We moved in with my parents to avoid having to clean the house over and over. I'm working to find movers to schedule and contract for the move. We'll pack out on the 23rd of June. Things at the office are continuing as usual. I'll be preaching vespers tomorrow night and leading my last Caruth Haven (assisted living center) worship service this Sunday.

GA is just around the corner and I'm trying to make sure I get at least a little time with friends that will be in town for the meeting. I'm also trying to get the last few items checked off to officially complete my internship.

Leslie has almost certainly secured a job for Nashville. More on that when things are official.

God has been incredibly gracious to us these past few months. Of course, we are always living in His grace, but just in case we didn't give it much thought, He has heaped so many blessings on us. It has had an interesting effect in my studies. You know how when things are bad...nothing is going your way. You are pretty sure you're "living right" and yet nothing seems to be going right. You start feeling like maybe you know how Job felt (no matter how light your affliction). It is common in such times to find yourself (if your response is a healthy one) seeking the peace and solace, encouragement and comfort of Jesus Christ and the gospel, and in the presence of sweet fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ. Well, my circumstances feel more like Job before the affliction. And here is the interesting part...I find myself reacting in exactly the opposite fashion. Instead of thinking encouraging thoughts, I find myself drawn to thoughts and meditation on the goodness of God apart from his mercies toward us. Does that make sense? I find myself studying the Scripture to gain a greater understanding of Christian suffering. My thoughts in preparation for teaching are bent on reminding the faithful (and we in America are generally a very blessed faithful) that if all the good things go away tomorrow, God is still God. He is still righteous. He still loves His children.

As one that has, as a rule, received abundant good things from the Father for my whole life, I am afraid, and I fear for the church, that we have subconsciously linked the goodness of our God with the goodness of His gifts. This is so dangerous. We are not promised dream jobs, beautiful houses, sporty cars, iPods, etc. These things aren't bad. And this isn't a post about materialism. Perhaps I can clarify that by using family as an example instead. We are not promised a beautiful spouse. We are not promised beautiful, obedient, healthy children. If we have them it is a wonderful blessing from God. If we lose them, God is still God. He is still righteous. He still loves His children.

I am keen to remind myself of these things. My faith has never been tested in this way. And if it should ever be tested this way, I hope to remember (another theme I have been thinking about lately) this truth. And I hope brothers and sisters around me will lovingly remind me of this truth. I want to love God Himself more than the gifts He gives me. That's a subtle distinction when you stop to think about it. But it makes all the difference in the world.

On Calvin and Free Will

2008-05-04T18:13:00.003-05:00

OK, so the title to this post is a bit misleading. But you can't be more confused than the theologically astute visitor that arrives at Calvin Free Will Baptist Church on any given Sunday morning. My fellow intern, Jay Bennett, and I caravaned to Presbytery in Tulsa this past weekend. I knew Calvin, Oklahoma was along the way so we planned a stop to get this picture. Other interesting place names along the way (that I didn't take pictures of) were Toots BBQ and Double Vision Liquor. There was also this recently constructed building out in the middle of nowhere. It was a big box shaped thing with a portico on the front with huge columns all the way across the front. In what had to be 24 inch block letters across the front it simply said "God's House." I wish I had stopped to snap a shot of that one.

Hey kid! Want a Balloon?

2008-04-30T15:42:00.003-05:00

Check this out!

Music City Bound!

2008-04-29T13:16:00.002-05:00

For those that have been following our story for the past year or so, we have wonderful news! We have been called by a wonderful church in Nashville where I will serve as an assistant pastor! We are feverishly working to get our house ready for sale and arrange all the other details that come with a big move. I could write a long post about all the things we love about this church and the leadership and the people to whom we'll be ministering, but I'll just say it is everything we had hoped to find and more. We're not sure what our transition will look like just yet. I will be there no later than July 1st, but hope to be there much earlier than that. We'll keep you posted here as events unfold. And for those that have my contact info, my email address at yahoo won't change, so you shouldn't have any trouble reaching us as we settle in in Nashville.

What a tremendous answer to much prayer! God has blessed us in every way beyond anything we could possibly (and mistakenly) think we deserve. Thanks so much to friends that have been praying and encouraging us this year. And for friends in Nashville and East Tennessee, we'll see you sooner than later!