Contents
Sam Harris and Slavery
My question is related to your interview with Sam Harris. In that interview you both talked a lot about slavery.
In your ideal Christendom, where we have God-honoring laws, what would you do in cases of theft where the criminal cannot pay? How would they make restitution? And would that be considered a form of slavery?J
J, yes, and yes. The Constitution forbids slavery now, except for those duly convicted of a crime. Those hundreds of thousands of people incarcerated today are slaves, just not productive slaves. For those convicted of non-violent crimes, of the sort you describe, I would have them enslaved in prison camps, and their term would last until the victims of their crimes were paid off. A third of their pay would go toward their own upkeep, a third to family at home, and a third to the victim or victim families. When restitution plus twenty percent is paid, they are freed from their enslavement.
Mercersburg
I ultimately became Reformed about two years ago. I love theology and history so I read the confessions, Calvin’s Institutes, etc. Recently, I came across Mercersburg theology. There was a lot I liked about it. I think high liturgy is important and is not contrary to the regulative principle. What do you like and dislike about Mercersburg theology?Daniel
Daniel, it has been many years since I read them, but from what I recall it was a mixed bag for me. I liked how they leaned against revivalism, but there was too much romantic mysticism in it for me. I also liked Schaff’s handling of the Reformation in The Principle of Protestantism.
Child Communion and All That
Regarding baptism, I am a Baptist, but I agree with you on child communion. The confusion stems from the church’s misunderstanding of what the Lord’s Supper is and how it should be practiced. The Bible is clear—it is to be a shared meal, not a wafer and thimble of juice.
When we practice it as such, the confusion goes away: do we exclude children from the meal? Are they to go hungry? Or eat at the servants’ table?
A far greater problem though is not the subject of this article, but the fact that churches of all stripes do not practice the Lord’s Supper. If it is not a real shared meal, it is just a snack; a measly one at that.
The other wrong notions is that it is trans-substitution , trans-anything or as Baptists believe, merely symbolic. Rather it is true communion both with each other and with Christ. This communion can only be experienced in a shared meal acknowledging Christ’s sacrifice, and thus becoming partakers of the alter together.Scott
Scott, thanks very much. Just a quick counter suggestion. The agape meal—the potluck—was not the Lord’s Supper itself, but I believe the sacrament was observed in the context of that meal. That is how the disorders at Corinth were even possible. And I don’t think the apostle Paul would be distressed at our communion practices today. “Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?”
This is about the paedocommunion article.
I think we all know that the church wouldn’t require the single mother of two to memorize the Heidelberg before joining. It’s almost like they’re rejecting those who come to faith the old-fashioned boring way, but if you have a flashy testimony with lots of drugs and sex, then they’ll make it easier for you.
One question though, as a “very young profession”-communion-ist. Why doesn’t the analogy work against denying the Lord’s Supper to those who are in rebellion? If they’re sick, don’t they need nourishment too? If my kid is sick, he gets chicken soup. If my kid is sick and also just hit me, he still gets chicken soup. Why does denying a rebel a spot at the table help them recover faster? It’s another dilemma for which I don’t have a good answer—if it’s not harmful to deny the LS to rebels, then why is it for kids? If it is harmful to deny it to kids, then why is it helpful to rebels?PPM
PPM, I believe that as communicant members children are subject to the discipline of the church. That said, the discipline should be wise and measured, and reactive. I remember when I was disciplined as a child, my father would say something like, “As far as we are concerned, everything is dealt with. You may rejoin us at the table at any time—but not if you have a case of furious sulks.” The reason for suspension from the Supper is given in Thessalonians, when we are told not to eat with a brother who is walking disorderly. He is not excommunicated because we are told to treat him as a brother. So there are occasions when a family member, considered as such, is kept back from the Table—but not over any little thing.
Exodus 12: In Egypt, God told the children of Israel to take a lamb for their house, and to put blood on the doorpost and lintels of their house. All who were within the house, including kids, were safe from the judgment angel wiping out the Egyptian firstborn.
Compare with 1 Corinthians 11. Now, am I to believe that, in the New Covenant, the judgment angel (so to speak) is going to wipe out my kids for supposedly partaking of the covenant meal without discernment—which would leave my kids worse off under Christ, the new and better covenant, than under the old covenant of types and shadows? The same Christ who said let the children come to me, and don’t stop them?
When things in Scripture aren’t clear, I try to interpret Scripture in light of what is clear. The above comparison and contrast caused me to conclude that 1 Corinthians 11 could not mean what the credo-communion people said it meant. Nope.
Once I grasped this, the hairs my PCA pastor was trying to split between “communicant member” and “noncommunicant member” became increasingly ridiculous.
And then I left, and joined the CREC.
If God is going to strike my covenant kids with judgment for approaching Him within the objective covenant, then we’ve got bigger problems.JP
JP, thank you.
One of the truly binary things in life is regeneration. You either have it or you don’t. It precedes faith and the filling of the Holy Spirit and is essential to be in Christ. Those who don’t have it, for them everything they do is a sin, even when they do the stuff we like and train them to do. The unregenerate can never qualify for the communion table. One example of why is that they can never take care of the sin that all are supposed to examine themselves for before partaking. Regeneration is the doctrine that will never fit in with paedo theology.Lance
Lance, everything you say about regeneration being essential is true. But how do you know the child is unregenerate?
First, may I say I’m enthusiastic about your church’s practice of having families with children included in the entire corporate worship services. Perfect! And I’ve also been blessed by most of the perspectives you promote.
But please allow me to humbly point out for your consideration some logical and hermeneutical flaws that occurred to me as I read your post about paedocommunion.
Your argument that it’s like “withholding food” (presumably spiritual food) to exclude an unsaved child from the Supper strikes me as a straw man, without which your following conclusions do not hold water. An organism can receive food only after it exists, and can eat only after it is born. You certainly recall that Jesus was explicit in John 3 when He insisted to Nicodemus that unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. It follows that a person who has not been born of the Spirit cannot receive any benefit from spiritual food, even when that food is before him—any more than a dead horse can digest oats even if they are poured into its mouth.
This truth does not change even after, as you put it, “the child really means it.” It has nothing to do with sincerity and everything to do with the new birth. Until a child is born again, he is not a part of the spiritual body of Christ.
You say that, “if someone asks why we don’t require a profession of faith, our reply is that partaking of the Supper is a profession of faith.” Clever, but I submit that this promotes a patent falsehood. By definition, an unsaved person cannot have saving faith, and once he does, there will be no confusion in his mind about it; the Son of Righteousness will have arisen in his heart, and he will know it full well.
Once a child has been made alive by the Spirit, the question of confessional hypocrisy is moot. Why require an unsaved child to memorize and recite such denominational traditions as the Heidelberg Catechism or any other confession, thereby causing him to tell lies? May as well tell him to say he’s a brain surgeon because his Daddy is, and he may become one someday.
One further opinion: the benefits of communion / church attendance are not the main venues by which children should receive the things (food?) of the Gospel; I suggest that prior to a child’s conversion, a solid, vibrant, joyful, down-to-earth Christian family and daily home life should provide the main course that awakens a child to his need of the Gospel, with awareness of sin and dire need for redemption being front and center, and with church services and fellowship being (to your point) exemplary—but supplemental. And it has been our experience that the presence or absence of such a family setting is generally a very strong indicator of whether the child eventually embraces, or is lost to, the faith.
When a child is passed over during communion, why is it not OK to have it occur to him that he really is in a different place from those who partake? It should eventually cause him to ask questions about it—questions that have excellent answers—that lead him to realize that in fact, as you put it, “he is still out.” We’re not called to make him feel good about the fact that he has not yet been born again. This can be a perfect opportunity to teach the child Jesus’ words about spiritual birth and begin leading him in that direction. That’s where one can “teach him what it means.”
Of course the unsaved child can still experience and be impacted by the preaching, fellowship, and singing at church. Once he’s spiritually alive, all those resources, catechisms, and (stretching now) even formal liturgies can become rich and meaningful.
Here’s the opinion: exchanging the “paedo” for “credo” has few downsides, avoids the need for all the tap dancing around “who is part of the loaf,” avoids the tensions that these arguments generate between various denominations, and brings church practice into alignment with the words of Jesus.
You rightly mention the good track record of Reformed families in passing the faith to their children. That’s wonderful and to be celebrated. By the grace of God, we skipped the “paedo” in favor of the “credo” and now also celebrate the same truth with our grown children, and it’s hard to imagine a greater miracle. It’s wonderful that we are often so blessed, even though the birth of Esau came long after the Edenic, Noahic, and Abrahamic covenants were made,
Thanks for listening, and continued blessings!!Older Fella
Older Fella, thanks very much for the push back. I would ask you the same question I posed in the previous letter. Why is the child presumed to be unregenerate? And if a child is truly regenerate, but is kept away from the Table for years because the elders are begin sticklers, what do we do about the fact that they are being taught that they “are out” when they are actually in? We are at that point teaching them how to doubt instead of teaching them how to trust and believe.
Narnia Certified?
I have heard you mentioned that you read Narnia to your children at very young ages. My kids are 6, 5, 2.5, and one on the way (which is the only one who will stay still though I doubt she is getting much from it). How did you read these to your kids and still make it fun? It seems like I would have to be a tyrant to get them to pay attention.
Did you let them play with just your voice in the background or did you have them sit and pay attention?Stephen
Stephen, they would sit and pay attention. But you shouldn’t drone on for ages . . . until they get to the point where they are begging you not to stop.
Follow Up Question About Sex
Just a follow up on my question from last week, how would one distinguish from a healthy strong desire for his wife, and lust for his wife?BSim
BSim, it would not be found in the fact of desire for sex, but rather in the nature of the desires. A desire for intercourse is God-given. So it is not the strength of the desire, but rather the nature of it. A desire for her to start doing all the tricks you learned about from the porn industry would be wanting to take her “in the passionate lust of the Gentiles.”
Conversational Doctrine
I have recently became Canon+ subscriber and received many of your e-books this month. My first book that I have read through is your Easy Chairs, Hard Words book. I have enjoyed it a lot. Do you have any other books written in the style of that book? It helped better understand God’s sovereignty and man’s free choice through the dialogue with Martin and the guy asking questions.
Which of your books is a good primer for understanding post-mill eschatology? I grew up between Zionist Dispensatalism and John Piper’s historical pre-mill. Nobody from Minnesota down to Texas has ever mentioned post-mill nor ever taught it. My southern Baptist church here in Texas hasn’t taught on eschatology since my family have become members of it.Paul
Paul, on eschatology, my book on that is called Heaven Misplaced. As for conversational doctrine, Easy Chairs is the only one exactly like that. Some books that are conversation-like would be Persuasions, on apologetics, and my fictional Letters series at the Mablog shop.
I hope you are doing well. In the past few years, I heard a Christian podcaster of our ilk (that is, of what Joshua Haymes calls the “Dark Roast Reformed” world) claim that writing/creating stories is a form of “preaching,” or telling the truth. I love creative writing, and I plan, Lord willing, to attend NSA’s Camperdown Masters Program at some point. The point this person (whose name escapes me at the moment, I apologize) made, however, has been rolling about in the back of my mind. As a Christian woman, I believe that it is still my “calling” to tell the truth, and using story is one of the ways I know I can do that. However, I do not want to “preach,” or come across as doing so, as I am not qualified to preach. I can also recognize the use of figurative language and differentiate between true preaching in the gathering of the Lord’s people on Sundays and the use of stories (even fiction novels) to convey truth. Furthermore, I recognize that Christians’ novels don’t need to be a full Gospel tract or “frame-by-frame” retelling of the Gospel through figurative storytelling. How should a Christian woman tell True (capitalization intended) Stories by walking the tightrope of not feeling like she has to be writing a full-on Gospel tract, while also not “preaching” as this Christian podcaster noted?ON
ON, if you ever got to “preaching” in a fictional story in a way forbidden by Scripture, I believe it would likely be a terrible bit of writing. If you present the truth in a way that is consistent with the canons of good writing, you would be well withing scriptural bounds as well. I wouldn’t worry about it.
Not a Bad Idea
When will the CREC start a vetted matchmaking/”dating” network for members of its churches? Particularly for those in their late 20s or 30s who lack ways to meet aligned potential spouses.Rob
Rob, that’s a good idea, but we do have an “hours in the day” problem. A lot of time would be necessary because the vetting process would be crucial.
Backhanding the Dispensationalists?
I thought it would be worth dropping you a quick note as your recent writings made me think you consider me as a useful idiot in the grand play as a “dispensational Zionist” (I guess that’s what you would call me). We recently moved to a community and are attending a CREC church. The fruits are obvious and attractive, albeit with a bit of a Mormon vibe. I hope there’s a role for me and my family in the production. We love Jesus, care deeply about the moral compass and salvation of our children and hope to bring others toward the Gospel through our actions and faith.Reagan
Reagan, there is absolutely a place for you. In our congregation, anyone who loves Christ is welcome. And I actually believe that dispensationalists are the ones who kept the faith alive in North America for over a century. Happy to be allies in arms together with them,
Family Drama
This is regarding family/in law relations especially coming up with holidays. Say a spouse is refusing to go to the in-laws holiday festivities due to expectations, pressure, uncomfortability, just doesn’t want to be there. The other spouse wants both to be there. Even after trying to work it out calmly and still no agreement, is it wise for the other spouse to “force” them to trudge through it and go? The forcing can of course make things worse, but I also feel like one spouse staying home isn’t helpful either. Or should both stay home since they can’t agree?CO
CO, sorry. I don’t have enough info here to answer the question. Is the reluctant spouse the husband or the wife? Is the spouse who wants to go a husband who refuses to provide protection for his wife when his family gangs up on her? That would result in one kind of advice. Is the husband the one who doesn’t want to go, and is it because of mild discomfort, or radical dysfunction? That would result in different advice.
I have a couple family members that are gaslighting pros. For years, their manipulation worked on me. As I’ve come to see how things really are, I’ve changed my response to them. Most importantly, I’ve stopped apologizing for sins I never committed. Now these family members are furious. The pearl clutching over their hurt and the flame throwing from their outrage is a sight to behold.
Why do people behave this way? How do I handle this correctly?
Thanks,Frustrated
Frustrated, this might not seem all that helpful, but it seems you are only halfway there. It is good to stop apologizing for things you didn’t do. That’s great. But you are not completely free until you stop being frustrated at their reactions. Why do people pull on the rope? Because they like to hear the bell ring.
Sam Harris Follow Up
Thoroughly enjoyed your podcast interview with Sam Harris. One thing I thought you could have emphasized better was predestination and God’s sovereignty.
Sam spent a lot of time talking about the idea of avoiding suffering being a motivator for deciding one’s stance on morality (abortion specifically) and where we want to spend eternity.
Reformed Christians should lean on the fact that our holy God is writing the story. He has a perfect design and our authority comes from Him (outside of the individual self). The afterlife and our obedience and duty now are all grace and joy flowing out of gratitude for His choosing us. May we toast and drink, be merry, and join Him in the act of creation for His glory and our anticipation of enjoying eternity with Him.Amanda
Amanda, thanks. And amen.
Christian Entertainment
Questions about entertainment/media for you.
First is what are your thoughts on Christian rock (not in a worship service), but in general. In particular, thoughts on Skillet/John Cooper?
Then with Christian movies/shows portraying events in the Bible. How does the 2nd Commandment apply to content like this? Things like The Chosen/The Passion Of The Christ? I’m assuming this doesn’t apply to House of David (based on your son’s involvement)?Confused at Best
Confused, I am so detached from the Christian music scene today that my opinion on particular bands or artists would be virtually worthless. That was not the case decades ago, back when I was a CCM concert promoter. But I learned enough at that time behind the scenes to get pretty disillusioned with the Jesus industry, which I don’t think has improved since then. I do have a Second Commandment problem with portrayals of Christ in movies, but not with portrayals of figures like David or Samson.
That Chart
I have 2 questions for you: where did you get the chart from at 1:07 in “The Lone Bulwark . . . No, Really”? I was saddened to see such abysmal percentages for so many denominations, and I want to share it with members of my church’s ministry team.
How did you get your exact % of genetic makeup in “The Grace of White Privilege [Don’t Waste Your Whiteness]”? I am interested to get mine from a reputable source—I know I am English, Scottish, Irish, and Dutch, but I wonder what % and/or if I have any other flavors in me.
Thank you for speaking truth and not backing down when the clowns cry.Scott
Scott, on the graph, look for “Data Cooperative Election Study.” And on the ancestry breakdown, I got that from AncestryDNA.com.
That Tracks, and Got It
it seems like within in the “head coverings” passage, if Paul does not envision long hair as a covering… then him saying that long hair on a man is a dishonor to him, would not fit within the passage at all. It’s out of nowhere. But it appears that if long hair IS indeed a covering, then plainly follows the condemnation of men with long hair in v.14
Think this tracks?
Also I want to say that I appreciated your recent blog from Luke 20, and your discussions with Gary Demar. Although as I’m certain you are aware, the people want more discussions like that from you before you’re off the boat.
BlessingsLogan
Logan, yes, that tracks. Thanks.
Occasional Noticing
On no article in particular, but just a question—when talking about antisemitism, is it fair to say that Rabbinical Judaism (not the Jews themselves, but their religion) is uniquely pernicious among the major world religions, pointing to the fact that while non-Christian religions will typically deny fundamental aspects of who Christ is (His deity/His death on the cross for sins/etc), Rabbinical Judaism is the only religion that essentially denies any positive claim about Christ, and in fact teaches He is currently this day suffering torment as He’s boiling in bodily fluids?
Guy who notices things occasionally . . .John
John, yes, partly. There is a distinction between a religion that is simply false (say, pantheism) and a religion that aimed at flatly denying the truth, as the Talmud does. That part is true enough. The problem comes in when Gentiles do not recognize the vast range of outlooks among “the Jews.” The Jews who are aware of those claims about Christ, and who would say amen to it, are a tiny sliver of the population.
Pregnancy Is not Made Out of Fabric
I appreciate your recent NQN repost on immodesty. There is a strain of this in the church that I have seen addressed in your daughters’ works but might need to be addressed by a man. I do not know if this is a singular situation or more widespread.
In my small church, a woman is posting photos of 75% unclothed pregnant women under the titles of health, natural birth, etc. This is visible to men and women friends alike.
With my husband’s approval, I have already confronted her (as graciously as appropriate) on another matter regarding her unnecessary interest in my own pregnancy. That was a month ago and she claimed it was unintended, despite evidence otherwise. Pastors are aware of the conversation. I think we’re in a holding pattern.
Now, she is using birth photos as advertising content and others in the church are reposting it. I have hidden those posts from my own eyes but am still vexed that it’s happening, seemingly unaddressed. Am I the one to talk to her about it, despite my previous confrontation? Is now the time to escalate it with an elder? How do I keep my indignance from turning into bitterness?
Thank you for your time and ministry.Anonymous
Anonymous, you keep from becoming bitter by recognizing the temptation, and constantly praying about it. As long as it is a temptation to you, you are not the one to confront her or ask her about it (Gal. 6:1). But you may be at the point where you ask your husband to talk to an elder about it.
That’s Too Bad
A Lutheran, a Baptist, and a Calvary member walked into a bar . . .
I knew that would get your attention. My wife and I are of a Reformed faith. We spent 22 years in the military and always searched out at the minimum a Reformed church. We prefer CREC or PCA but would settle for Reformed Baptist if options were limited. Currently, my wife and I live in a small town with a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, a SBC Baptist church, an independent fundamental Baptist church and a Calvary Church. We desire to be involved in and worship in the community in which we live. As you can see from the cards in hand, our choices are limited from an orthodoxy and orthopraxy standpoint. There is a PCA church currently about 60 mins away and a CREC 70 mins away. The PCA church has plans to move out of the school and build further away from the city. The CREC practices a head-of-household only approach to the Lord’s Supper. Further, when greeted after service, we were encouraged by the dressing down of the town we live in. “Gosh, why do you live there? It is terrible there. My mother cried when we moved there as a child. It is awful place.” Well, shucks, we appreciate your hospitality and warm welcome. We can’t wait to see you next Sunday.
I have wrestled and inquired of the Lord unceasingly now for months. I find myself no closer to an answer. I respect your opinion and would appreciate any wisdom/insights in how to move out on this.Ben
Ben, if the PCA church is sound, and is moving in your direction, I would consider that. With regard to the CREC, I would ask for an appointment with the pastor. A lot hinges on whether or not the person who harangued you was a rando congregant (every church has them) or the chair of the welcoming committee. Ask the pastor if that was representative. If he says “oh, my” and puts his head on his desk, you should go there.
Prison Guard?
My main question is, I have a criminology degree, I was thinking about working for the federal prison as a correctional officer, but I am not sure if the prison system is bringing glory to God, and I am weary about it. I am weary about working for the federal government in general right now. What are your thoughts on a Christian working for the federal prison?Jett
Jett, I believe that it would be a lawful thing to do. But if your heart is not in it, and the whole thing is tedious, I would look elsewhere.
Prompted by the Spirit
I seem to remember a YouTube video of you somewhere recounting an experience where you were giving pastoral counsel to a woman and somehow you seemed to “know” that she was having an affair or something along those lines. You somehow knew information about her that you didn’t have access to. Is this right? If so, do you not look at situations like this as God communicating to you on some kind of level? Not “this is Bible” level, but something still important.Joshua
Joshua, yes but. She was being recruited into a cult, and was impervious to everything I showed her about the cult, all of it pretty bad. I was reading in Scripture that morning, and read Peter’s description of false teachers—”with eyes full of adultery, they seduce the unstable.” When I read that, I knew that this is what it was. When I confronted her, she dissolved. That was it. I believe the Spirit was at work, but He nudged me with the Word.
Religious Liberty as Idol
Grateful for your ministry and NQN. Back in January 2021, John MacArthur made the following statement in response to David French assuring us that the new administration would uphold religious freedom. I quote: “I don’t even support religious freedom. Religious freedom is what sends people to Hell. To say ‘I support religious freedom’ is to say ‘I support idolatry,’ it’s to say ‘I support lies, I support Hell, I support the kingdom of darkness.’ You can’t say that. No Christian with half a brain would say ‘We support religious freedom.’ We support the truth!”
Do you agree with this sentiment? And how does this work out in Christian nationalism? I’ve picked up Mere Christendom and I know it will address this. I’ve heard you mention still having religious freedom; I’m just not sure how it would play out. Thanks, Pastor!Michael
Michael, I agree with MacArthur, sort of. There is an approach to religious liberty that leaves no room for grounding our laws in what is actually true. That approach to liberty is an idol, and I join with MacArthur in rejecting it. But because Jesus is Lord, and because He requires us to respect the consciences of others, misguided as they may be, there is a version of Christian religious liberty that I support.
Slavery and Polygamy
I take your meaning on being unembarrassed by Scripture. I agree that it condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms, and that it allows for slavery under certain conditions, done in a certain way, with righteousness all around. I see that when Jesus came, died, and rose victorious over death and all the nations, slavery was not abolished; rather it continued with no apparent winks or nudges.
And even though we can see in Creation that slavery is not the established pattern, nor God’s intent for our relations, He nevertheless never outright condemned it. Rather, He “regulated” it, choosing only to warn His people not to abuse the practice. We’re 6,000 years into our history, and there are still pockets of slavery practiced in various parts of the world to this day. Perhaps somebody is doing it the “right way,” but I kinda doubt it.
My question is this: what prevents someone from concluding that there might be room for “doing it right”? Maybe there’s a brother who walks with God and wants to engage in slavery today, biblically, carefully. He’s doesn’t see a prohibition, but he does see a situation where practicing this would be fitting, desirable, and maybe even beneficial in the long run. The only impediments are 1) society, his family, and every church in town would despise him, and 2) it’s against the law in all 50 States.
What if he already has taken a slave into his home?
What if he’s not talking about “slavery” but “polygamy”?
How would I counsel him?
A guy with a brother…Andy
Andy, the answer is found in having a robust doctrine of cultural sanctification. How do cultures progress to a higher degree of maturity? When the gospel has its way in a culture, men are set free from their sins, and this makes them less fitted for slavery. They outgrow it. Philemon could own slaves in a way that Henry next door cannot. Same with the blood avenger. Same with levirate marriage. Same with polygamy. In a Christian society, we recognize that God created one man and one woman, not one man and three women. We recognize that church leaders, who set an example for the parishioners (Heb, 13:7,17) are required to be dedicated to one woman. And we of course recognize that Christ has only one bride.
Relationship Guilt
Do you have a recommendation when the grandparents view time with the grandkids has a “have to” and not a “get to”? For context, they live very close and are Christians. I regard them highly and enjoy fellowshiping with them when they are available. Attempts to broach the subject have created a “guilt trip” response, and I am not looking to cause a “guilt trip.” They are certainly spread thin in their many commitments, most (if not all) of which are noble.
My oldest son is close to 10. The two of them spending an afternoon doing grandpa/grandson things is farfetched. My father has never expressed interest and to ask would to add another “to-do” to his plate.
You have a lot of grandchildren and might be the busiest guy in the world. What’s the Biblical principle here for the grandparent and for the confused son?
ThanksAnonymous This Time
ATT, the best way to get to a “get to” is to drop all expectations. This is not a sure fire thing, but it is the best thing you have available. And a decent but fairly distant relationship in this is preferable to a close but tangled one.
On Marital Fraud
Thank you for your deep and clarifying explanation of crucial topics, especially in the month of November.
After reading all of your (generously free) marriage books this weekend, I kindly request you attempt to expound upon the following using your November spirit, especially with regards to the federal husband and Christian masculinity.
How should a husband (a father) deal with a sexless marriage, i.e. greater than 18 months. Both I and my wife are Christian. Infidelity, health, and physical separation are not at issue. My wife usually says she is “all touched out,” ” not feeling it,” or responds by asking “should I have to do something with my body I don’t want to do?”
I appreciate any insight you may have on this matter.Jonathan
Jonathan, what you are dealing with is a species of fraud, and it is obvious that you need pastoral guidance and care. Have a talk with your wife, and tell her that a sexless marriage is profoundly off-track, and that you would like to resume normal relations. If there are deeper problems (as I suspect), and she doesn’t want to, then tell her you are going to make an appointment for some marriage counseling.
CN Qualifications
If memory serves right it seems to me that when you discuss Christian Nationalism and the thornier/detailed questions involved you point towards the decision making of a qualified group of men who will work through those issues. Have you described what type of man would be on the ruling CN board? What if it were made up entirely of God-fearing Arminian men like William Lane Craig, or perhaps even Reformed charismatic men like RT Kendall, would you be good with that? If not, then what is the particular theological/eschatological viewpoint that you think would make CN work?Tim
Tim, there wouldn’t be a special “CN board.” I envision Christian men being raised up and trained to fill the offices we already have. And everything else being equal, I would much prefer someone who fears God than someone who does not.
Logan, men bald women don’t. Just take a look at your congregation this Sunday. Women are given a natural glorious covering. Christ’s covering in 1 Cor 11 is not long hair, but a scarf or hat as practiced for 1900 years (compare the greek root words for this covering and Moses covering). “Since this is the way it is, we see that the order of nature is changed and perverted unless we govern ourselves as He indicates.” John Calvin on the wearing of Christ’s covering in worship. Culture is downstream from our worship.
Lance and Older Fella, at least, identified the key issue when discussing paedocommunion. Who is a child of God? What does the New Testament say about being born into the New Covenant, being born into God’s family? Older Fella even identified John 3 as a key passage where this issue is *explicitly* made the central focus. The article they were responding to was tired and tiring, because it decided to bracket out any question of the new birth and not even notice it. The key issue. So, it could be convincing to the uninformed, because they will accept that the… Read more »
My small Reformed Baptist church recently split over issues of baptism (paedo v. credo). I have neglected to understand my own beliefs surrounding baptism and this painful split woke me up to my immaturity. I have found your responses and the linked essay (the latter which I have shared with friends) surrounding this subject to be very illuminating and helpful in my understanding. So, thanks from a brother in the Midwest.
Thank you for your kind words!
There are other resources confirming paedobaptism available online for those interested. They are not as biased as David Anderson pointing to his own blog for answers.
I wish you and your family a wonderful Thanksgiving with the opportunity to thank God for all the blessings he has poured out on you.
There are other resources confirming paedobaptism available online for those interested. Also, there are other resources arguing against it. Specific recommendations or discussions of these might be helpful. I have personally found a lot of paedobaptist resources unhelpful and clearly wrong, and no small number of credobaptist ones for that matter. They are not as biased as David Anderson pointing to his own blog for answers. This is a rather puzzling criticism. There is nothing wrong with someone leaving a brief comment linking to his own longer-form explanation elsewhere, to avoid the impracticality of retyping everything into a small comment… Read more »
These Tuesday’s become an extension of the blog.
This comment to which I’m replying to is also by the person attempting to impersonate me. (Notice the wrong icon – the site persists the icon it chooses for you; and note that he’s linked to my website, so it’s not just someone else with the same name; and if you’ve ever seen me use an apostrophe that badly, let me know!).
Cooking your own blog is poor form, especially on someone else’s blog — it’s a manner of bragging. If David Anderson’s link were on his own blog answering a question there it would be a different matter entirely. Stirring the blog pot below: “These Tuesday’s become an extension of the blog.” He is cooking his blog for whatever reason. There are multiple resources concerning both sides of baptism and communion and it doesn’t take much clicking to see which are rooted and grounded in scripture and which are pie in the sky. Additionally, young men here come across as blowhards… Read more »
“Cooking your own blog is poor form, especially on someone else’s blog — it’s a manner of bragging. If David Anderson’s link were on his own blog answering a question there it would be a different matter entirely.”
So, potentially, is leaving comments on someone else’s blog themselves the length of a short blog post.
> “how does David know that those who can recite creeds, Bible versus or such are regenerate?”
A claim I’ve never made, and don’t make.
“(I don’t, I’m a Reformed Baptist, hence I follow John Owen’s covenant scheme), who over a section of the Institutes explains that paedocommunion would be akin to feeding “poison” to your children, and hence is unthinkable?”
How is that not requiring some ability of the child to show regeneration?
Calvin, Owen and Reformed Baptists all believe that only the regenerate are proper partakes of the table. I’ve not followed what you’re asking?
The proper question is “What reason do you have to believe the child is regenerate”. Sounds like Federal Vision has an answer too, just not a good one.
As I recall it, one of the things that showed a split between different branches of the Federal Vision was that some affirmed “presumptive” regeneration (i.e. infants of believers are regenerate until proved otherwise – as seen in Douglas Wilson’s answers above), whereas some were affirming actual baptismal regeneration. So, Douglas Wilson’s branch of the Federal Vision has/had a sort of split, two-level covenant in which there’s the so-called “objective” external reality, that all those who are baptised are Christians (but not necessarily regenerate, saved or elect), in which we’re meant to treat people according to this objective status (his… Read more »
The most important thing to remember is what romans 7 an 8 talks about when we commit our first sin. At that point we spiritually die. We are dead. We were alive before, but we are dead now. We will stay dead. If we die before we are saved, then we go to Hell. Adult and child alike. Voddie said to not ignore the spiritual status of the well-behaved child. Since we all die in our sins before we are saved, is assuming the child is saved to their benefit?
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1A1TVPTkre/
CR Wiley might be the one to talk to:
“Maybe I should start a matchmaking business on the side for wealthy Christian men looking for traditionalist women.
Demand seems strong, supply is the problem.”
With some CREC/Kirk-type people (Wiley, I believe, is PCA, but published by Canon and an invited speaker at NSA and other Christ Church projects),it’s getting increasingly hard to guess if they’re serious or if joking….
There are so many data security concerns for a business like that. Its probably better to be handled by a committee or something at the presbytery level. Sessions sharing with other sessions marriageable folk and then pointing the men to go visit where the ladies are.
I find myself wondering how many young ladies actually want to be married to a man who, at that point in time, lacks the skills or courage to approach her without her having to first upload her details to the matchmakers…..
I think some types of men love matchmakers – it cuts out all that pesky business of moving from acquaintance to friendship, and then navigating the difficult and embarrassing territory between there and the marital union. Much easier when the girl’s already done the hard work and opened things up directly to the romance stage.
Apparently quite a few young ladies are fine with that kind of thing. Something like it seems to be a fairly standard approach to beginning courtship nowadays. Glad I was married long before nowadays.
Doug, my concern about your response is that it supposes that a toddler could become a born again believer without knowing it, without recognition of his sin, without cognition of Jesus’ atonement, and essentially without awareness of the fact that his spiritual birth has ever happened. ( I’m assuming here that you would extend the Supper to any very young ambulatory child of Christian parents…correct me if that’s wrong.) If that’s the case, you must have some Biblical rationale to support it and to contravene the numerous Scriptures such as Acts 2:38 and Romans 10:9 that teach that repentance, belief,… Read more »
Doug is one of the foremost proponents of the so-called “Federal Vision”, laid out in his book “Reformed is not Enough”, in which he explains that the Reformed church (really, anyone not embracing the Federal Vision, so not just the Reformed) in general is essentially Gnostic. His own alternative doctrine is that ministers and churches are to treat people as Christians if they’ve had Trinitarian baptism (Rome’s included – just the Trinity, the gospel’s not needed) and haven’t committed obvious disqualifying sin. So, if it’s a child who had infant baptism, and it hasn’t yet made its own evaluation of… Read more »
Thank you, David, for the thoughtful reply.
Hi Older Fella, The time of regeneration is debated among the Reformed. The question becomes complicated when we ask “what qualifies as saving faith?” I believe that even infants in their mothers’ womb can have saving faith. It is certainly not a mature faith. It’s a faith that cannot even express itself in words. Instead, it’s similar to how my three month old son knows I’m his father, even though he cannot say that out loud and his brain probably is not advanced enough to think that deeply. But he still knows I am his father and that he can… Read more »
The time of regeneration is not debated in the text of the NT. but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, … by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, … It is quite clear here that being saved is the same thing as being regenerated and washed by the Holy Spirit. … it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. Since salvation is effected in those who believe, then it follows that those who believe are regenerated = saved. This is the… Read more »
Hello Caleb, Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate them although I do not find them at all convincing. You evoke a sweet picture when you speak of how an infant knows his own father, but the same is true of an infant born to a rebrobate unbelieving father. The fact that John leapt at Mary’s approach may well suggest something like faith, but it’s too big an extrabiblical leap to presume that was because he had been born again. And using Jesus as an example Iremember, we’re talking about being born again here) is also a bridge too far. All… Read more »
So you say infants cannot possibly be saved (?=?must be damned?) until, ah, when?
Easy. They can indeed be saved—at the exact moment when they’re born again. Check out John 3.
Yes. Which can be before they’re born. Can be before they can talk. Or else babies who die in the womb or early infancy all go to Hell? ?? Or before they convince the elders they’re really, really born again, at 4 or 7 or 12 or 20 or…? And of course, if you’re careful enough, you can make sure you baptize and commune none but the truly born again. Demas? EVERY formal admission, however careful about admission or however benefit-of-doubt hopefully with careful follow-up, is an assumption; we do not know the heart. We have to go with our… Read more »
Hi Andrew,
Upon which scripture do you base your statement that infants can be born again before they are born the first time? Seems both illogical and unsupportable unless you can cite biblical warrant.
And there’s no biblical support for needing to convince elders or anyone else before taking communion… the Bible teaches that one should examine himself, not that he’s subject to anyone else’s examination but God’s.
Have a blessed Thanksgiving.
In John 3:3,7 (The only times “born again” is used, I believe), Jesus is using ambiguous language. A good study Bible should note this in the footnotes. Jesus says one thing in Greek, that Nicodemus hears as “you must be born again.” But Nicodemus misunderstands Jesus’ main focus, that no one can enter heaven unless he is “born from above.” Therefore, Jesus goes on to explain what Nicodemus misunderstood as he talks about being “born of the Spirit.” In other words, I don’t think it is necessitated by John 3 that infants cannot be born from the Spirit (regeneration), simply… Read more »
Lots going on in this discussion thread! It’s great that brothers in Christ with different understandings of how the Bible fits together can still discuss these things civilly! Iron indeed sharpens iron. The Reformed position on infant baptism is not superstitious like the Romanist view. We believe that we should baptism infants – not because baptism regenerates a child (or washes away sin – Romanist view), but rather because God commands it just like he commanded circumcision in the OT. We believe that baptism is a visual promise from God of what he will do in those who accept his… Read more »
Caleb, as a Reformed Baptist, I believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life (Matthew 28:19-20; Romans 6:3-5; Acts 8:38-39; Acts 10:47-48). Moreover, Galatians 3:26-29 and Romans 9:6-8 seem to support the Credobaptist view of baptism in the new covenant. From these Scripture passages, it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring (Romans 9:8) – the promise… Read more »
Thanks for your thoughtful response Dan. I apologize – because of the nature of online discussions, I can’t respond properly to every point you made. Instead, I’ll try give address what I think are the more key points to the discussion. Feel free to readdress something if you think it’s key. I would agree with everything in your first paragraph as it stands, except this “and of giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life.” Of course, I would also add “obligatory upon every believer [and his children.” I think one key point of difference… Read more »
Caleb, thanks for your reply. Good discussion. I cut & pasted these statements from your reply to me: “Those who are too young to profess faith in Christ would be baptized. If a child was willing to follow his household head, was old enough to profess faith in Christ, but wasn’t necessarily sure yet, they’d be baptized. Only a member of the household who rebelled and was opposed to Christ would not be baptized.” These statements sound fine on face value. But the problem is, they aren’t supported by Scripture. This is due to your reasoning by deduction, rather than… Read more »
Hi Dan, You’re absolutely correct. My starting point is a belief that infants (households) should be baptized (But not because of the household head’s faith. Because God works through the generations and includes believer’s children in the covenant, requiring them to be baptized. It’s a subtle distinction, but it focuses on God, rather than on us – guarding against Arminianism). I have this commitment based on my understanding of the continuity between the Old and New Covenant (explained above), of what a “sign” is in the Bible (given to assure us of God’s promises, not about anything in us), the… Read more »
> “It’s a subtle distinction, but it focuses on God, rather than on us – guarding against Arminianism).” Unless my memory fails me, I’ve seen this argument made in published books by paedobaptist authors (not just self-published ones). I’d argue that it’s pretty poor. A Baptist can just reply “baptism of believers guards against ritualism”. No paedobaptist is likely to find that convincing. When I see this argument made, the person making it seems to be arguing in his head against Pelagians. But here, you’re talking to Reformed Baptists. We believe that the sina qua non of baptism as revealed… Read more »
Caleb, thanks for your reply. Great discussion! You said, “I have this commitment based on my understanding of the continuity between the Old and New Covenant…of what a “sign” is in the Bible (given to assure us of God’s promises, not about anything in us).” However, in my understanding as a Reformed Baptist, the members of the covenant of grace have always (and only) been regenerate people – not of a mixed nature. That is, the covenant of grace has never consisted of believers and unbelievers. It is certainly true that individual churches may include a mixed nature, but the… Read more »
> “but rather because God commands it just like he commanded circumcision in the OT.” This, though, isn’t an accurate statement of what paedobaptists believe. They don’t argue that God commands infant baptism *just like* he commanded circumcision of Abraham’s descendents in the OT. They argue that when God’s command to Abraham to circumcise his male descendants *is* his command to baptise infants (of believers). It’s not that there’s another command somewhere which is appealed to. It’s conceded that there isn’t, but argued that one isn’t needed. In the OT God commanded Abraham’s physical seed to be circumcised. In the… Read more »
Where, in the NT, is baptism ever said to be the sign of the new covenant?!
Ken, Jesus commanded baptism in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Thus, baptism is the outward sign of an inward change. It signifies rebirth in Christ. While there are parallels between baptism and circumcision, they symbolize two very different covenants. The Old Covenant had a physical means of entrance: one was born to Jewish parents or bought as a servant into a Jewish household (Genesis 17:10-13). One’s spiritual life was unconnected to the sign of circumcision. Every male… Read more »
Hi Dan, I very much agree with pretty well everything you have said in your comment. The point I was getting at was that evangelicals very often talk about Christian baptism being the ‘sign of the new covenant’, parallel with OT circumcision, but the text of the NT never actually says baptism is the sign of the new covenant. Unless I have missed it! An online search of the RSV didn’t find it. The word trinity is not in the text, but the doctrine is, but all the 5 points of Calvinism are not there, making a decision for Jesus,… Read more »
Ken, thanks for your reply. Regarding your point, “You can make a logical argument for infant baptism, but the fact remains it is never mentioned in the NT and there is no actual unequivocal example of such a baptism. In such an important matter I reckon this is decisive.” As a Reformed Baptist, I agree with you. I also agree with your point about being aware of how often we say things that are not actually found in the text, as well as following church traditions or sayings that sound biblical, but are not actually found in the text. It’s… Read more »
Haha. I see I forgot to answer your questions… Back to the babies being regenerate and having a saving faith. Again I would ask, “what kind of faith?” Does someone need to have the IQ and ability to articulate this faith? Yes, the general pattern taught by Romans 10 and other places is that we must articulate our faith. But does this rule out anyone who cannot speak from being saved? I hope not… Back to the analogy of a baby knowing it’s father. Yes, unregenerate children know their father too. That’s my point. Neither child can articulate that “that’s… Read more »
I don’t think you are being harsh – it (infant baptism) is superstition! It is to import the old covenant into the new. I don’t think it coincidence that generally where it is practiced you have altars, priests, vestments and holy buildings accompanying it, all of which hark back to the OT.
At the very least it does not change anyone’s standing before God.
Thanks, Ken.
You could say the same thing regarding the fact that believing in pelagianism is much more common among credo-baptists
Do you have a source or justification for that claim? Remember that the Roman Catholic church alone outnumbers the entire set of all Presbyterian denominations combined, many times over.
See the numerous non denominational/charismatic churches and the SBC
Also to clarify, I consider Catholicism to be so perverted it doesn’t count, like Mormons
So perverted churches are paedo-baptists? :)
Well, some are credo-baptists: Latter-Day Saints! :)
So, Pelagianism is much less common amongst paedobaptists, as long as you exclude most paedobaptists from consideration because they’re so perverted. Whatever else might be said about this view, I prefer it to the Federal Vision’s “it’s professing the doctrine of the Trinity that counts, not repenting and believing the gospel!” approach, anyway.
“Scriptures such as Acts 2:38 and Romans 10:9 that teach that repentance, belief, faith, and confession are involved in salvation.” Not quite……. You’re overstepping the limits of the verses as phrased. because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Saying that if you do these things you will be saved is not the same as saying you must do these things to be saved. Suppose, as a hyperbolic example, a person lacks the ability to speak. They are physically incapable of… Read more »
Justin, I liked your “exclusionary” example, thanks. But even accepting your reference to Romans 10:9, you’re left with the fact that infants and young toddlers are able neither to confess nor believe in their hearts, and as yet have no knowledge of Jesus or His resurrection. Leaves you with my basic question unanswered. And I notice that none of the correspondents holding your view have as yet reconciled it to Jesus’ clear statements in John 3. Finally, if you’ll reread the conversations above, you’ll find that no one has proposed that anyone needs to “prove “ regeneration in order to… Read more »
Answering your questions and objections in reverse order. I am neither Calvinistic, nor Reformed, nor Federal Vision. I would describe myself as one with a mind who understands the application of grammar and rules applying the Bible as accurately as possible, which frequently lands me in hot water with whatever church I may apply as a home. I began following Wilson and this page through discovering a CREC church randomly, just while searching for a church home for my family at the time, and the pastor of the church, a satellite student of Wilson, lending me the Collision dvd where… Read more »
No Christian ever doubts their salvation? No Christian ever doubts their faith? None ever fail to know it?
Huh?
(“Old Paths” by J. C. Ryle helped me most with my own such doubts. Bishop Ryle also wrote ‘Some Remarks on Regeneration’ in his book “Knots Untied.”)
And of course, a little Christian being not-included in communion has nothing at all to do with any doubts they may have?
No, it’s not about those things. It’s about the fact that an infant can have neither faith nor doubts about the Gospel until he can come to comprehend it.
So the infant is in a neutral status? What do you mean by neither faith nor doubts?
Child: What must I do to be saved?
Adult: You must be born again.
Child: How can I do that?
Adult: By repenting and believing that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead.
Child: I believe that! Can I be baptized and receive the Lord’s Supper?
Adult: But are you born again?
The better adult reply to the child’s last question in your imaginary script would be, “Of course you may!”
‘And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, …’ Is this relevant here? Very young infants cannot yet have sinned yet in a fallen world it is inevitable they eventually will do so. There must be a period where they have nothing to be accountable for. I am inclined to think mercy is available for infants, but the only sure thing we can say is ‘will not the Judge of all the earth do right’ when it… Read more »
Hi Ken, I think you and Older Fella might be talking past each other somewhat. If I’ve interpreted Older Fella correctly, he holds to original sin. I’m gleaning from your post that you do not. As far as I know, all the Reformed (and Reformed Baptist) hold to original sin – the concept that we are conceived and born with a sinful nature (Adam’s sin as our covenant representative is imputed to us just as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers – Romans 5). So we would disagree with you when you say, “there must be a period where they… Read more »
Hi Caleb, I’m re-thinking it at the moment, having been further put off by (usually) Calvinists talking about babies who are unsaved going to hell. I’ve never been that keen on original sin, as it is a very Catholic doctrine (at least in my mind) which is offputting, and of course infant baptism is said to deal with it in the sense of saving babies from hell. Something not in the bible dealing with something else not in the bible!! Neither we, nor babies, are to be punished for Adam’s sin. Nevertheless due to his fall we are fallen, and… Read more »
Ken, Now someone is going to accuse you of being semi-Pelagian, which of course you cannot be, there never having been a theologian named Semi-Pelagius. Either your views are the same as those espoused by Pelagian, or not, and if not there is no reason to bring Pelagian into the discussion at all, except Calvinists like to do that. I do not generally prefer the NIV, however that we have a sinful nature is apparent. Like you said, we all do sin; we act according to the nature which is inherent to our race since the fall. That said, we… Read more »
I am going to have to read up on Pelagius, as I read a short article not long ago in which it was argued that he was within the bounds of orthodoxy for the time in which he lived. I’ve had reasonable and civil discussions with Calvinists on why I have left it behind, but the more hardcore brethren in this regard can call you all sorts of names, and make unwarranted assumptions! Free willer, you don’t believe in the sovereignty of God, you have never understood Calvinism, you think a decision saves you … . As for sinful nature,… Read more »
I know this thread is getting old, but what distinction are you making between the flesh and sinful nature? I would understand them as expressing the same thing.
I can understand why the NIV uses sinful nature insteaf of flesh, as the latter is not likely to be understood by readers with no existing background in studying the bible. The problem with it as I see it is it gives the impression that the sinful nature can continue after conversion – if you like we are both the old man and the new man at the same time, we have two natures. But surely it is no longer our nature to sin. What is true is that the flesh remains weak after conversion, and there is a battle… Read more »
Doubt, which all Christians experience at some point, is intellectual. ‘Is it really all true’?
Unbelief is moral, and when lived out will entail going back to a life of sin and rebellion.
Or have I lost the plot?!!
FWIW, your question comes from a viewpoint of demanding children act like adults. In other words, the only way a child can be a Christian is to evidence adult-like “faith,” which is a fancy way of saying the child must attain to and satisfy a certain level of intellectual ability and knowledge in order to be a Christian. This view obviously has its roots in the enlightenment and shares a philosophical foundation with the idea that our views of ourselves fundamentally define who we are rather than God’s statements about us defining who we are. In other words, I’m not… Read more »
No, there’s no demand from me for children to act like adults, and it’s not about me thinking they’re missing a nonmaterial substance, whatever that means. I also don’t “want to exclude children from the Table,” as you described it. Not only that, but it doesn’t matter what I want or think. What I’ve been advocating for is much more simple: taking the teachings of Jesus in John 3 and the teachings of Paul about communion in I Corinthians 11 and believing / applying what they plainly say. Anyone, including a child, who believes he has been born again and… Read more »
And what are your criteria for examining themselves? How deep does the introspection penetrate before you are satisfied they have met the biblical requirements?
My “imaginary script” is the type of skepticism children are met with in the comments section of this here blog and others like it, and my first hand experience in credo churches. I do agree with your better response though. Happy Thanksgiving.
Note that all the questions of this type which paedobaptists pose also apply to paedobaptists themselves, when they are dealing with someone who isn’t a new-born infant born to Christian parents. Reformed Paedobaptists generally know how to give entirely reasonable answers to those questions in such cases. I am curious as to why, when we get down to the specific debate of infant baptism, they suddenly find such questions to be ones that pose impossibly difficult problems, so difficult that we must just give it all up and accept that a church baptising believers based upon a credible expression of… Read more »
So I suppose we agree more than we disagree. My simple point was to highlight the skepticism children face in the church when they profess faith. Jesus set the bar at child height (Matt. 18:3), but often that bar is raised for them. Old Fella said if a person believes they are born again and able to examine themselves, they meet the qualifications and no further review is need. Amen to that. Problem is, the review is just beginning at that point for many children who profess faith. Hence my not-so-hypothetical-Adult query, “But are you born again?” And around we… Read more »
Both paedobaptists and credobaptists have to concede that there is some age in a person’s life (and since people vary, this age will vary) at which it is not possible for the church to discern whether their profession can yet be accepted or not. Once a paedobaptist brother asked me why a particular child in a Baptist church, who was not aware of any age of not knowing Christ (a testimony which, by the actual time of baptism, was clearly genuine to all concerned), was not baptised at age 4. Why did he pick 4? Why not 5? I didn’t… Read more »
No one becomes a “believer” without knowing it (to some extent). The issue is whether an infant or toddler can be born again without being able to believe yet. In adults, regeneration shows itself quickly in the exercise of some measure of faith. It’s an assumption not taught in John 3 to conclude from that that God cannot regenerate infants. Why would we presume to categorically state, “This is when God regenerates”? Jesus says regeneration from the Spirit is like the wind–there’s evidence (a sound), but you can’t tell how it starts or finishes. We (and our children from infancy)… Read more »
I would say the exercise of faith results in regeneration, having here already quoted the Titus passage where the word regeneration occurs and is the same thing as being saved. Lurking in the background to all this is the Calvinist notion that God has already chosen who will be saved before the foundation of the world, and we being dead in trespasses and sins have to be regenerated before we can believe. What if that is false, which I have no doubt it is? God saves through regeneration those who believe. The status before God of infants is a separate… Read more »
I don’t think that Doug at all noticed the trap that Andy’s letter set for him, and he walked straight into it without even noticing. All the arguments that Doug makes to try to argue that slavery in 19th century America was not in itself a problem, can be made, mutatis mutandis, for polygamy also. A study of the Bible’s overall exposition of God’s original intention and design for his image bearers – an intention which should be modeled in the church – will ultimately eradicate both from society, which is why, as Andy point out, all 50 states have… Read more »
Actually something he has said before, specifically when discussing Dabney’s idea of the war as judgement.
it should also be noted that for an elder to have multiple wives was a disqualification and for him to hold slaves was not, so a difference in degree was definitely present.
I don’t agree that that implies a “difference of degree”. I argued last week that the variety of possibilities for master-slave situations (origins, individual histories, capabilities of the slave to be able to exist if given manumission and hired as a hired servant, etc.) are one reason why Paul, though believing that ultimately the gospel and slavery were inherently antithetical, did not command immediate liberation of all slaves. Whereas, polygamy is quite straightforward: it can only ever exist because the man himself wanted a new woman in his bed.
See Laban.
Very good. After writing I thought “well, one could think up some very marginal possibilities….” – but, since we’re not Pharisees or Sadducees, coming up with such things to overturn what’s plain/clear/central (“now there were seven brothers….”), that shouldn’t hold up the debate much…..
So you’re a Christian Nationalist about slavery and polygamy?
Only for conquered peoples.
No. An anti-nationalist, small-r republican and small-d democrat, of the form: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Not “American men”. All men. “Self-evident,” not “because Scripture says so”. Which means that you are free to believe that that Creator is the patriarchal head of the Federal Vision if you like, but you are not free to impose that view on anyone else, whether they be within the USA or elsewhere in… Read more »
You fuss about ad-hominem and then regularly engage in it. Its fun watching you get all riled up. Would you be so gracious as to provide me another vapid rant? The comedy is almost as good as the original Buster Keaton!
There is no ad hominem in my comment. Say whatever you want about me, but I directly deal with the substance of Doug’s arguments. It is not ad hominem to claim that “Doug supports the Confederacy because he believes white European men should be in charge of everything in the USA”. That is an accurate summation of what Doug believes, which is why he is friends with Tucker Carlson and Pete Hegseth, who also believe this. There is ad hominem in your reply, however. Again: these are category errors that can be corrected with a proper education. Thanks for demonstrating… Read more »
Choc Knox.
*mic drop*
Exactly the tripe I’d expect from a self-loathing boomer so programmed by the MSM/academia/Hollywood that he/she/preferred pronoun is more concerned about a few harmless white separatists in Idaho than this.
Black Fatigue: The Content of Their Character – YouTube
The rights aren’t self evident, the endowment of the rights by the creator is self evident.
“All men are created equal” is self-evident, which is why there is punctuation right there. “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” is the mechanism, indicating that no earthly power — which includes ecclesiastical powers — can legitimately separate man from their Rights.
That is my last reply to you, and I do so only to once again reiterate why I don’t reply to you more: you cherry-pick and misrepresent and shift goalposts far too much. As in this case.
misrepresent like saying the confederacy was anti American when northern abolitionists called the constitution a compact with death and a league with hell.
cherry pick like we can invoke the creator for human rights in slavery but not in abortion.
I will admit you don’t shift goalposts, mostly because you never set any.
“No earthly power can separate man from his rights” which is why the constitution approves the death penalty to separate man from his right to life and approves labor as punishment for crime separating him from his right to liberty. And ruling from the same reasoning you use, the Supreme Court has deemed it a violation of the first amendment for a private citizen to pray at a football game.
Are you arguing that because we’re made in the image of God, we have inalienable rights, but unfortunately nobody can know what even a single one of them is without reading the Bible?
No, just arguing that Keaton is inconsistent.
It’s hilarious someone foolish enough to read the founders through the lens of a 21st century lesbian history professor would call DW “anti-American.” Here’s what George Washington actually said that would make you, Kamala Harris and your purple-haired, non-binary friends have conniptions. President George Washington, a proclamation issued on the 3rd of October, 1789 to this Christian nation we call the United States of America: “By the President of the United States of America. A Proclamation. Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his… Read more »
No, I’m a Reformed Baptist: I believe that the state has authority from God to police matters of the second table of the law.
N.B. As you can see from the persistent icons that the site allocates, I’m not the other David Anderson who replied to this. I see that he’s linked my website in order to try to pretend that he is me. Have some integrity.
The answer to Jonathan’s wife’s “should I have to do something with my body I don’t want to do?” is: “Yes. See 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.” Of course the not wanting too is a problem that points to a deeper problem that very badly needs addressing. I would add that Jonathan did not say how old he and his wife are; that might make some understandable difference as to the why of her not wanting to. If she is fairly young, or at least not old, Jonathan might ought to be not only frustrated, but also concerned. If she is of… Read more »
As you say, there must be something badly wrong. I hope Jonathan won’t take the reply he got too literally: “fraud… tell her… tell her…”. Don’t forget the listening, which is of first importance to, well, probably every wife that anywhere exists (if anyone’s heard of one who doesn’t care much for it then, well, I haven’t). Patience, prayer, listening, humbling of one-self, gentleness so that she actually believes that you really are listening and really do care, and that you don’t just see her as a machine obliged to “resume normal relations” (with an ultimatum that you’re going to… Read more »
I fear as well that going to the elders may expose the wife to the danger of the elders, being men, putting all the blame for this situation on her, and being unwilling to see that some of the problem may be due to the husband.
Maybe she should also talk to an old lady, mature in the faith who are supposed to train the young women to love their husbands and children.
In my view, a lot of pastors in the online Christian Nationalist movement, sadly, are authoritarians who in some areas have trouble seeing past “here’s a duty, so do it, or it’s time for church discipline”. Of course, there’s a time for that. But if for some reason someone’s wife has no interest in making love over long periods of time, then if it’s that someone’s reflex and main or only point to go to, then, well, there’s one thing a wise pastor would notice if he were ever asked to work out what’s going on in this relationship.
What is a “head-of-household only approach to the Lord’s Supper”?
“ if Paul does not envision long hair as a covering” Well, long hair is a head covering…… objectively. Paul doesn’t address it directly, so any opinion on whether long hair counts would be an attempt at mind reading a dead man. Anyone trying to argue that long hair does not in fact count can only do so by appealing to preconception or tradition. Preconception doesn’t hold up under the lightest scrutiny. Tradition is where I get puzzled because more and more I see alleged Protestants appealing to ONLY tradition as the basis for moral claims. Not just on this issue,… Read more »
So the RPW requires 1st-century archaeo-Amishness? Well, cars and coffee don’t seem obvious spiritual issues (ask the Ethiopian eunuch about coffee?), but church buildings are, and one could argue the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple, so a holy building is inherently an idol; besides the NT mentions the church in so-and-so’s house, and some big gatherings in available places, but no holy buildings; and the social psychology of meeting in someone’s house can be different from meeting in pews. (Of course, you can line up chairs in a big room and have an ordinary church service… Read more »
“So the RPW requires 1st-century archaeo-Amishness?” No, affirming tradition *alone* as a basis for moral law requires 1st century amishness, as tradition is intrinsically, inescapably arbitrary. You choose based solely on preference which ones “count”. “Well, cars and coffee don’t seem obvious spiritual issues” You’re inventing random and arbitrary limitations solely to suit your preferences. You’re showcasing my point immediately. Where is your exhaustive list of Sola Scriptura spiritual issues? Where did you get that list? If we’re applying tradition by itself as justification, how do you determine cars are NOT relevant? It “seems” that way? You’re determining moral law… Read more »
I would appeal to the use of two different Greek words in the passage, one when referring to the covering you must wear for worship the other when referring to hair. Also to the strand of argument regarding creation order and symbols of authority, with the counterpoint that if she refuses to cover her glory and tries to outshine God then she should remove her glory entirely.
“I would appeal to the use of two different Greek words in the passage, one when referring to the covering you must wear for worship the other when referring to hair. “ Not a rational argument if true. That I use two different words for things does not mean the one can’t also be the other. All spoons are cutlery, not all cutlery are spoons. ” if she refuses to cover her glory and tries to outshine God then she should remove her glory entirely.” To say that the average evangelical woman who isn’t even aware of the head covering issue is… Read more »
i dont what to think about this image?..she is having a temper tantrum which seems fashionable?
Is that Rita Hayworth thumping on Glenn Ford’s chest?
Man, this NQN is like the Jubilee! Thanks be to God for your generosity in giving away all these books for free.
> “Those Presbyterians who baptize infants, but who will not commune them, are those who bring their children into the covenant household, but will not feed them. The kids can sit on the sofa in the living room during dinner and listen to the happy clinking of the silverware coming from the dining room.” Note that “those Presbyterians” is almost the entire Presbyterian tradition, beginning with Calvin (who in the Institutes likens paedocommunion to poisoning your children) downwards, and in the present day too. This comment is a bit of an insight into the way bubbles work (and in this… Read more »
It’s good to be consistently stalwart in your position, but please be fair. The issue of children at the table is (among the Reformed) a discussion based on Scripture, not “Presbyterian tradition.” A tradition is as authoritative as the arguments from Scripture that Reformed pastors taught in the past. The large number of Reformed fathers who wrote against children at the table can, at most, prompt a humble double-check of your use of Scripture, with a willingness to be shown to be in error. The best opponents today of children at the table respond with appeals to Scripture, not simply… Read more »
I think you’ve entirely misunderstood the context; I was quoting Douglas Wilson.