Tag Archives: the world

January 17, 2012

Baptism Last Call

By Pooka

Cover for Item ReviewedContinuing from Sunday’s Baptism Retread, I want to demonstrate this from my own past and that of my kids. My oldest, was “baptized” into a pagan family. She was born to witches and dedicated in accordance with her family’s beliefs. No choice there.

Now we were more honest than Christians at the time as well. We, as parents, determined to raise our daughter with freedom to choose her beliefs by not explicitly indoctrinating her into witchcraft’s creeds or practices. Credo-baptist Christians do not do this with their own – they create a half-way dilemma for their kids in which the dedication and upbringing are Christian, but do not provide for inclusion in the covenant family of God. Essentially, this creates pagans being accepted into the family and church. Does the term Christian-in-name-only come to mind?

The world has the concept of baptism down perfectly. Children born outside the church, to non-Christian families are “baptized” into the religion of their fathers by full acceptance as just what they are; no “of age” requirements or professions of faith required at any point in order to become part of the family or culture or nation.

Once again, it seems most natural to me to think that the position of “believer’s baptism” as the only acceptable view of baptism is backward and unfaithful to the Scripture and God’s revealed system.

For additional reference:

I find that the arguments against paedobaptism are similar to the arguments against paedocommunion. I think that the analyses of PC are fitting where they do not similarly suit PB. Analyses of PB included in these references point toward validating the baptism of infants and young children. So far, it appears that PC isn’t for minor children because of the complexity, obligation and depth of the Lord’s Supper as opposed to baptism.

OPC paedocommunion – a great layout of the scriptural and historical grounds concerning paedocommunion.

PCA paedocommunion – a collection of position papers and statements on the issue.

3 comments   |  tags: , , , , | posted in The Faith

January 15, 2012

Baptism Retread

By Pooka

http://www.newlifelamesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/hero-baptism.jpg

I have a few more thoughts on infant baptism. Stuff I didn’t mention here in three big arguments for covenant baptism.

Primarily, I’d like to discuss this in a way that demonstrates how God’s system permeates even our “godless” society and traditions. Children are remarkably claimed by everything into which they are born, except for One Big Thing which mystifies me to no end. A year ago I was unsettled and unwilling to commit to the idea of infant, or covenant, baptism. It was foreign to me, and didn’t make much sense. I was more than willing to at least explore the idea, being more than aware that my Christian education was lacking in most areas, especially in the Reformed ideas of covenants and sacraments. So I read. And read and read. And then I wrote. And wrote.

Denial of infant baptism actually breaks a pattern that has been running for millenia. I’ll keep it really brief. Children have had no choice in things like birth-parents, family name, Christian name, nationality, race, religion or what’s-for-dinner for as long as children have been around. Why in the world do we come up with the idea that they are not members of the church? The church is not a business that only “hires” people of legal working age. The church has never been a club that “cards” prospective patrons to see if they’re old enough to enter. The church has ever been considered an outpost, a consulate or embassy of God’s kingdom in the world. Therefore, I think it should make sense to baptize infants with the understanding that essentially is corroborated by practices of historical and modern custom and legal matters. Here are some references.

Birth abroad … Citizenship … Family Law Basics

Now, to quell the suspicion that I’m using the World to interpret the Bible in a Christian issue that needs to be resolved, I must refer back to my previous posts and the Word in general to make the claim that there’s no argument here. The Scriptures assume, just as they assume covenants in general, that children born to believing parents (or covenant families) are considered participants in the covenants. Isaac did not have to wait to be the covenant child until Genesis 24. Jacob and Esau did not have to wait until they were “of age” to begin the battle of who would be the continuation of the Promise. The firstborn children of Israel had no say in their survival on the day of the passover when the Lord’s angel came into Egypt and started the holocaust.

In every case of children I can think of, none had to prove themselves or hit a certain age before they were anointed or circumcised or sprinkled. Children were partakers of the covenants of God as soon as they entered into the world. The fact that there was this mysterious baptism thing in the New Testament really doesn’t come to bear on the children:

  1. They didn’t need to be included in the revision of being called out: They inherited whatever was going to happen, regardless, because they were children.
  2. Baptism was simply a modal shift from circumcision, not an entirely new practice that completely wiped out all past meaning and practices from the times of the Patriarchs. In fact, Baptism wasn’t even an entirely new idea in the first place. What people apparently are all worked up over was nothing more than the most obvious and poignant means of “setting apart” or “cutting off” seen in circumcision. Baptism, sprinkling, anointing and other means of marking the one who belonged to the covenant all made it into the omnibus version of applying God’s promises in word and touch – baptism.
  3. They weren’t the main actors! Those in the New Testament were primarily conversant adults because they were required to interact with Jesus and His apostles on the level at which the Scriptures speak. And those adults were automatically responsible for those children.
  4. Jesus gave it to them, without mention of their age or eligibility: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14)

Finally, we who are believers in the doctrine of election, of God’s sovereignty, all should be convinced that it is God’s work and choice that we have become His children and that we were not really given the option to turn to Him for our salvation. He dragged us, kicking and screaming, from our place at the brink of hell into His courts where we may enjoy Him forever. What more could help us to understand that His children are as much in our place as we are? More so, for we were afar off, but our children, born into our Christian families and churches are not so far off, are they?

I hope that helps.

5 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

January 1, 2012

Idols Of Marriage

By Pooka

There are a great many similarities between Christ and the church, our relationship to the Father and our relationship in marriage. It’s been said consistently that marriage is a shadow that greatly symbolizes Christ’s relationship to His bride, the Church. Ephesians 5 pretty much lays this out for us:

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for herto make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

I’d like to trace this out a little bit differently. As Christians, our sinful nature separates us from our Lord in our own lives over and over again. It must be understood, and remembered, that it is our God who steps into our lives and interacts with us, brings us into communion and community with Him and our fellow saints. All our good actions, thoughts and words are results of His intervention in our lives, specifically through His Spirit who dwells within us.

Outside of Christ, all good is vanity, merely a superficial sugar coating on what is ultimately twisted and evil, so appearances deceive. We must not base our lives and qualities on that which the World puts on display as right or righteous. So I’m talking most to Christians here, from what I believe should be the proper Christian perspective.

As Husband and Wife, there are idols which replace our proper relationship to each other. They may seem right, or even be essentially indistinguishable from our marital relationship. But as we have our perpetual idol factories going on all our days, separating us from our Lord’s good will and commands, those same sorts of idols do double duty to divorce us from our marriages. I perceive most of these because they are little shadows and great chasms in my own family, but some are based on what I’ve observed outside as well.

What they are, specifically, I would think becomes obvious, as soon as we think of our barriers to proper marital relationships as idol-like things. Obsession with work (in order to provide, of course), obsession with the kids (replacing that of husband or wife), preservation of the house or living status or any number of other material things. All sorts of little and big things we may believe are part of our familial duties become more important to us than the family itself. Even the devotion of a husband to his wife can be compromised by just the secret little place of spite that is hidden away but resides in every thing he does for her. Hypocritical commitment is not commitment at all, but is a living, breathing divorce that endures over time, seeping bitterness and alienation into what is God’s greatest (and first) establishment of human interrelation.

We create idols for our marriage just for the same reasons that we do so in place of God. Because we only want to trust what we control, what we can manipulate. Or worse, what we think we can understand and develop. Yes, she isn’t easy to figure out or he isn’t easy to live with. No, she isn’t what you originally bargained for (bargained? What? I think that’s pretty shoddy, considering all good things come from the Lord and He is the one who designed her and presented her to you in the first place). No, he isn’t obsessed with you like he was in the beginning.None of these things holds water to what God designed in marriage and none of the substitutes make up in any way.

Here is the answer. It’s probably disappointing to read, but it’s all I’ve been able to figure out in 15 years of marriage. Christ. The directions we have for our relationship to Christ are our directions for doing right by our spouse. I mean that literally: If we are to love our wives as Christ loved the church and we are to submit to our husbands as the church submits to Christ, then lets do that first. Look for devotion to Him and devotion to spouse should follow suit.

The church, being the Bride, should as a whole be alert to this equation and seek to build it in the marriages that comprise her membership. Members of the Body of Christ should be able to come to their church for support and leadership in marriage trials. But all of this depends on the whole being devoted to Christ, His Word and sacraments. Without the elements of the Faith, ain’t nonna this going to go much farther. All else that has developed in and outside the Christian religion is but works without belief and trust in the Savior. Counseling, tips, guidebooks, philosophy, 12-steps, all of these are works. The sacrifice, devotion, empathy, sympathy, emotion and everything else that comprise the sweetness of marriage are only real if they develop out of a commitment to the Lord and because we believe and love Him first. He makes it work, not us. The mystery, of course is that God makes the trials and efforts we endure and enact build our relationships. Ponder that, but depend on Him.

3 comments   |  tags: , , , , | posted in The Faith

December 6, 2011

My Liturgy Is My Litany Is My Liberty

By Pooka

This is another long one. If it’s too much, here’s one possible executive summary: We can’t think covenantally (read correctly) because of sin: We’ve made our covenant with ourselves and the rest of life in Christ is the removal of that lasting, bonded, covenant to self.

One of our great afflictions in this generation is the near extinction of a mindset that is vital to relationships and our correct view of just about everything. We’re missing the concept of commitment. The shadow of this problem has been growing for a long time, in many parts of our western culture for certain.

I’ve read and listened to thousands of words about how world wars have caused such devastation, being the ultimate manifestations of evil in the 20th century. The result that seems to be a common thread in WWI, II, and all the big, destructive conflicts surrounding them is that people have lost their sense of anything being worth it. Sometimes I’ve heard “where is God?” in response to the cataclysms but I think that more, there’s been a doubt that arises from this question that is more deadly. “Why should I commit to the God who isn’t there?”

Also, the increase in ease of life, communication, mobility have all sugar-coated this almost instant liberty from commitment by making us freer to choose (ironically). We can easily vacillate between what we want to do, what we can do and what we should do. We have no need to put down roots and abide somewhere, in something or on something, since picking up and trucking off are as simple as gassing up the infernal combustion machine and throwing a box of clothes in the trunk. We can now delete what we’ve said, obliterate the meaning of what we decide not to delete with an update, or even put meaningful, ambiguous half-speech before the masses that can be read any of a dozen ways none of which commit us to anything.

I’ll list some of the things I see as contributors: Cars, the Web and social media, phones, freeways and airways, free or near-free publishing. All of these are just pieces in the big Lego set of “freedom” that gives us choice. It can go back to the Framers in our American history, who laid the groundwork for protection of our liberties, but strangely enough opened the floodgates just enough that we could begin to define our liberties by greater leaps and bounds every day. Now we see public protests for any reason under the sun, laymen making commentary on anything and everything of which they know less than nothing (yers truly included) and completely unqualified candidates for positions that once required not just qualifications but the wherewithal to commit to the demands of the positions. I speak in generalities because it’s all over – I’m not criticizing just One or promoting an agenda.

Of course, it’s sin. Full rounded freedom to do just what we want is just what we all want. And so, with no commitments, no reason to commit, we define our own fiction, a story that casts us in the center of everything. The very circles in which we run are self-licking ice cream cones that uplift the individual so that each of us in a group can say that the group is us and we uphold the group. We’ve committed to just one thing, ourselves, which is precisely what Adam did in the garden, wanting his own edification and significance. All other bets are off. We’re free to clean out our Facebook friend list at any time, delete our Tweets, rebuild the Lego set as many times as we’d like or drop off the grid just by unplugging the idiot box, starting the car and driving off to a new place. Maybe a season at The Burning Man will do me good.

So we have this intense difficulty looking at the Bible with a frame of mind that truly understands it. We can’t seem to understand the concept of commitment because we’ve been raised free from the mandate of commitment. Billboards claim “your way” or “define yourself” or “rethinking you” while banks, stores, services and forums all call for us to contribute our thoughts and preferences in detail that reaches all the way to the packaging on a jug of milk. And so with the Bible, green, military, woman’s, child’s, MacArthur’s, Reformation, survivor’s, Purpose Driven, College, (enough yet?). Since we are free to choose anything, we cannot come to the Word of God and understand that we cannot choose anything. Funny that by driving ourselves to the point that we can choose all, we’ve bound ourselves in our lives to a litany of choice. Our liturgy is to pause in reflection before any event or action and consider not whether it is profitable or required, but whether it is good for me or worth my while.

So is it truly a wonder that we cannot see the continuity of the Scriptures and God’s work of redemption? Is it surprising that the New Testament is all about me and the Old is all about them? Is it surprising that we’ve created circles of dedication to the Jewish Nation, Theonomic Society, Two Kingdoms, Altar Calls and Bob Jones U. or other cultural identification that we can “identify with” and will have meaningful productivity for ourselves? Distinctives should bring about suspicion in many cases. Are they distinctives that set the Word of God above party preferences, or do they facilitate personal identity and alignment to a movement or other personality? I’m not knocking loving neighbor here, I’m condemning loving self, for that is what these all-about perceptions are all about. Our “destiny” is about telling God what’s what, and joining with our neighbors in a Babel Project that brings us to the heavens or at least frees us from commitment to what we were made for.

Continuity, you say? What does that have to do with commitment? I ran off the track right?

I don’t think so. I see this every day. I have the freedom to choose whatever I want. I can choose to leave or stay, paint or draw or write or read or vegetate. I can do my work or not. I don’t have a sense of duty or higher calling. And I’ve taught my kids the same thing. I watch passively as the schools do the same thing. I think that, other than this work here on Lord and Hearth, the occasional gatherings of our folk from church in various venues and (ultimately) Sunday worship, the concept of commitment is virtually nonexistent in an epistemological way (meaning concretely, it’s more than just a cursory glance or “living” covenantally). My view of things, though growing toward an understanding of covenants, is anti-covenantal. I don’t think in terms of my marriage vows or enlistment contract. Nor do I keep in mind that my kids are my ministry-handed-down-by-God-Himself. I don’t think about how much my beloved brothers and sisters in Church are a truly covenant people. I forget, for days on end, the vows to Church and Congregation, and in suit forget to review these with my family.

But our Lord does not forget. He does not make commitments, covenants, optional – for Himself or for us. So at some point, there will be a reckoning. Fortunately for us, we who are in His church, the bride of His Son, that reckoning is weekly and we are brought to His promises and fed His promises and we hear them, touch and see them. Discipleship and discipline are tutors in covenants. The whole point is to learn that our God is a covenantal being who deals in things like guarantees, places, commitments, promises, tangibles, relationships – all those things that are concrete and inflexible. He does not quibble over current fads and movements. He uses even these to implement reiterations of His promises. And we do well to ponder these things. The ultimate Promise is that He did, in creation, set up our redemption from the very beginning and that every aspect of our redemption is founded on promises, covenants, which He alone maintains. Jesus Christ the actor, the Holy Spirit the Official Seal, God the Judge; survey the titles that are everywhere in Scripture, all promise us His faithfulness.

R. C. Sproul has spent years teaching about many things like the Holiness of God. One thing we should think about, regarding this subject is that God is the guarantee of Sproul’s work. Sproul has explained all about God’s holiness, but God is the one we must believe is going to be holy – it’s based on His Word, His clear declaration that Holy is what He is. So we have a guarantee of this. Where I can flip between personality traits, He will not. He has promised.

Reading the Word for the promises of God, for His faithfulness to make and provide for us a Savior, a satisfaction for our sin, a solution for our hopelessness, is bound to resolve many of the conflicts among us today. It is bound to “liberate” us with the freedom to seriously be committed to a beautiful goal that is depends on God’s promises rather than human frailty and fickleness.

I read an Old Life article today, which dovetails in right here (Even though the author isn’t going where I’m going). It speaks to me of more than just pastoral commitment while at the same time makes me more than a little thankful that my pastor, our pastor, has a commitment to God’s Word and the ministry thereof which takes precedent for our benefit.

1 comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

November 29, 2011

I Don’t Exactly Surrender All

By Pooka

 

So this is another long one. It’s an exploration one of the most popular themes from my yesteryear, that which failed to sink Gospel teeth into me. It’s probably not perfectly formed, so I’m up for clarifying critique. On with the show.

The last two White Horse Inn episodes I’ve listened to, along with reading J.G. Machen have started me on another round of anti-navel-gazing ponderance. The questions posed in the gospel of pragmatism are whether our experience, or life story is the Gospel and whether making disciples can be a system similar to the process of a factory. Yep, back to the Finney Finish and Me-ism I go.

What should be amazingly easy, but we all seem to forget constantly, is that ever-present religion of Me-ism. It’s not just that we believe our personal testimony is the prime tool for bringing people to Christ, but that our very life is critical to everything in our Religion. I mean here that if I sin grievously, persistently, that my faith is in doubt. That I might not be saved. I also mean here that if I’m not living “as a Christian should”, that I have no witness to bear.

This is insane. If I sin grievously once or persistently over time, my faith could be in doubt. But that is missing the point. My salvation can not be in doubt, because God has promised me eternal life, salvation by Grace through faith, entirely being His gift. He has not promised me a cleaned-up, perfected life right now. If this was not the case, my baptism should’ve been a bit more dramatic in its results, I believe, and I should also be a very effective preacher, missionary or seminary prof by now. And a lot of other really awesome Bibley things. 

Salvation does not hinge on what I’m doing right now or late at night with my friends. It does not hinge on me falling off the wagon or getting on the wrong wagon. It hinges on me trusting in Jesus Christ. It hinges on me believing The Gospel and not, especially not, in the testimony of somebody else or the change in my life. And my believing the Gospel does not hinge on me! It hinges on God. Assurance is not me and is not subjective. It is God and His Word that assure me.

But we turn round again, at every turning, back to this doubt and sense of hopelessness that we are not saved, or that we have forsaken our right to the fellowship of the church. Garbage. Instead of us re- blanket training ourselves the Gospel has removed us from the sin blanket that makes us dependent on our own goodness to get in with God.

Getting all this Gospel-centeredness straightened out should lead to another amazing revelation. The Gospel is The Gospel. It’s not me and my long tale of conversion. The story I have put up in the About here at LAH is not the Gospel. Notice all the potential Me-ism in there. I put it up there not in hopes that somebody would come to faith by reading it but to show where I come from and where I’ve been, for relevance and sharing the joy of what’s happened. 

If I crash and burn tomorrow, falling into a pit of sinful misery at the bar in Thailand with two women, tequila, a doobie and a stolen car, my pretty story suddenly takes on  a new light. It begs the question, “What about now? All that awesome stuff really didn’t mean anything, did it?” And so my “witness” is shot. And in a majority of churches, I’d be suddenly out of grace, considered unsaved, reprobate, a false convert or maybe even just plain subject to losing my salvation. Garbage. In fact, based on what most Christian teaching implies, if I show up in church next Sunday after my vacation, reformed and confessing my sin, I’d better ask Christ into my life and forgive my sins, heck – even get baptized again, cause I wasn’t really saved last week. But that’s not it at all.

Now I hope and pray the Lord will forever protect me from such a demise. He’s definitely put in place a lot of safeguards that are very likely to limit the chances of me getting into such a situation. But that’s not it for the Gospel. The point here is that what I do is not critical to the Gospel. What Christ did is critical to the Gospel. It is the Gospel. And if I believe it, I’m saved. Not perfected. Romans 12:1-2 the whole New Testament is about believing the truth and then working it out, not hearing the truth and then meeting Joel Osteen.

Okay, so what can I look for, for indicators that I’m saved? If all the stuff above doesn’t clear any fog, maybe this might help a little: Here’s what changes, in varying degree and extent, for a Christian.

Before:  I loved to sin. I felt guilty because I knew I was doing wrong, sometimes, but mostly because of consequences. I constantly dug for reasons to legitimize my evil, self-centered desires and pursuits. I hated the idea of a judging God who set the rules and, regardless of my opinion, made them not-optional.

After: I hate being sinful. I hate that everything I do is tainted with Me-ism and weakness. I do as much wrong as I did before, only now it’s worse. Much of that obvious evil activity that characterized my life is now well hidden. Maybe some of it really is deleted from my programming, but most? Still here. I’m essentially the same dirty person. But I believe that God has promised me salvation. I believe that Christ did what is impossible for me and then paid the price for all that I have done (and will do). So I can rest in these things, thankful that everything I have that is good is provided, not by anything I’ve done, by God Himself.

I don’t exactly surrender all, rather I believe and increase in beliefs about what is true and what follows is a deeper love for God and His ways. That causes a deeper hatred of my ways and the world’s ways. But what everything returns to is the Message. Christ lived for my righteousness, died for my sins rose again for my life.

Sheesh

All to Jesus I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.

Refrain:
I surrender all,
I surrender all;
All to Thee, my blessed Savior,
I surrender all.

All to Jesus I surrender;
Humbly at His feet I bow,
Worldly pleasures all forsaken;
Take me, Jesus, take me now.

All to Jesus I surrender;
Make me, Savior, wholly Thine;
Let me feel the Holy Spirit,
Truly know that Thou art mine.

All to Jesus I surrender;
Lord, I give myself to Thee;
Fill me with Thy love and power;
Let Thy blessing fall on me.

All to Jesus I surrender;
Now I feel the sacred flame.
Oh, the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!

Feeling? I can’t trust my feelings. Surrender? How can I give up this stuff of my own volition? Freely give? I think it’s better if He takes, so I’m gonna pray for that. Giving me to Christ? God gave me to Christ:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. — John 6:37

Here’s what is good. I fight all day against my sin. At the end of the day I look back and usually I can dump out a decent bucket of sin onto the table for sorting and examining. Sometimes there’s a piece of sin that is not there, often one that is pretty familiar and usually in the mix. But not often. It seems that my evil just won’t diminish, in fact it seems to become more detailed heavy. And I can, by the grace of God, look at it and then at my Savior and know that I’m forgiven and that someday this mess is really going to be cleaned up. And then I look ahead to Sunday, always looking ahead to Sunday, and the reunion with the rest of my people who are just like me, gathered to worship the One we are not: The Saving God Who Keeps His Promises.

5 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

November 27, 2011

Who’s The Moral Monster?

By Pooka

Machen claims there’s a better relationship to be had with the atheist than with liberal christians. Atheists hold that God is a moral monster, capricious and petty, even inconsistent between the Old and New Testament. Some liberal christians seem to have the idea that there are two different gods in the two Testaments, which puts them essentially in the same camp as the atheists. Well, except for the fact that atheists deny God outright and only render philosophical judgement of Christianity’s beliefs. Liberals deal viciously with the Christian religion at the same time as they pretend to uphold it. But they come to their pulpits with a demolished Gospel, misrepresented Christ and much more. Both they and the atheists get a lot in common when you pare it all down. Humanists, the lot of ‘em.

I think we should turn this all on its head, this conception of God. An honest look at Scripture must force a different God on the scene and therefore a different man than what men presume to understand.

Genesis 19 is a great place to start a case. We heard this chapter from the pulpit today, and it is a rich passage. It makes a very powerful claim that men, not God, are the moral monsters. Where He is consistent through all of Scripture (and History, believe it or not) we are the ones who are wandering around, blind and helpless. Men are without a moral compass and have been experimenting with the means of government, piety and morality for millenia without any great success to date.

Conversely, when God hates a thing, it is clear that He hates it. When God promises, He is faithful. When God requires, He does not lower the bar.

Consistency. The God of the New Testament, if anything, is even more intense than in the Old. He wipes out entire cities, countries, nations and even the whole world in the Old Testament. But in the New, He unleashes His full wrath on just one man. And not only that, the man who suffers is God’s Son, who deserves none of the punishment meted out. God is consistent in the small stuff too, taking care of Ananias and Sapphira, Herod through OT methods as well as blinding, muting, cursing, condemning and other things which certainly hail back a few centuries before the advent of Christ and Apostles.

Meanwhile, men are also consistent. In Genesis, we are vicious, intolerant toward right-thinking men, murderous to strangers and unfaithful to each other. In the New Testament, we’re unfaithful spouses, debauchers and drunks, hoarders, liars and unjust judges. We kill indiscriminately, free convicted criminals for innocent prisoners, wash the blood from our hands and pretend to be gods. We have no concept of sexual purity, legal propriety or familial honor in any place in history. We praise the corrupt man and seek to destroy the pure man.

Who is the moral monster? It’s us, not God. God knows His rules and abides by them. Not only that, but since they’re His rules, He expects us to abide by them too. I’ll call God consistent and faithful, how about you? An honest reader, whether Christian or not, should be able to see this in the Bible. Lamentably, it appears even our reason is ruined to the point where we cannot make sense of the most blatantly simple logic.

Thankfully, He is consistent and faithful. The real God is faithful enough that, knowing we are hopelessly bent and lacking any ability to break out of our condition, He promises help and then keeps His promise. Christ, the Son who suffered unjustly in our world, kept God’s requirements to the letter and then willingly assumed the position as the representative of all men of all times. God delighted to judge Christ as a sinner rather than us who deserve judgement, and Christ delighted to see that suffering. The delight is in looking at the results. The horror lifted our death sentence and freed us to cleave to Him, Jesus, and finally rest in hope of a day without missing God’s love, without missing His mark. We can see the tiny changes in a life that’s reborn because of Jesus. Believing this, we too will suffer and most of us will die, but we will, like Jesus, be brought back alive to reside with Him. God is consistent and keeps His promises. Someday, we who belong to God will no longer be moral monsters. We’ll be righteous sons and daughters, and God can already see us like that: for Him, we look like Jesus.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

November 21, 2011

People Are Designed Covenantally

By Pooka

The following quotes are definitions of covenant and come from a .PDF created by Grace Community Churc in PA.

Meredith Kline (1922‐2007)

…a berith (Hebrew word for covenant) is a legal kind of arrangement, a formal disposition of a binding nature. At the heart of a berith is an act of commitment and the customary oath‐form of this commitment reveals the religious nature of the transaction. The berith arrangement is no mere secular contract but rather belongs to the sacred sphere of divine witness and enforcement. The kind of legal disposition called berith consists then in a divinely sanctioned commitment. In the case of divine‐human covenants the divine sanctioning is entailed in God’s participation either as the one who himself makes the commitment or as the divine witness of the human commitment made in his name and presence.

J. Ligon Duncan

Now, berith in the Old Testament signifies a binding, mutual relationship with mutual obligations, a binding mutual relationship with attendant obligations.

Michael Horton

So what exactly is a covenant? Anticipating the definition in the next chapter, we can start by saying that from the most commonly used Hebrew word for this concept (bent), a covenant is a relationship of “oaths and bonds” and involves mutual, though not necessarily equal, commitments. As we will see shortly, some biblical covenants are unilaterally imposed commands and promises; others are entered into jointly. Some are conditional and others are unconditional. In other words, under the overarching concept of oaths and bonds we encounter a substantial variety of covenants in Scripture.

Something that I wonder at is how covenants are insanely far reaching. I think that this idea stems from God’s eternal perspective and, though we are “in time” where He is “outside time”, there is a reflection of our Lord’s span of attention. God steps in and does things that are temporal, of course, but we look at the first recorded covenant and see that it is one that comes before creation.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

This is the classic predestination verse, right? It’s covenantal language. There’s a word study on this that I think is fitting: Ephesians 1:4 and that leads to another verse, 1st Corinthians 15:22 which talks about another covenantal impact (Adam’s federal headship).

When God declares or sets a covenant, it’s not a short-deal. It lasts. The first one He made with Adam is still killing us today. The second one, about the snake and the heel? Took us right to Christ.  The promise for Noah – still on: no water apocalypse. Moses? Law still here, though in Christ we’re freed from it. Redemption – always been in God’s agenda and as soon as it was served to us in Christ, became permanent backwards and forwards.

I’m just thinking about how we, as God’s creation, were first introduced to relationships by lasting relationships, or covenant agreements. And when we tried to sidestep or violate the covenants, retribution was swift and disastrous. But the covenants were there and in force, irrevocable and lasting.

Just because men were dispersed after the garden, Babel and then reset at the flood doesn’t seem to have eradicated the existence of God’s covenants. They, we might say, are in the blood. People are designed covenantally. The effects of the fall is that we become covenant breakers.

There is no point in history where we are found free of God’s promises, threats, commitments or agreements. What is happening, though, is that we’re getting worse about the whole thing. Our sin nature is denying God’s framework more and more fanatically which brings us to today where we’ve tried to delete the concepts entirely.

I don’t know how useful this line of thought really is. It doesn’t give me much to work with. Now, it’s helped me greatly in getting what I think is an improved understanding of our weekly Covenant Renewal, which is Sunday worship. It’s helped me understand baptism and the Lord’s Table better. It’s definitely built a bit more sense of responsibility and dedication to my family. But so far as “doing something” I’m not sure there actually is something to do. Perhaps this increased understanding is a thinking-changer rather than an imperative generator.

Maybe comprehending God’s covenant system is likened to the Gospel? The Gospel is a proclamation, not a to-do list. Understanding covenants is not the same as making covenants. I’m sure that, should I encounter another relationship commencement in my lifetime, I’ll look upon it differently, but I don’t think I’m going to be taking action in my local church to affect some system of covenant-making gunk. Besides, whatever I do, as a natural covenant-breaker, isn’t going to pan out much anyhow.

It looks like, just as God created our relationships, He also sustains them and there ain’t much we can do about either. All we’re doing, as I see it, is hitching along for the ride. Elbow grease is always in response to something God has done, not to get God to do something. And He supplies the motive power for the response, too, right?

2 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

November 17, 2011

Let’s Presuppose A Few Things

By Pooka

Courthouse

Part 3. The first two in this line of thoughts on covenants, community and our relationships are here: Anti-Covenant and Individualism  and I Might Just Need To Be A We

At first, this may appear to be more of a formal apology for Covenant Theology, but bear with me. Also, I’m quite sure this has all been said before, so I can’t claim any originality here. That’s safer anyway since any time we deny the last 2,000 years of church history, we’re claiming that our current religion is the only one that is Christian throughout all history. Scary thought, eh? And what I’m about to discuss reaches back just a bit farther than Tertullian or Irenaeus or even Pentecost. Maybe a few thousand years past that. This is long, but I hope it has good returns. And I hope I’ve portrayed this accurately and understandably.

This doctrine of covenants is not pure theology. It’s not a tight, air-less doctrine that we can take or leave and not be deeply affected by the ramifications of the choice. It is hugely important. Once the barrier of modern presupposition is torn down, the other conflicts will start to resolve themselves fairly easily. That’s my own experience, at least.

Let me make the claim about this presupposition thing. There’s all sorts of discussion about presuppositional hermeneutics and theology. And it is absolutely correct to presuppose there are presuppositions required in the study of the Word. Which presupposition, or assumption if you will, is correct is vital, of course. And here’s the basic premise: The Bible is not speaking in the context of the 21st Century, modernity, the Reformation or even back in the days of Augustine. The Bible’s context is the Biblical eras. Get that and you’re on your way to 1st base.

Next, the Bible itself is filled with assumptions. Do you know the importance of Boaz heading out to the city gate when he’s checking on the status of Ruth’s availability? The Bible doesn’t add a footnote or aside comment to plumb the depths of this significant event. It assumes the reader knows what’s going on. The history and cultural importance of what’s going on at the city gate amongst the elders of the community is far more than what some consider just a civil affairs court setting.  Lot’s story was another one with that gate thing going on. But let’s put all that in the back of our minds. We’ve got to go deeper to make better sense of this.

The Bible assumes Covenant Theology. Really. No joke. It assumes the stuff I’ve been writing about in the last few days. We’ve heard all the debate over baptism, the Lord’s Table and Israel’s future so many times. There are conflicts that are so persistent they’ve lasted hundreds of years. I think they’re more heated today than ever. And it’s because, primarily, we have lost the sense of community and covenantal relationships that are assumed in the Bible.

Look at this language:

The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call.

When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

And then look at this list: And Your Children and Household

Everybody wonders or fights over these sorts of passages. The Covenant guys extrapolate a connection to things like baptism of infants and the Baptist guys extrapolate the non-existence of infants. All sorts of ideas come up to try to explain this. Sometimes, I wonder if some of the Covenant guys are just as disrespectful of the text as the Baptists when trying to explain their position through use of household and your children. Does the Bible explain what is meant by these sorts of terms? No, not any more than with the gate-court thing in Ruth or Genesis.

Here’s why it’s confusing in the New Testament: When these terms are used, they’re repetition of Old Testament Language. And no, that’s not to “bring” the Old Testament way of thinking back to these Jews of the first century. It was to remind them of the significance of events past that correlate to current events. In all that was changing around in the New Covenant, there was going to be some conflict. Pharisaical law, gentile inclusion, realized forgiveness and justification, missionary trips, diaspora – all these things were new and scary and confusing. People needed to, get this, hear that everything hadn’t just stopped or fundamentally altered!

Peter and his fellow apostles were using this language because the Jews understood it. This means that we cannot presuppose our own 21st century opinion, which is grounded not in the Scriptures but in modern, pagan, non-covenantal thinking. We must look at this language as the Jews did. That’s why we don’t get an explanation in the Bible about what gate-courts, households and your children mean. And that’s why we don’t get a greater development of what the Table and Baptism mean right out of the text. It’s in there, absolutely, but in a, wait for it… presupposition.

I’ll say it again. This is all so hard because we aren’t looking in the right place. The Bible started out its narrative in the context of covenants – relational, promise-keeping, life-sharing, trust-bearing covenants. We are the ones who have changed over the millennia, not the Bible and not at the triumphant entry of Jesus Christ whose birthday celebration we are fast approaching. We have lost the perspective the Jews had.

I’m not calling for a return to Judaism or tossing our technology so we can wear robes to tear each time we’re cut to the heart. I’m not interested in raking dust for a few measly rows of fava beans and wheat sheaves. I like my Pollo Loco too much and I’d much rather have easy access to the last 2,000 years of theology right here on my infernal machines. I’m calling for us to look at Scripture in the historical, cultural frame in which it’s set. No helicopters in Revelation. No civil affairs court for the young moabitess. No ditching of infants until they’re old enough to say they believe.

Side comment: Refusing baptism of our kids is telling them that they are no different from the other kids across the block (the ones who have Wiccan parents right over there). We’re destroying their identity in a Christian family! No sacraments = no sense of being in the family of God.

A few weeks ago, I put up a little bit about how painful it must have been to be one of the convicted Pharisees at Peters Big Sermon at Pentecost (I should rename the post “Cut To The Heart Thrice“). Think about this:

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”

Those Pharisees were almost certainly thinking of what they had done to their families! When Peter said this (emphasis mine):

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

We know what happened:

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

Now look again at Peter’s response:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

That’s reaching all the way back to things like:

They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the LORD, they and their descendants with them.

The OT said this in Deuteronomy 12:

Be careful to obey all these regulations I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the LORD your God.

Here’s what changed when Christ fulfilled the Law, died in our place and rose again: I’ll grossly paraphrase this:

Be careful to believe this good news I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the LORD your God.

Nowhere is the concept of covenants, community and our relationships altered in the New Testament. It’s ratified by simply not changing the language.

End of story? We have to look at the Bible and realize that our presuppositions that make us unwilling to include our children in sacraments, unwilling to include them in worship are modern insertions to the Scriptures. Also, equally important are the concepts of family solidarity, congregation solidarity, discipline, submission, faithfulness and loyalty to our heads, elders and rulers. These things are assumed to be normal in the Scripture even more than they are overtly commanded. Dropping the concept of covenantal theology kills more than just National Israel’s future and sprinkling babies. It can kill our faith, folks – by confusing the message and hiding the promises God has made to us (and our children).

1 comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

November 15, 2011

I Might Just Need To Be A We

By Pooka

Calvin not Hobbes

In the last post, Anti-Covenant and Individualism, I was trying to start my line of though by expressing my impression of the extreme difficulty we have in communicating the idea of covenant baptism in general. I believe it is difficult because there is so little framework in our modern culture with which to understand it. We’ve lost the concept of covenants and commitments. Everything has to be spelled out on paper and even then there’s always somebody ready to weasel a way out of (or into) something in the relationship.

In fact, I was listening to Albert Mohler’s Thinking In Public today: Believing Without Belonging? A Conversation With Sociologist Grace Davie. The discussion ranged around quite a bit but hit on what I’m pondering here. I think it’s well worth a listen.

Yesterday, I was ultimately lamenting how our one-istic, individualist culture seems to have separated us from what God set up as the standard pattern for human relationship. That being family, church, Him. We’re so unrelated to each other nowadays that it’s really hard to come together under a single creed. I do believe that the confessional Reformed folk have the best understanding and therefore the closest stance on being united in relationship. I mean, we believe it, strive to inculcate it and act it out. But the culture, 7 days a week, fights tooth and nail for us to return (right after church on Sunday) to our covenantal relationship to computers, food, drink, cars, idle silliness, community service and everything else. We don’t look back, as we’re doing our mundane things, at our relationships with family, church and God to connect and assess value.

I certainly understand and embrace the beautiful assertion (I believe Calvin and others have said it too) that God is our Father and Church is our mother. It’s just that I don’t, in my own experience, value that hugely important pair of facts enough – and if I’m in sorry shape here, I’m willing to bet there are plenty of others as well. Not because we don’t want to, but in many ways because we can’t – the code has been obfuscated or even deleted to the extent that we just don’t get it. The concept is opposed from the start. Even the Biblical family is under attack (and in many cases demolished) as a valid relationship.

I think I begin to see the challenge our loving pastors face – they are fighting to reintroduce the concept of covenant relationships and rework our thinking so that our responses are in the right place. They know our belief is made deeper because of what we see, hear, touch and taste in preaching, the Table and baptism. They also know that to appreciate and embrace these things, we need to chew hard on the idea that we’re not just I, me, personally or “this is just me, but…”

Parting thought,

“If a man is not faithful to his own individuality, he cannot be loyal to anything.” — Claude McKay

What if it’s more like: If a man is not faithful to his identity in Christ, he cannot be loyal to anything but himself?

We are saved by grace through faith and enter into a relationship with God as our Father, Christ as our Savior, brother, priest, king, prophet. But we are not alone. We are, individually, grafted into a group. A family. Into a whole that is our mother, the church. Thinking like a child would, our identity is there. I am a child of God and I belong in His church. I don’t do church or go to church. I am in it. With the others. Never alone. You’re never alone when you’re in Him.

9 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

November 1, 2011

Mormons are NOT Christians: Here’s Why 3

By Pooka

I’m not sure if this is the last installment of this little series. “You have a nice day” sounds suspiciously like Bilbo’s final use of “Good Morning” toward Gandalf in the beginning of The Hobbit. In light of this potential end to our relationship, I tried to tie up what was said and make some clear statements one more time. It’s been thought provoking and worthwhile to me, engaging in this conversation. I hope others have found it equally valuable.

Continuing on, I would like to repost the continuing conversation that started with Mormons are NOT Christians: Here’s Why. The 2nd part of this series is Mormons are NOT Christians: Here’s Why 2.

The original forum from which all this comes is Mormons ARE Christians: Here’s Why.

WhatAboutThis says:

No bitterness or resentfulness here. Whichever church you belong to has some curious beliefs? Boy are you going to be surprised some day.

The restoration of the church was not a bottom-up affair. It was Top-down. The 14 year old uneducated Joseph Smith didn’t go looking for heavenly visitors or to restore the church. It came to him.

We make no claim to be a church that “repairs” all the shortcoming of those that already existed at the time. People outside our church seem to always want to compare us with some traditional view. We have no such attachments or need no traditional pedigree. In fact, largely, we don’t even know what the other churches do or did or for that matter where they came from except in the broadest sense. It’s just not important to the path we’re on.

In our church we don’t talk about other churches, discuss them, refer to them or have lessons about them. We don’t have seminars like the evangelicals, invite sensationalist videos or presentations featuring former disaffected Methodists or Baptists. ALL of that is totally foreign to us and we’re mystified why the traditionals even care enough about it to spend time and money on it?!?!

These people have too much time on their hands or someone is making money from it.

We don’t seek legitimacy by squaring ourselves with other faith’s teachings or history. It really doesn’t make any difference to us if the Pope likes us or approves of us or not. I’m not trying to be disrespectful but its just not part of our calculus…it’s a non-issue.

What does make a difference however retaining a remission of sins by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and administering relief to the poor and that is something that is done most effectively in cooperation with other faith’s efforts in those areas, regardless of what their doctrines are. We give tens of millions of dollars to Catholic Charities and many others if they are already set up in an area. Rather than duplicating efforts, we augment their work. There is no competition or glory to be had by one-upping another group.

I agree that the Gospel is the good news but after you’ve accepted it, there is a lot to be done as mentioned above and that’s where the to-do list comes in.

And by the way, I think that most angelic visits are private. Moses went to the burning bush alone. Jacob’s wrestle, Abrahams dreams and angelic education took place privately. When these things take place there is an issue of sacredness of space and normally a “crowd” is not compatible with that.

This is an interesting comment you made. “I hold the truth and I want you to hear it. Please listen.” In some ways that doesn’t sound too different from us except we really do have the truth, no joking. The difference is the way that it’s approached. The pronouncement by pastor jeffress and other traditionals who comment on this blog typically doesn’t sound like “…please listen…”

So the notion of debate and argument over points of doctrine again is foreign to us…”fisticuffs”…how melodramatic. Here are some Brass tacks…It doesn’t matter that people from other faiths don’t agree with me…so what. I am not diminished by their having a different point of view. We present correct doctrine and invite and if a person feels prompted to go forward, then we procede. If they don’t the Spirit may work on them and they may see things differently sooner or later. Our church isn’t on trial here. The people of the world are. We don’t seek permission, approval or legitimacy from anyone or church.

This thing I do know, that God is our Father and He loves us dearly as a perfect father would love his children. I am grateful for all that He has said and for all that He wants to tell me. I long for that and receive it openly when it comes.

I’m afraid you’ll have to go fishing for converts in a different pond.

You have a nice day.

_______________________________

Pooka says:

“I’m afraid you’ll have to go fishing for converts in a different pond.”

What drew me to this article in the first place, and to comment, was more a desire to offer an apologetic for why the orthodox, Gospel-believing church does not recognize the COJCOLDS as a Christian church. I would love to see someone consider what I’ve said here and respond in true faith, but that is not my job. Fishing belongs to the Great Fisherman, Jesus.

“feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and administering relief to the poor and that is something that is done most effectively in cooperation with other faith’s efforts in those areas, regardless of what their doctrines are.”
“I agree that the Gospel is the good news but after you’ve accepted it, there is a lot to be done as mentioned above and that’s where the to-do list comes in.”

This is noble, welcomed by just about anyone I can think of, and just what men should do. That said, it bears nothing on “remission of sins.” This is an entirely different gospel from the one Jesus preached. Smith, along with plenty of others from Christian and non-Christian backgrounds all miss this in the Bible. In fact, every man has made this error, namely that we can earn God’s favor through what we do. Even if done in His name, our deeds completely fail to get us anywhere.

“Here are some Brass tacks…It doesn’t matter that people from other faiths don’t agree with me…so what. I am not diminished by their having a different point of view. We present correct doctrine and invite and if a person feels prompted to go forward, then we procede.”

It seems to matter, as far as I perceive. The persistence of LDS people in asserting their Christianity isn’t exactly hard to miss. It’s all over. Asserting that LDS have correct doctrine is important to you just as my assertion of the same is to me. So I respectfully would like to observe that, though you posit to be inclusive, you’ve made a statement that says you have the truth.

The Christians also, those who understand just what you said about inviting and waiting for a response, do not feel “diminished” by others’ differences in “point of view.” Christians offer Christ’s Gospel just as He directed them to in the Bible. And when we are not received, we “shake the dust off” and get out of town.

“We don’t seek legitimacy by squaring ourselves with other faith’s teachings or history. It really doesn’t make any difference to us if the Pope likes us or approves of us or not. I’m not trying to be disrespectful but its just not part of our calculus…it’s a non-issue.”

The reason we “talk about other churches” and square ourselves with other faiths’ teachings and history in our Christian circles, vice LDS and others who do not, is because we have the truth – and that our belief in that truth is exclusive. We do not perceive another way to a right relationship with God. In wishing to offer the Bible’s accurate judgement of men and portrayal of God and His work to redeem His creation, we consult and converse in and out of Christian circles in order to reach out clearly and in the context of other faiths.

Why study another religion’s aspects if you believe there are other avenues? Why study another religion’s points of divergence if you, like the mass of world religions believe that righteousness before God is achievable by the works of men? I understand your position, I believe, and I was there. As a witch for 10 years, I didn’t need to worry about what you or the Christians believed – they were headed on the same “path” to perfection that I was, just using different terms.

At least, until God’s Word started talking about Christ being The Gate to salvation from a Holy and Just God. So either God had to change or I did. It’s hopefully obvious who listened to whom.

“No bitterness or resentfulness here. Whichever church you belong to has some curious beliefs? Boy are you going to be surprised some day.”

Our beliefs are not entirely curious, at least not to Christians, though there are quite a few Christians who lean more toward your LDS themes – and it saddens us just as much as thinking of the wonderfully moral image of the LDS church. Don’t get me wrong, if Christians want a picture of what good behavior and responsibility look like, we can’t do much better than observing you and your church (that’s not sarcasm but honest appraisal). Our beliefs in the orthodox, Gospel-believing church are in line with the apostolic traditions of the 1st century. Before the Nicene Council, rather, in line with the councils of Acts! So our beliefs curious to those who have been lied to about how Nicea “fixed” the Bible with corrupted teachings and to those who have denied the Scriptures of the Old Testament too – which have endured in Jewish culture for many, many centuries before Christ walked among us.

Perhaps I will be surprised one day, and so you should pity me and my ilk for our wasted lives, believing that God came and saved us when we could not save ourselves. We are the most pitiable of men who depend on a Savior if that Savior didn’t live a perfect life, die for the sins of men and then rise from the dead so that we can live eternally.

But may I turn the table. What if you were surprised one day? Surprised that everybody but us exclusive bigots happened to “luck out” and stumble upon the Real Story?

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me…” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Grace and Peace
Soli Deo Gloria

Again, let me recommend this blog: Progressing Pilgrims Anonymous for more detailed examination of the differences between LDS and Christianity.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.