Mobile Site

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 

Joshua Harris' Blog
The Long War

That last post was also taken from Joshua Harris' blog. Having written several books on courtship (which I have mixed feelings about) and purity, his blog is a good resource for fighting The Long War. You may want to check back on this site.

Trackback

Labels:

|

 

Anchored in God
The Long War

still sicker than a dog...


This isn't especially profound. This is not the heights of the Westminster Standards. Nor is this revolutionary (by any means!). But for what ever reason, I felt that it was very reassuring, and very helpful. I think there is a good chance this has more to do with the Holy Spirit's actions on my own heart as I read it. Nevertheless, maybe God would use this to encourage you as well. Though this is dealing with sexual lust, all lusts apply.

The following is a reader's response to the book "Sex is Not the Problem (Lust is)"...

Josh,

Your book is a great blessing to me. I've struggled with lust all my life—even before my preteen years and even into my marriage of almost eight years.

I had already started making some of the changes you and other authors mentioned before ever reading them. That felt like confirmation of some sort. Yet, something still wasn't right. But when I reached the end of your book, I found help with one issue that I totally missed altogether. The "lust" problem isn't really about lust in the end. The problem of sin points back to our closeness with God and our realization of Christ's love for us through the cross.

The one change I hadn't made was establishing consistency with enjoying God's presence. I haven't made that a priority in my life. That, perhaps, is the true sin that I've committed all along. Since reading your book, I've noticed that when I do stay in God's presence with worship, study, and prayer, my problems with lust aren't so tough. But, when I become negligent and inconsistent, I have no strength. My willpower crumbles and sometimes I don't even want to call to God for help!

It's not about do's and don'ts, it's not about willpower and self-righteousness. But, this is about giving in to His will with His help and power. It's about falling in love with Him and then falling in love with His ways as a result. Then, we live out His ways and experience the true joys of life. But, Satan's continual lie is that sin would give us better than what God promised without the wait or obedience.

You helped me see that. Somehow, that makes the struggle worthwhile and winnable. Along with making a commitment to guarding myself against any hint of impurity, I'm making a new commitment to anchor my hope in God. I'll do this by sowing seeds into a deeper relationship with Him.

Thanks so much for your invaluable help,

D.

Trackback

Labels:

|

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 

This is So Inspiring... So Depressing
Topic: Getting to Done

When you read something like this, how do you handle it?

When going to college many years ago, I decided to challenge myself by setting a goal to see if I could graduate in only three semesters, taking the same classes that people would normally take over a four-year period. This article explains in detail all the time management techniques I used to successfully pull this off. I accomplished my goal by graduating with two Bachelor of Science degrees (computer science and mathematics) in just three semesters without attending summer school. I slept seven to eight hours a night, took care of my routine chores (shopping, cooking, etc), had a social life, and exercised for 30 minutes every morning. In my final semester, I even held a full time job (40 hours a week) as a game programmer and served as the Vice Chair of the local Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) chapter while taking 37 units of mostly senior-level computer science and math courses. I graduated with a 3.9 GPA and also received a special award given to the top computer science student each year.


Isn't that amazing? I'd want to say that this is simply ridiculous and impossible, yet I am so drawn to be able to do this. I often am reminded of all that Spurgeon saw accomplished in his own life. Granted, a good deal of that was regards to the Holy Spirit and God's gracious favor over his ministry. Many, it seems, labor equally as hard as the Prince of Preachers, but for whatever reason God does not grant the growth. But as far as day in/day out tasks, I'd love to be as proficient as this guy.

He lists a few key concepts to practice:
  • Clarity is key. Set clear, concise goals, and stick to them.
  • Be flexible. Your goals are indestructable, but how you arrive is always in flux.
  • Use single handling. Focus in on one aspect and complete that first, before moving on.
  • Failure is your friend. Treat them as learning opportunities, and keep re-evaluating.
  • Do it now. Don't put off decisions, delay, or show other signs of weakness; get 'er done.
  • Triage ruthlessly. Throw things away... often. Constantly re-evaluate, and ditch hindrances.
  • Identify and recover wasted time. Fairly self-explanatory.
  • The Pareto Principle. 20% of a task's effort accounts for 80% of the value; 80% of a task only yields 20% of the value of that task.
  • Guard thy time. Set aside blocks of time (preferably 90 minutes at a minimum) to accomplish tasks.
  • Work all the time you work. Conversely, don't semi-work while you're resting/relaxing.
  • Multitask.
  • Experiment.
  • Cultivate your enthusiasm.
  • Eat and exercise for optimum energy.
  • Maintain balance.


So, a lot to keep in mind. As I read, I feel there are some things in life that do not apply to this, where quality matters more than efficiency. However, is it possible to be as ruthless and jealous of quality? Perhaps, but then I think it looks differently. I especially think triage needs to look differently in different situations. Of course, I'm not the one with two B.S. and his own business.

Labels:

|

Thursday, November 24, 2005 

Happy thanksgiving!

Labels: ,

|

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 

Time
Topic: Philosophy

While the debate over the nature of time will no doubt rage on despite any of my mutterings, I thought that this line of thinking might be a feasible rabbit trail to follow.

What if we dispensed with a modern, reductionistic, Darwinian-linear-evolutionary time paradigmes, and instead strained to conceive of time as "unfolding." Think less timeline, and more 'big bang' as the universe unfolds over itself, with distance inherently creating past (and consequently, future). On this view, kairos takes on less of the "tick-tock-tick-tock" of the mechanical stopwatch, and more of the spread of the glacier across the grinding tectonic plates. However, even this does not seem to do justice. Perhaps this is because too much of our thinking has been performed lacking sufficient dimensions to encapsulate all that is necessary for conceiving of time.

Upon thinking of time this way, it seems that there would be more relationality within time, without falling prey to the circular malarky forced on us by the East. In this sense, instead of thinking of time only linearly, time also has depth. However, kairos is staggered. This prevents the linear from merely moving from horizontal to vertical. The march still proceeds outward, but also upward, giving opportunity to see matrices across millenia while retaining distinction.

Labels:

|

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 

Evangelical: To Be or Not To Be?

Recently on What the Thunder Said...

On a few different posts, we've talked about the value of identifying as "evangelical," and why to leave that moniker behind. I briefly mentioned a few reasons for doing so, and then noted a similar blog post by John Armstrong.

The upside of all of this is that Quiver (who are you?) left some thoughtful remarks in the comments:


In all truthfulness, I profited more from the expression of your abandonment than I did from Armstrong's. However, I have to say, somewhat to both of you: if you seek to abandon the self-descriptive label "Evangelical," then why advertize your decision? In short, what I am saying is this: if a group of professing Christians want to assign the label "Evangelical" to themselves, let them have it. However, we must then see the terms Evangelical, Neonomain and Arminian as creative reflections of the same thing. I would much rather see you or Armstrong write a lengthy theological treatise on justification and break it up into three categorical views wherein you assign a view to the Roman Catholic, the Evangelical and the Reformed. Much like Van Til did with epistemology.
Quiver's quote was slightly edited. To see autograph, click here.

What shall we say to such things?

Answer #1
In response to why announce the secession, I truly struggle with the question. I feel it is akin to the question, why blog? Who am I to be airing my ideas out into the blogosphere/world wide web? I hope this doesn't come across as a false humility. I honestly think there requires a small sense of pride and inherent suprmeacy to think that one's thoughts merit taking up databytes on somebody's computer.

Nevertheless, I have posted because I do think that while my ideas are quite faulty and paltry, hopefully my own wrestlings will stimulate others to consider and weigh the biblical text for such things, and others wiser than myself will criticize and shape my thinking. I thank Quiver for having done both.

Answer #2
Since I have posted it, I would like to consider the last thing Quiver relates:
...if a group of professing Christians want to assign the label "Evangelical" to themselves, let them have it. However, we must then see the terms Evangelical,Neonomain and Arminian as creative reflections of the same thing. I would much rather see you or Armstrong write a lengthy theological treatise on
justification and break it up into three categorical views wherein you assign a
view to the Roman Catholic, the Evangelical and the Reformed. Much like Van Til
did with epistemology.

I am not quite sure I understand what he means when he says, "...if a group of professing Christians want to assign the label "Evangelical" to themselves, let them have it. However, we must then see the terms Evangelical, Neonomain and Arminian as creative reflections of the same thing." Is he using this to say that these three categories are all claiming the title "evangelical?" I'm not quite sure. Regardless, in some sense he is equating all three positions. While I don't think this is true in every instance, when he mentions justification later, I think he is on to something.

My primarly plight with evangellyism is that it refuses to be bound by things like justification. While an evangellyfish and an Arminian may share some theological connections, there is so much cultural baggage bound up with the evangelly-dulls. Few Arminians could sign on the political, social, and economic lines that the religious right and Evangelicals push so strongly. Even recently, the new erotic thriller that features Hollywood crooning over and wooing the evangelical voting bloc is on the heals of the Democrats awakening to a new "target market." There is much of this, I think it vain to find Neonomians and Arminians who could whole-heartedly agree.

Nevertheless, I do agree with Quiver that while there may not be perfect overlap amongst the sphere, they are definitely not mutally exclusive, especially when traveling from evangelical towards the more theological groupings.

When Jesus Christ returns, all the elements will be burned as with fire. The Scriptures are very clear that only two things will survive this baptism by fire: the Word and the Church. Not one jot or tittle will disappear, nor will Christ abandon His Bride. However, this means that everything else ::everything:: will be consumed. This means all institutions - such as denominations, schools, and especially connotations like "evangelicals" - will be destroyed on the Day of the Lord. We should be hesitant about adopting such paradigms.

Labels:

|

 

Hall of Contemporary Reformers

Click on the title to see some mugs. Looking good guys!

I thought the people that Steve Hesselman so excellently represented cuts a wide - but conservative - swath through Evangelicalism. Anyone suprised by who is listed? Who was passed on?

How about best representation? Worst representation?
I think he nailed Mohler, and decimated Piper. I guess I've never given enough attention to R.C.'s nose before...

Labels: ,

|

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 

The Wheels on The Bus Go Round and Round
ETS Trip 2005

Well, we've successfully made it to ETS here in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Seriously, that is really its name. The bus trip was thankfully uneventful, and we enjoyed each other's company, theological discussions, fast food, little sleep, and vigorous fighting for whether we would watch TV-to-DVD 24 (starring Keifer Sutherland) or The Lord of the Rings. A true battle.

I'll update more as more occurs. We've had a wonderful start to our trip, God be praised. May He give the increase.

Labels: , ,

|

Sunday, November 13, 2005 

More Corroborating Evidence

John H Armstrong : Why I Am Not an Evangelical
John Armstrong, editor of Reformation & Revival, jumps ship from the current theological malaise. Some of you may remember that I also abandoned this theological ship. While my post was perhaps a bit more scatter-brained, Armstrong's thoughts, while brief, are helpful. He cites six reasons for why he no longer claimes the moniker evangelical:


1. The theological connotations behind evangelical can be articulated in other, more helpful ways.

2. Non-evangelicals don't have a clue what the term means. When they do, they associate it with the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, "Left Behind and Republican politics."

3. The recent cultural swings have added idealogical baggage to the idea of evangelical that are not desirable. Ed.- like myself, Armstrong also thinks the term "confessional Christian" carries more payload.

4 & 5. The historical roots of the word, originally in the Lutheran reformation, and then in the Anglican renewal movement, are arcane, ignored, unknown, and lost on much of society.

6. "Many evangelicals are, in actuality, fundamentalists."

I concur with all of Armstrong's sympathies. Though we may leave the camp for similar reasons, we exit out differing gates and travel in different directions.

One final reason I would add: while it is true that evangelicals are the new fundamentalists in lieu of #6, I am equally worried that most evangelicals are the neo-liberals of the twenty-first century. Devoid of a common doctrinal basis that provides any chance for unity and stability, evangelicals have largely sold their birthright for the Schleiermacher, Schweitzer, and Bultmannian overtures their spiritual forefathers overthrew. This is the new Germany, where subjective existentialism reigns, and historical narrative of redemption running through and encompassing history is unknown.

Helpfully, a certain John Z. comments to Armstrong's blog that it would be more positive to attempt to reclaim what evangelical really means. While I agree that this would be more positive, unfortunately:

1. I'm not worried about reclaiming the gospel or the word, I'm worried about being associated with a movement whose defining marks don't define me.

2. The rudder to turn the behemoth of evangelicalism is too small, short of a divine revival.

3. "Confessional Christian" is an even better term, since it is more specific (which confession?) and assumes a "gospel-centered" identity.

Trackback

Labels:

|

Saturday, November 12, 2005 

Liveblogging from ETS

This year is the 57th Annual Evangelical Theological Society meeting taking place in Valley Forge, PA. This year's theme is "Christianity in the Early Centuries." It takes place from November 16 - 18th. The Society also has a quarterly journal, which can be accessed at their site.

In a small way, I hope to do a little live blogging at the conference. Each day, hundreds of papers, debates, conferences, and proposals are carried, so there is no way I could ever hope to give you a taste of even a fraction of the event. However, my experience of ETS will be quite unique from the average attender: several hours worth of bus ride crammed in with other students and pastors; late night theology discussions with some of the leading scholars up late in the hotel rooms; my penchant for picking Continental philosophical talks, anything that relates to John Owen, and various "Reformed" categories; and all of the plenary sessions; as well as photo and bookstore; this will definitely be ETS through a certain lens, but what a lens!

Hopefully, I'll conspire with some of my fellow students to get their thoughts and reactions from the various sessions they attend. If I get anything concrete, I'll post it.

In order to attend ETS, you have to assent to two theological propositions:

"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."

In the spirit of live blogging, our esteemed comrade Ryan Griffith has offered to do some live blogging himself (uh oh, the pressure's on!). Opting out of attending ETS, he will accompany John Piper to Finishing the Task conference in Asheville, NC. Perhaps we can twist his arm to get him to liveblog from there. Please?

So anyway, I will be doing a lot of traveling in the next few days. All blogging will be from my iPAQ 5550, so expect delays and bugs until I figure out the WiFi out in PA. All will be well, and I'll be truly mobile. It will be a great test for my little machine. I'll probably also rely on Bluetooth through my Motorola V330 for pictures and getting online. Mobility: you can't take the tech out of a guy.

Look for a lot of info. Have a great weekend from Veteran's Day, and don't forget that tomorrow's Lord's Day is prayer day.

Labels: , ,

|

Friday, November 11, 2005 

New Blog; Sojourner

Ryan Griffith is firing up his blog, which looks to ponder current happenings, theology, and mission. A true cross-spectrum of the City of God and the City of Man.

Keep your eyes peeled for this one. Hop on over, and flood his comments letting him know you want to hear his views. Look for him to do some live blogging next week (hint, ;), nudge).

Labels:

|

 

Night




1986 Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel took the wind out of me when he burst into my life as a senior in high school. His most well known work, Night, was required reading for my IB Lit. class. A slim work, and quite short at 109 pages, it is an eternity to read, to force one’s self through his haunting pages. To read this book, which is an account of his degraded violation at the hands of Nazi soldiers, is to suffer – on an inconceivably small scale – what actually happened to him.

"Three days after the liberation of Buchenwald I became very ill with food poisoning. I was transferred to the hospital and spent two weeks between life and death.
One day I was able to get up, after gathering all my strength. I wanted to see myself in the mirror hanging on the opposite wall. I had not seen myself since the ghetto.
From the depths of the mirror, a corpse gazed back at me.
The look in his eyes, as they stared into mine, has never left me."

Such is how Wiesel ends his horrifying nightmare of a narrative, and that is how the reader feels upon accomplishing the read. Forcing yourself to turn page after page, to relive the horror, atrocity, and indecency perpetuated in one’s own history compels you to face the corpse staring back at you.

There are several facets of the book that are worth exploring, but I’d like to close this post with a comment from the forward, written by Francois Mauriac. Mauriac, a French Christian, recounts his first exposure to Wiesel, when the author, then still a young man, first appeared in his office to discuss the transcript of the monograph that was to become Night. Mauriac, undone in the face of Wiesel’s account, struggles to grasp how to relate to this Jew who has suffered so. Reflecting on how the Holocaust had tried Wiesel’s and millions of other pious Jews’ faith, Mauriac is devastated, and laments,

"And I, who believe that God is love, what answer could I give my young questioner, whose dark eyes still held the reflection of that angelic sadness which had appeared one day upon the face of the hanged child? What did I say to him? Did I speak of that other Jew, his brother, who may have resembled him – the Crucified, whose Cross has conquered the world? Did I affirm that the stumbling block to his faith was the cornerstone of mine, and that the conformity between the Cross and the suffering of men was in my eyes the key to that impenetrable mystery whereon the faith of his childhood had perished? Zion, however, has risen up again from the crematories and the charred houses. The Jewish nation has been resurrected from among its thousands of dead. It is through them that it lives again. We do not know the worth of one single drop of blood, one single tear. All is grace. If the Eternal is the Eternal, the last word for each one of us belongs to Him. That is what I should have told this Jewish child. But I could only embrace him, weeping."

Labels:

|

 

Happy Veterans Day



Happy Veterans Day!

Thank you to all the men and women who served and sacrificed for this, our great country. May the Lord bless them, and grant them His Divine mercy.

Joe Carter has a terrific article about the safety we treasure every day thanks to those who have given for us. You can read that here.

Thank you also to all the wives, children, and families who have let loved ones go and give themselves for something. You have sacrificed so much. Thank you.

May God bless the United States of America. Have mercy on this nation: grant her wise leaders, establish justice, and may the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ flourish in the land.

Labels: , ,

|

Thursday, November 10, 2005 

Email on Your Phone and Blog Problems

Though I'm celebrating my hundredth post, as you can see, I have no text on my last post. I'm having a bit of a problem with my blog, so I'll try to get it up and working as quickly as possible. I made some adjustments to the registry earlier, and thought I had everything running smoothly, but perhaps not... Regardless, I'll try to have it up and running smoothly quickly.

If anyone knows how to deal with a Blogger blog when you post creator publishes but fails to show up, I'd love a few tips. Thanks!

Now the real deal...

Get a free Blackberry
Blackberrys are known for "push email," which is the ability to automatically have your email on your phone. With Gmail, you can send your email to any cell phone for free. Joe at The Evangelical Outpost gives a life hack from his fabulous "Yak Shaving Razors":

#264 Gmail Hack -- Who needs a fancy, expensive Blackberry when you can get email on your cell phone using Gmail and its text forwarding feature? Here's how to set it up:

Go to your "Google Settings" page and click on "Forwarding and Pop." Click on "Forward a copy of incoming mail to" and in the box where you input the email address add your ten digit cell phone number and the domain for your carrier.

Here is a list of the text messaging addresses for common US wireless providers:

Verizon: 10digitphonenumber@vtext.com
AT&T: 10digitphonenumber@mobile.att.net
Sprint: 10digitphonenumber@messaging.sprintpcs.com
T-Mobile: 10digitphonenumber@tmomail.net
Nextel: 10digitphonenumber@messaging.nextel.com
Cingular: 10digitphonenumber@mobile.mycingular.com
Virgin Mobile: 10digitphonenumber@vmobl.com
Alltel: 10digitphonenumber@alltelmessage.com OR message.alltel.com
CellularOne: 10digitphonenumber@mobile.celloneusa.com
Omnipoint: 10digitphonenumber@omnipointpcs.com
Qwest: 10digitphonenumber@qwestmp.com

This is also useful to send, for instance, your wife a quick text message on her phone when, hypothetically, she has a job where she can't use her phone and again, hypothetically, you need to remind her about something or ask her about dinner later that evening. All free, all on any cell phone. I don't know if Joe made it clear enough, but I'd also make sure to check the option to keep emails on Gmail.

There ya go.

Labels: ,

|

Wednesday, November 09, 2005 

100th Post

Labels: ,

|

 

A Brief Overview of Covenant Theology

Recently, a friend of mine asked some penetrating questions about the nature and structure of Covenant Theology. Instead of merely replying to him, I took some time to try to lay out the structure of everything over at my new wiki. Hopefully, this will be helpful to several people.

I should comment, however, that while I think my overview is succinct, correct, and easy to navigate, it should not be a substitute for a full scale apologia for Covenant Theology. I am writing this in a context, and this context knows that there are Bible verses I am hinting at, but don't cite explicitly. That is not good enough for most people, however. So this should be supplementary, not an attempt to stand alone. Here are a few diagrams to give a picture to Covenant theology, that the article spells out more clearly.




























If you wanted some stand alone resources, there are a bevy of them out there. Covenant Theology is one of those things everyone should wrestle with, and then (preferably) bow the knee to.

First, Dr. C. Matthew McMahon has written A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology. It is a shorter read (like shorter compared to the Puritans) that is emminently helpful and careful. An excellent primer.

The other option is to head over Dr. Rev. J. Ligon Duncan's website at his church, First Presbyterian of Jackson, MS, and check out their Covenant Theology page. This thing is the real deal, and it will have you up 'til three in the morning - both because there is so much content, as well as mind-gripping concepts. I recommend starting with Duncan's sermon/lectures that he delivered to RTS. There are twelve of them.

Blessings on you as you study and read about our Covenant keeping God, the true Promise keeper.

Labels:

|

Monday, November 07, 2005 

A Response to Darryl Erkel of 5solas.org

Darryl M. Erkel, a professor of theology, writes for 5solas.org, a website/ministry of Brandan Kraft. He writes an article rebuffing an article by Michael S. Horton, professor of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. What follows are my initial thoughts from his article.

A Caveat
Before I do that, however, a quick warning about the terrain in which I am posting. The site on which this article appears is no ordinary reformed website. The site claims to promote:

This website is designed to serve as a learning center for all those who believe the Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) is the standard for doctrine and practice. We believe that every aspect of salvation is by God's Sovereign Grace Alone (Sola Gratia) and conditioned upon Christ Alone (Solo Christo). We believe that Christ's people freely receive knowledge and rely upon Christ entirely for their salvation by the gift of Faith Alone (Sola Fide). We believe that all that happens in this world, including the salvation of men, the damnation of the wicked, and even the sinfulness of men is predestined for the Glory of God Alone (Soli Deo Gloria).

What you should know about 5solas.org is that this site, as well as Kraft's other internet based work - Pristine Grace - are both on Phil Johnson's list for hyper-calvinism, in other words, not calvinism. Of course, Kraft takes issue with this, but nevertheless, that is just a caveat. My linking to the above sites does not in any way condone material elsewhere in their pages or forums. Also of interest is the creeds they claim as authoritive:

The primary confessional document for this website is the Gospel Standard Articles of Faith. The other documents we subscribe to are the 1729 Goat Yard Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of 1644. We also hold of primary importance a belief in the Absolute Predestination of all things.

Back to Erkel's article, that I am responding to. The title of the article, "Is Infant Baptism Truly Based on Scripture?" is meant to question the validity of what Horton asserts in "God's Grandchildren: The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism" in ModernReformation (I think this is Vol. 3 from 1996. I'm not sure; I don't have time to go browsing through my magazine stacks. I actually keep them all in an old Nordstrom box. Seriously.). While I myself am not convinced of infant baptism, I am severely bothered by credobaptism - quite a pickle to be in. So, while I do not necessarily condone Horton's article, I definitely have some reservations about Erkel's. Here are a few of the problems with it.

Covenant Theology
Erkel begins his article discussing Horton's view based on covenant theology, and unfortunately, this means he gets his article off to a bad start. He makes a category confusion between Old Covenant/Mosaic Covenant/Covenant of Grace/Abrahamic covenant, and thus resulting in his initial argument missing wide left. Even more damaging, he brings Jon Zens, editor of Baptist Restoration Review, in to the discussion, which incriminates Zens with the flawed covenantal hermeneutic. Whether or not Zens actually espouses such views remains unknown to myself; however, Erkel quotes him to bolster his polemic thrust - tainting him.

This is not a baptist/presby thing. Several Baptists get this aspect of Covenant Theology correct. It would help Erkel - and by relation, Zens - to get this aspect squirreled away.

The correct view of Covenant Theology will be the subject of a post very soon. Look for it at What the Thunder Said...

Exegesis
The main passage that is exegeted is Colossians 2:11 - 12.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

However, Erkel clearly has not taken time to deal with either Horton's exegesis of the text, nor the text itself. Instead, he passes on it in a matter of sentences. While he rightly points out that infants are nowhere included in these verses, he conveniently does not address how Christ unites concepts of circumcision and baptism in these verses, a concept that is paramount in Horton's argumental edifice.

Perhaps this can be forgiven, since Erkel relies heavily on an excellent quote by Fred Malone from his article "A String of Pearls Unstrung" in the above journal. While Malone's quote does justice to the Colossians pericope, it may not do damage to Horton's contention. It is not necessary for paedobaptists like Horton to deny that circumcision and regeneration are not intrinsically tied together - especially if we get more specific and say spiritual (or actual) circumcision; then you have a theological given. The presbyterian's point here, however, is that ascertaining regeneration on an individual basis prior to the bema seat is impossible.

The next text to be analyzed is Titus 3:5. Erkel cites all Baptist commentators, and dismisses the argument based on a definition that is assumed, and that Horton disagrees with. The only thing that is correct, is when he concedes rightly that this text does not command a recipient doctrine of Scripture. He is correct. It does, however, significantly elevate one's view of what is achieved in baptism, at least compared to the typical American Evangellyfish baptist.

Erkel spends time dealing with Acts 2:38 - 39. He ellicits four points from the text. I think it reasonably safe to say that Michael Horton, and any paedobaptist, would completely agree with all four points... for adults. None of these points negate Horton's arguments, except perhaps #4. Here Erkel argues that such a view would lead to paedocommunion. A brief look at the Reformed world shows that some are indeed wrestling with such notions. However, I personally think a Reformed view of the sacraments keeps one from this heresy. While baptism and the Eucharist are both sacraments, they are different species of the same animal, and meant to do different things.

Erkel quickly deals with the verses that mention household baptisms, and lists off a whole line of prooftexts, without comment on any of them. He briefly and curtly addresses I Corinthians 7, Matthew 19:3 - 5. This brings me to my final point...

Overall Presentation
The way Erkel presents his material is, unfortunately, far too sloppy. He flops back and forth between bulleting his points with numbers, and straight prose, and at least this reader could find little reason for switching. His points were often jumbled, and lacked any sort of concrete flow. There was no thesis or presentation other than his opponent was wrong. Erkel did not appear to have any sort of system for addressing Horton's article. Perhaps because of this, his article finished in a free-for-all melee in which any and every baptistic argument was drawn, while dealing with arguments and ideas not original to Horton's article. This is of course no reason to dismiss Erkel - often good, solid truth can be gleaned and harvested from less than professional sources - yet it adds up in strikes against his position.

_____________________________________

While I am thankful that godly Christian men are vigorously debating the doctrine, high quality of scholarship, patience, communication, and a love for the text are what tend to convince me. While this may not convince everyone, and may not necessarily be desirable traits, I think many Christian debates would be served if these characteristics were in more abundance.



Labels:

|

 

Covenant Baptism: For Children?

As mentioned, I had hoped to begin a wiki regarding baptism. Its now up, and you can view the wiki here: Covenant Baptism.



At any time, if you have theological/biblical propositions you'd like to add or think that some of your reflections and comments may add to the discussion, please email me (click button to the right) and I'll pass along the password so that you may join the wikitalk. Regardless of your contributions/interactions, I pray the site will be a benefit and blessing to all Christians, that it will focus thinking and exegesis, and propogate the beautiful doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is my basic contention:
It is biblically clear to me that children of believing parents enjoy special priviledges under the New Covenant, and are indeed members of the visible covenant. What is not so clear to me, however, is where baptism fits in.

Hop on over and debate away.

Labels: , ,

|

Friday, November 04, 2005 

ThunderCast 01

And thus begins podcasting for What the Thunder Said...

Download here: ThunderCast Podcast 01

My Odeo Channel (odeo/823b6f7754d846ca)

Click the RSS icon on the right panel that reads MP3 Podcast with the disperse symbol for the feed. I'll update this post as I get links for iTunes, other sites and direct download.

I envision ThunderCast to be the type of podcast you can bring with to the gym, use as a study break, listen to during your roughly 10 - 20 minute commute to work; etc. The purpose should be that in that amount of time, to edify the listener by providing some substantial thinking and entertainment.

I hope to provide serious thought in theology and philosophy, interview people who have poured a good bit of time in focusing on a particular doctrine, meditate over the Scriptures for devotions, comment on creeds and catechisms, and highlight historic, Reformed, prayers.

Aesthetically, I want to highlight and make aware of excellent music - both explicitly in the Reformed tradition and music that honors God by being excellently created, and other forms of audio art: poetry, creative prose, etc.

What the Thunder Said... will still be the main outlet. Though I'll link through several feeds (RSS, XML) and sites (Odea, iTunes) I'll still post here as well - at least for the direct download. I also hope to receive feedback and criticism for what is helpful and edifying, and what is annoying. Enjoy the podcast.

Labels: , ,

|

Transplanted from the artic blight of Minnesota to the sunny paradise of SoCal, I am attending school and learning to say "dude." I like to think of myself as equal parts surf rash, Batman, heavy metal, Levinas, poetic license, and reformational. Other than creating blund blogs, I enjoy reading, sporting, and socializing with serious and funny people.
My profile



Web Blog

About

Email:

FAQ - Author|Site
Upcoming Events |30 Boxes|
blund Frappr Places
Looking for Poem|Eliot information?

Thunder Sites

Thunder Mobile
Thunder Photo Album
Thunder Media
Thunder Frappr Map
Thunder Directory



Popular and Favorite Posts
Liturgical Bingo: BBC
Updated Video Roundup
Levinas and the Inner Demons

Categories

under construction

Recent Posts


Thunder Comments

under construction

Links & Blogs

Websites
CRTA
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
WSJ Opinion Journal
The Bethlehem Institute
ModernReformation
Westminster Seminary
Liberty Classical Academy
Monergism
ACR Homes
Heritage Charter School
MN Reformation Society
Mobility Today
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Desiring God
A Puritan's Mind

Blogs Du Jour
Gospel Driven Blog
Building Old School Churches
PastorHacks.Net
Cranach
Keener Living
Cyrene Ministries: Anthony Carter
League of Reformed Bloggers
Westminster Seminary Blog Ring
WSC & Alumni Blog Ring
Voice of the Martyrs

Friends
Syond of Saints
Chris & Steph
Pilgrim in Progress
Josh Carney
Seeing and Savoring
Through A Mirror Dimly
Robert Recio
The Cameroonian Three
Deus Dixit
Morrow's Words
The Normal Christian Blog
The Fire and the Rose
M. Joel Tuininga
Mayor Loebs
The Griffiths Family Blog
One Day in the Life
יהוה צדקנו•
Off the Wire
Claus' Xanga
Sweetened Christological Syllabus
Molesky Tribe
Shane's Blog
Jesse & Kelly Torgerson
Zach & Sarah

blund web comments

under construction
  • more web comments

  • noteworthy posts


    Archives


    Subscribe













    BlogMailr Enabled
    Get Firefox
    Get Thunderbird



    Subscribe in Rojo
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    Add 'What the Thunder Said...' to Newsburst from CNET News.com
    Google Reader
    Add to My AOL
    del.icio.us What the Thunder Said...
    Subscribe with myFeedster
    Furl What the Thunder Said...
    Feed Your Feeds
    Kinja Digest
    Solosub
    MultiRSS
    Rmail
    Rss fwd
    Blogarithm



    Thunder Maps

    Thunder Frappr Map


    ClustrMap Visitor Map Locations of visitors to this page

    Adsense


    Thunder Bookshelf


    by J. R. R. Tolkien


    by Flannery O'Connor


    by Herman Bavinck


    by Peter A. Lillback

    Banners

    For proper use please use
    Get Firefox! Get Thunderbird!



    Purevolume.com

    Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

    Desiring God

    MN Wild Hockey



    Bethlehem

    30 Boxes

    Oceanside URC

    Send Me A Message

    Mission OPC



    Westminster Seminary, California

    Statcounter.com

    Christ PCA Temecula

    MN Twins Baseball



    Clustrmaps.com






    Powered by Blogger







    How does Rowling and the "Harry Potter" series stack up against Tolkien and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy?
    Rowling is the new dreamweaver. She is reigniting literature and fantasy as we know it.
    Tolkien is the undisputed favorite. We have not yet seen a match for his philogistic skill.
    This is apples and oranges. You might as well compare ping pong with Halo. Two different animals.
    Rowling wins, but only by one quidditch goal.
    Tolkien still stands, but only barely.
      
    pollcode.com free polls






    Firefox 2