Michael: Is the conference at Bethlehem Baptist? If so, here’s a start. I would say #8, the Best Western, is probably the best for budgetary reasons, but I’ve never stayed downtown. The area isn’t the safest at night, but it might be OK if you’re heading between the church and downtown. I’ve never walked there myself, so I don’t know for sure. Too bad the conference wasn’t last spring, when I still lived in MN.

I must be really sheltered from the hardcore anti-Calvinism at our SBC church. One of our pastors is an MDiv student at Covenant, and our Sunday School teacher was telling people last Sunday to visit Founders.org.

Assuming I wanted to do the DG conference…could someone who knows the area suggest some hotels that would be walking distance?

I’ve got Travis and 3 lurkers. Considering that every TR in the world will be there, I feel I must go, and these guys can be my hype men.

So you’re user, dealer AND supplier. Greeeaaat.

Re. Ascol’s post on what the SBC thinks of Calvin’s final destination. The author he quotes who, to put it mildly, seriously questions Calvin’s salvation, I have found to be the norm among SBC laity. John 3 (“Whosoever believes…”) and John 6 (“Whosoever comes to me…”) are invariably put forth as calvinism defeaters that are irresolvable in the Dordtian system of theology. End of argument. End of discussion.

Attempts to quote Romans are shut down with: “I don’t know what Paul was on about, but I can understand Jesus plainly enough.” They are generally comfortable with a certain level of agnosticism about the New Testament other than the gospels (or at least John). Yes, Jesus talks about gathering all those that the Father has given him, but he isn’t explicit about that ordo salutis like Paul is.

Joel: My Google toolbar skills and one speed reading class have made me a formidable imitation of a scholar. Now all I need is a live webcast :-)

Leif, two words: full text. Forget the made-for-TV version. Just wait for the text of the speech to be released.

Michael, do we have some lurkers with the hook-up, or how did you get your hands on that Warfield so quickly? I think the BHT fellows and…whatever the feminine equivalent is of ‘fellows’...deserve full disclosure: you’re not only a user of blogcrack, you’re a pusher, too. You’re my enabler. And you are SO responsible for my wind-whipped, below-freezing pilgrimmage to the seminary library tomorrow.

Even on the most charitable reading, that Warfield quote ain’t much help to the rather implausible claim you mentioned earlier regarding infant baptism. This reminds me of others discussions I’ve had/read that infant baptism can be plucked easily out of “Reformed” or covenantal theology. That there is some fancy footwork that boils down to two incompatible positions: (1) we are “calvinists” and/or “Reformed” but (2) the true church (of which “we” are a part) has no vital historical connection to the Roman Catholic Church. Oversimplifying, what I’ve seen is that (1) is almost infinitely malleable (totally pliable or eccentric definition of what “Reformed” means) to the point where one can, without flinching, state that one’s own sect is more true to “calvinism” than was Calvin himself. I believe this cognitive dissonance is untroubling to such a one because that malleability is necessary to save (2): one must have improvements on Calvin’s calvinism because Calvin is obviously a Protesting reformer of Mother Church and too “tainted” by Catholic ecclesiology and sacramentology. Oh, and even if you could extract some claim from that quote by Warfield that Augustine was “moving away” from infant baptism, his interpretation of theological history seems selective at best.

This is why I am intrigued by your European Baptist version of covenant theology. I have some questions about it, but I need to get informed before I ask them.

White Horse Inn – Broadcast Archives 1/26 “Self Help Salvation” is one of the best programs I’ve ever heard. Absolutely a must hear. Horton saying Jesus is Prozac is the best line I’ve heard in a long time. Riddlebarger and Horton do an in-depth analysis of Osteen, and says he doesn’t preach- he nags.

Founders Ministries Blog: “Is John Calvin in Heaven?”  Tom Ascol finds that, despite the optimists among the SBC TRs, the SBC’s current view of Calvinism contains a lot of pure animosity. If you think Calvinism gets tweaked around here, read this.

A truism: Sanford and Son is infinitely more engaging than the State of the Union Address. Fred standing over the stove singing: “It must be jelly ‘cause jam don’t shake that way” is much to be preferred to the president—any president—saying exactly what you knew he was going to say anyway, cut up by hours of sycophants, knee-jerk haters, and zombie-esque paid-for-nothings clapping or not-clapping.

Accccccchhhhhhhhh! I can’t take the clapping and the not-clapping and the sort-of clapping and the eye-rolling clapping and the he-took-a-breath-so-let’s-clap clapping!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’ve only made it through two complete State of the Union Addresses: the first one I watched, and the one after Sept 11. I tapped out of this one about 13 minutes in. Sigh.

Enough with the clapping already!

Does anyone else think it’s silly and a little insulting that every time a black person is mentioned during a live television event (like the Oscars, State of the Union, etc), the cameras seek out every black person in attendance and zoom in on them?

President Bush: “Coretta Scott King died.”

In the booth: Camera one! You got the blacks?? Camera Two?? Who’s got the blacks??

Evangelical Methodist Church Theologian on Infant Baptism. A paedo-baptist argument by Evangelical Methodist Dr. Lawrence Wood. A good outline for you paedo folk. Here he is on Augustine.

Augustine says the whole church practices infant baptism. He says it was not instituted by councils, but was always practiced since apostolic times. (On Baptism, Bk. IV, Chapter 24, 32; see also his The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk. X, Chapter 23.39). In his dispute with the Pelagians (310 A.D.), Augustine disagreed with their interpretation of the meaning of infant baptism, pointing out that he had never heard or read where any Christian (whether Catholic or heretic) had ever dissociated baptism from regeneration just as had never heard or read where any Christian had ever denied the validity of infant baptism. (St. Augustine Against the Pelagians, Chapter XIX, par. 17). Incidentally, Augustine certainly knew and read Tertullians writings. Tertullian was the first great Latin theologian, Cyprian was the second Latin theologian, and Augustine was the third Latin theologian. Augustine had some points of disagreement with Tertullian, but he did not accuse Tertullian of denying the validity of infant baptism. Rather, Augustine says on several occasions that infant baptism is a firmly established tradition dating from the times of the apostles (a point which none questioned) and he says no one questions its practice and apparently not even Tertullian.

Here’s the most famous quote from Warfield regarding Augustine, and I’ll bet it is the source of someone’s idea that Augustine was- somehow- moving away from infant baptism somehow.

. . . Augustine was both the founder of Roman Catholicism and the author of that doctrine of grace which it has been the constantly pursued effort of Roman Catholicism to neutralize, and which in very fact either must be neutralized by, or will neutralize, Roman Catholicism. Two children were struggling in the womb of his mind. There can be no doubt which was the child of his heart. His doctrine of the Church he had received whole from his predecessors, and he gave it merely the precision and vitality which insured its persistence. His doctrine of grace was all his own:it represented the very core of his being . . . it was inevitable, had time been allowed, that his inherited doctrine of the Church, too, with all its implications, would have gone down before it, and Augustine would have bequeathed to the Church, not “problems,” but a thoroughly worked out system of evangelical religion. . . . The problem which Augustine bequeathed to the Church for solution, the Church required a thousand years to solve. But even so, it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the Church. (Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, 321-22)

I’d say someone is straining really hard to see what isn’t there :-)

Emerging Churches (MC535 W06) It’s Ryan Bolger’s class on the Emerging Church at Fuller Seminary. The blog would be a great way to keep up with the class content, and maybe a way to test your impressions of the EC vs what Bolger and Gibbs will be teaching.

Alistair’s series on the doctrine of election is starting today.

Tod Bolsinger on “Big C, Little C” church. Great post.

With the help of a lurker, we’ve uncovered the Puffington Host post. Four pages of comments, all based on a misunderstanding.

Kent: You are welcome to post your views of the Patriot act, and I am aware that they represent the views of several in the Tavern. I choose each time to refrain from making the same response over and over, because I know that’s annoying. I simply cannot understand the discussion. On the one hand, we are concerned about the possible indisgressions of a government that exists for the protection of rights and freedoms. While I know there are plenty of examples of failures to do that, a trip across Minnesota or Kentucky would reveal millions of people who never were hassled by the government for anything more than the sales tax on their last purchase. On the other hand, the people seeking to get nuclear weapons and kill us are running a medieval police state that won’t allow girls to show their faces and commends beheadings for flirtation. All this with the smile and approval of the government. It is simply irrational of me to put these things in the same category. The Batman comic portrayed an apocalyptic America. In my mind, that America is far more likely to be the result of an Islamo-fascist world domination than an expansion of government power under George Bush or any other American President. I simply cannot put these things in the same category, and the left’s insistence that I prove my rationality and fairness by being as concerned about one as the other is simply impossible for me.

I’ve said too much. I do not defend everything the government does. I abhor any loss of liberty. I am sure the PA is far from what it should be. But I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that the threat I should be concerned about is my own government’s commitment to protect my life and freedom.

Michael, we’d probably be able to attend a session or two of the DG conference depending upon times and schedules. I squirm if I have to sit for any more than 2 hours and I can’t stand large crowds…which is what Minneapolis is to me, one large crowd.

Also, by my reckoning, I’ve only 30-35 more Minnesota Autumns to experience and photograph. The last weekend in September is generally a peak weekend, especially up here…priorities, priorities… ;-]

RE:PatAct, an ‘sw’ would likely have been more in order than a ‘jn’ considering my state of mind at the time of posting.

Why is it so difficult to accept that both sides of the political spectrum are able to threaten our liberties? Do we reactively become ‘good’ (read silent) Americans whenever our ‘favorite side’ is in power simply because we reckon that the other side would be worse?

So, the DEA has been in your ‘neck of the woods’ for 14 years, no doubt confiscating property without due process. Have they solved the drug problem?

If you would prefer I not post my opinions about the Patriot Act I will gladly and respectfully refrain from doing so; this is indeed your tavern and I deeply appreciate all that I’ve learned sitting at it’s tables. I also deeply appreciate the freedoms I enjoy as a citizen of our wonderful nation and fully believe that all battles for liberty have two sorts of ‘fronts’; those external and those internal. I would hate to win the battle on one front only to turn around and discover my freedoms lost on the other.

Yes…6 years into the Bush Presidency and I feel that police state coming on. (ahem jn) Of course, I’ve been watching DEA helicopters out my windows for 14 years….and the ATF, DEA and other “revenuers” have been up here in the hills for years before that.

I refer anyone who wants to know what a “police state” looks like to your local Islamist country. That’s no cartoon, and if they get the bomb, they will impose their way on our way. But by that time, we’ll have Hillary and Obama to protect us, and we can stop worrying about the Patriot Act.

America in 2039 is a police state, individual liberties have been curtailed, and there’s a dark sense of impending doom. Roving police squads, Blade Runner-esque floating vehicles, and robotic watchdogs scan the skyline. A distressed-looking Batman is the only person Big Brother fails to track, and the superhero’s mask symbolizes the last hope against a corrupt government encroaching on individual privacy.

I saw the headline and an unflattering picture on Puffington Host recently, bit never bothered to click the link. Jerry Falwell going on about “assault” and stuff. Sigh. But wait! It turns out that Newsweek might have had it wrong. Now at the bottom of the article in question, is this correction:

Correction: In the original version of this report, NEWSWEEK misquoted Falwell as referring to “assault ministry.” In fact, Falwell was referring to “a salt ministry”โ€”a reference to Matthew 5:13, where Jesus says “Ye are the salt of the earth.” We regret the error.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I bet those GetReligion guys will be all over this one.
P.S. The Puffington Host link disappeared without mention. You have only my word to go on.

Lexington Theological has a copy of the Warfield book (as well as Tertullian and Augustine). If I have a free moment, I’ll check it out and report back.

[Moderator: This could be BIG. REALLY REALLY BIG!!!]

Update: Oh please, Moderator, is this what I have to do to get some attention around here? “Big?” snooze

Apparently the answer to the mysterious “Augustine the Baptist” question is here: Benjamin Warfield’s Calvin and Augustine.

I don’t own a copy.

Time to sin boldly. I am going to break rule 40: Jason has now said- plainly- who the true Calvinists are, and I want it in the record in his own words.

So to be a Calvinist is to believe the Gospel as it has been preached throughout church history by true orthodox Christians. It is not some theology that one man came up with one day. But it is the doctrines of
salvation as they have been preached since Paul wrote the Book of Romans. John Calvin just eloquently systematized the theology that it may be studied thoroughly and taught accurately. But if you are uncomfortable with the term “Calvinist” let me suggest a few synonyms that you may wish to identify with: Reformed Theology, Reformed Baptist, and Sovereign Grace Baptist.

This has been lurking around this TR thing forever. I was hauled out and mauled for calling these guys TRs, and now there it is. I don’t wanna hear no backtalk either.

Wired 14.02: The Dark Knight Returns Batman: Year 100.

Pope’s Batman will battle his own villains. The series is set in a
high-anxiety future, where totalitarianism has nearly snuffed out the
remnants of humanity. America in 2039 is a police state, individual
liberties have been curtailed, and there’s a dark sense of impending
doom. Roving police squads, Blade Runner-esque floating
vehicles, and robotic watchdogs scan the skyline. A distressed-looking
Batman is the only person Big Brother fails to track, and the
superhero’s mask symbolizes the last hope against a corrupt government
encroaching on individual privacy. “He’s someone with the body of David
Beckham, the brain of Nikola Tesla, and the wealth of Howard Hughes,
who is pretending to be Nosferatu,” Pope says.

Just for the record, I spoke to my wife earlier today and emailed her a link to the conference. She wants to go, but doesn’t want to travel with the baby that young (I agree). So she told me I should go, and she will be staying with her mother that weekend. This is one of the many reasons why my wife rocks.

See you at the conference :)

Internet Explorer 7: Beta 2

“The difference is…Jesus loves you….I don’t.” Don’t tell me country music isn’t profound. Check that song out sometime. (Danielle Peck)

So far, Travis is the only BHTer interested in the DG conference possibility later this year. Of course, by then, his wife will have ordered him to stay home for the next 18 years, and it won’t matter what he said on here. Kent will provide social outlets, but won’t do the conference. If there is anyone else interested, email me.

1. One of the members of my dissertation committee, Brad Monton, is an ID critic. His current book project is entitled “Godless Physics,” a few chapters of which I have seen in draft form. He is also careful to articulate the importance of one’s worldview in how this issue gets framed and interpreted. You might find his analysis of the Dover decision quite surprising.

2. The UK Student Activities Board is sponsoring a debate between ID proponent William Dembski and opponent Michael Shermer, to be held on campus on March 23 at 8:00 pm. Perhaps this would interest some of you as another opportunity for meeting in BHT flesh-space. It’s a free event.

Kent: Alas, see what happens when I use creative language. If McLaren is able to answer a definitive “yes” or “no”, I’ll be picking my jaw up from the floor. If he needs to offer a verbose qualification, that’s probably okay, but my feeling is he’ll just dance around it with a very wordy evasion.

McLaren profits from ambiguity. A lot of people like him, and if he starts defining issues clearly, he’ll lose support from one quarter or another.

the evangelical outpost: Pop Semiotics: The Passion of the Rappers Joe Carter takes the ball from me and runs with it. Yo Joe! [Insert white guy attempt to sound hip hop]

Kurt, isn’t If….then a boolean question? Could a boolean question be answered by another boolean question? Could McLaren initiate a ‘nested if subroutine’? The imagination boggles…

Kent: I agree. That was a piss-poor apology on Driscoll’s part. I still lay pretty heavy odds against McLaren being able to give a boolean answer to Driscoll’s question.

I believe that Pastor Driscoll directly asks an important question that I believe Pastor McLaren should directly answer.

The apology offered however, was not an apology. An apology is when you directly state how you offended and directly ask for forgiveness. Whenever someone says, “I’m sorry if _____…” they are not apologizing.

I too find the self-aggrandizement a bit much, but it seems to be one of the risks of entertaining a large public forum like a megachurch.

SBC Baptist Press – FIRST-PERSON: An awesome cover-up  Mark Coppenger mounts the SBC critique of ID. Ken Hamm? You have a phone call.

How to spot a rich guy

Travis says cancel church for a good reason! (BTW- Sunday evening service after having a morning service- which I have to lead- is a creation of sick, sick minds. It is a pastor killer. Stop them ALL.)

Josh: So you get to toss out “kinda blows it away” and I’ve got to respond with a point-by-point explanation of my entire view of perseverance and so on? How about this: I refuse to discuss the issue with anyone who hasn’t read Chemn^h^h^h^h^h Wilson. I mentioned FV as a shortcut; there are books. Enjoy yourself. I’ve also given summaried of the FV here in the BHT sometime in 2005 that cover this extensively.

Michael: Oh, I thought it looked interesting, and I’ll probably buy the book and read the whole thing, but I did find it amusing how the difference between their view and the first view they rejected was so quickly glossed over. Is the distinction real? Yes, it seems so. But at the same time, I think they separated the two views as widely as possible on purpose, and they may have overstated the case against the loss-of-salvation view in an effort to further distinguish it from their own.

Or, I suppose I could look at it another way and say that their view is not all that much different from the “false professor” view either, at least based on the intro chapter. Clearly there’s more to the book than the intro chapter, of course, and perhaps they have simply done themselves a disservice with those drawings.

Then again, perseverance has always been the least-interesting of the five points to me. I guess I’m not sure what the point of it is. Logical consistency? I guess. I prefer to consider the idea of assurance, and my assurance is found completely in Christ, which seems good enough for me. Sufficient unto today are the troubles thereof, and all that.

By the way, your latest article on preaching is most excellent. “Sheer, unmitigated greed” made me laugh out loud. I’m forwarding this one to several pastors I know. THanks!

IM is updated with a new piece in the preaching series: What’s Wrong With The Sermon? IV: It isn’t practical.

Phillip: I guess I have asked for this somehow. Sorry to have posted the chapter. Apparently it’s pretty bad. Shreiner (professer at SBTS) and Caneday (professor at Northwestern) are both Calvinists, but when I read the book- most of it twice- they mounted a serious critique of Calvinism’s common view of perseverance. I was temporarily impressed.

I wrote about the book at IM at the time. Forgive the self-quoting:

So does anyone understand perseverance? I think there is real help on the way. In their provocative book, The Race Set Before Us, Thomas Schreiner and Ardel Canaday write convincingly that perseverance is a matter of how we respond to means used by God to effectually guide his chosen people through this world and to heaven. Warnings, commands, examples- they all are markers and signs God has placed on the road to the kingdom. Those who belong to him heed the examples, pay attention to the warnings and obey the commands. Not perfectly, and certainly along a unique personal pattern of growth that is also God’s work, but Christians do not finally or consistently abandon, ignore, repudiate or reject these “means of grace” God uses to bring us to heaven.

Schreiner and Canaday, who write as part of the reformed camp, fault the reformers for not reflecting enough on perseverance, but they also note that the reformation was primarily a battle over justification. The result, however, was an unfortunate confusion over the “already and not yet” aspects of salvation, particularly on the subject of salvation. In their eagerness to say that the judgment of God had been brought forward, carried out at the cross and pronounced in our favor, the reformers misplaced the eschatological, final, future aspect of salvation. Salvation is past, present and future, and the pronouncement that I am not going to hell is a past event, a present experience and a future reality, all flowing from the same work of grace through faith. Perseverance is the bridge between these three, for if my past faith is not a present experience of faith, it will not yield a future reality of faith’s sure reward.

Schreiner and Canaday agree with the reformed that those who abandon the faith were never genuinely Christians, but they disagree with the notion that the warnings are only there to expose the false professor. (MacArthur and John Owen get taken to the woodshed. Gutsy guys!) They convincingly show that the warnings, commands and examples are there to guide, shape and shepherd the true Christian to a gracious acceptance in the Kingdom, and not just as part of a divine plot to expose false professors.

If I’ve missed the point, as I said, I’m sorry to have posted the link. At the time, I found it quite helpful.

Marjorie Corbman has a good post on how to talk to heretics.

Michael: Yeah, I don’t bother answering people who can’t be bother to read words that I’ve written, but it seems pretty easy to me to say that warnings are real while the reformed understanding of perseverance is still accurate. Come to think of it, I did say that. And come to think of it, I mentioned one possible basis for such, one of many.

I yield to nobody in my distaste for the strains of hyper-calvinism within Calvinism and the sounding brass that goes on under the label of Calvinism. And yet the straw-man arguments that pass for engagement with Calvinism around here sometimes make my kidneys hurt, and I don’t like to criticize people for believing what they don’t actually believe.

Incidentally, that book seems to gloss over the fact that the cute little drawings they use to illustrate different views of perseverance demonstrate that their view is identical to what they describe as the “loss-of-salvation” view and reject as Arminianism. Sure, they use negative language to describe the warnings in the thought-bubble, while they use positive language to describe the warning in their own thought-bubble, but the end result is the same. The final chart is the most amusing of all, since the primary difference between the two views there is the difference between “only as good as” and “not without”.

Disappointed by Driscoll, part deux. Is it just me or is he a little too willing to refer to himself as a gifted preacher? He IS that but Proverbs 27:2 comes to mind.

Reformissionary: Driscoll’s Apology and Question I’d say the question is the right one.

Shreiner and Caneday deal with the problems the traditional Calvinist view of perseverance passages create. Their view- which can also be read in the writings of Piper/Bethlehem Baptist Church- is a view that rejects the typical “hyperbolic” view of the threats in Hebrews and the epistles and, instead, helps us to see that the warnings are real. Totally, completely real, but still understandable within a reformed understanding of perseverance.

Here is chapter 1 of the book. I recommend it to everyone. I think you will read it and want to read the whole book.

Zondervan Email Lists This is a page where you can sign up for various Zondervan e-newsletters. IM was featured in one of them recently, apparently. Something about youth ministry.

That be a fine recipe, there, Richard. I like the Stroganoff-y seasonings. I think I’d throw a dash of nutmeg in there just to seal the deal.

Bill: You, sir, are a man of fine culture and good taste. CBC Radio is wonderful, one of the few things that set us culturally apart from our American cousins. CBC TV, however, is a waste of my tax dollars except when it comes to Hockey Night In Canada and to the CBC’s unsurpassed olympic coverage which consists of showing actual competition rather than the US network fare of a few seconds at the end of a race followed by some lame Entertainment Tonightish “Olympic Profile”. Seriously, I’ll never understand the American public’s love of sound bites and “featurettes”. Yuck!

Elizabeth’s Tourti่re (French-Canadian meat pie) is more than a mere dish. It is part of her Christmas time ministry to shut-ins and other people in need of Christmas cheer in our community. It certainly ministers to me, as well :-)

Hundreds of different Tourti่re receipes are available on the web and elsewhere, often involving game meat (ie. the traditional receipe). Here is Elizabeth’s simple, gameless version. It’s pretty much straight out of the Canadian Living Holiday Cookbook but she does add those special intangible touches learned from her mum – so no matter what you do yours won’t be as good as hers ;-)

Ingredients

1 tbsp (15 mL) vegetable oil
2 lb (1 kg) ground pork
1-1/2 cups (375 mL) beef stock
3 onions, finely chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
2 cups (500 mL) sliced mushrooms
1 cup (250 mL) finely chopped celery
3/4 tsp (4 mL) salt
1/2 tsp (2 mL) each cinnamon, pepper and dried summer savory
1/4 tsp (1 mL) cloves
1 cup (250 mL) fresh bread crumbs
1/2 cup (125 mL) chopped fresh parsley
Pastry for double-crust 9- or 10-inch (23 or 25 cm) pie
1 egg, beaten
1 tsp (5 mL) water

Instructions

1. In large skillet, heat oil over medium-high heat; cook pork, breaking up with wooden spoon, for 7 to 10 minutes or until no longer pink. Drain off fat.

2. Stir in stock, onions, garlic, mushrooms, celery salt, cinnamon, pepper, savory and cloves; bring to boil. Reduce heat to medium-low and simmer, stirring occasionally, for 35 to 45 minutes or until about 2 tbsp (25 mL) liquid remains.

3. Stir in bread crumbs and parsley. Taste and adjust seasoning. Cover and refrigerate until cold or for up to 1 day. On lightly floured surface, roll out bottom pastry to 1/8-inch (3 mm) thickness; fit into pie plate.

4. Spoon filling into pie shell, smoothing top. Roll out top pastry. Moisten rim of pie shell with water. Cover with top pastry, pressing edges together to seal. Trim and flute pastry edge.

5. Combine egg with water; brush over pastry. Cut decorative shapes from remaining pastry [a Christmas tree or a snowman] and arrange on top; brush with some of the remaining egg mixture.

6. Cut steam vents in top.

7. Bake in 375�F (190�C) oven for 40 to 45 minutes or until golden brown. Let cool for 10 minutes before cutting.

ENJOY!

I’ve read the posts over the last many days concerning Brian Mclaren’s inability to take a pastoral stand on the issue of homosexuality. Was reading an old First Things today and came across this. Thought it was pretty wise and pretty balanced:

Father Benedict Groeschel is one of the wisest spiritual directors around, and his little essay “Waiting for Grace” is one of the wisest reflections on the pastoral care of homosexuals. It is included in a book, With Mind and Heart Renewed (University Press of America)...The subtitle of Fr. Groeschel’s essay is “The Pastoral Care of Those Who Are Not Yet Disposed to Follow the Commandments.” He writes: “The thorny problem of the pastoral care of those who desire to participate in the life of the Church, and who are yet either unwilling or unable to observe its moral teachings, is one that many pastors and pastoral workers encounter every day. In every good–sized parish there are people beginning to experience a real call to conversion, but who are involved in moral difficulties ranging from invalid marriages and homosexual relationships to addiction to alcohol and drugs. There are others who are unaware of the call to real conversion but who at least want to be a part of the life of the Church, and this desire may indeed be a call of divine grace. The question of the pastoral care of this very needy group presents itself over and over again. What can be done for them without becoming an enabler, someone who out of compassion or need to be agreeable or even guilt, cooperates in another person’s immorality or psychological confusion by pretending that a real and ongoing conversion has taken place?...It may come as a surprise to many to know that those who were sexual partners may live in chastity together. I myself know a number of people who once lived together in homosexual relationships who now share the same domicile but lead scrupulously chaste lives as friends. It is conceivable that the only way that they were going to lead a chaste life was with the emotional support of another person struggling with the same difficult adjustment. They now have the love of a chaste friendship. Now it is my pastoral impression that such people, having gained chastity, merely need to communicate to their close circle of relatives and friends that they are living a chaste Christian life, in order to avoid misunderstanding and confusing others. I would not have thought this possible, but we live and learn.” Too often, Fr. Groeschel believes, ministries ostensibly aimed at leading those with same–sex desires to the fullness of conversion—as we all need to be led to the fullness of conversion—become part of the problem rather than the solution. “This brings up the oxymoron of ‘gay–lesbian ministry.’ Truth be told, there is simply no such Christian ministry, any more than there is a ministry to ‘drunks.’ There is a very needed ministry to homosexual persons and recovering alcoholics. The terms ‘gay and lesbian’ mean the acceptance of a lifestyle with a commitment to immoral behavior. Homosexual is a condition; gay and lesbian is a decision, a commitment which is powerfully denounced by St. Paul. It is my personal conviction that the accepted use of these terms for a ministry is a profound cause of confusion for the faithful and a dangerous spiritual disservice to those who have a right to be shepherded by the Church.”

I don’t know about the wisdom of having chaste homosexuals living together, but, all in all, I think there is wisdom here. He seems especially concerned about ministers who end up enabling homosexuals.

Richard, have you read the Work Research Foundation’s analysis of the election? Any comments?

I have some disagreements with Horton’s article, too (especially the final third). But I think Ventrella was way too flip in his critique. I think he and Horton are in basic agreement with one another.

Ventrella zeroes in on one of Horton’s statements:

This means that there is no difference between Christians and non-Christians with respect to their vocations.

If Ventrella had taken the time to consider the context invoked by the first word of the sentence, “This…,” I think it would have been much clearer that he and Horton are in basic agreeance.¹ Horton’s prelude to the quote described the being-alongside-one-another that characterizes the new-creation-in-process-of-becoming. Wheat and weeds grow alongside one another until the consummation of the kingdom. Horton’s point wasn’t that the manner in which the christian and non-christian carry out their work is indistinguishable, but that Christ’s lordship over “every atom and quark” means that there isn’t a uniquely christian vocation that is somehow more sanctified than any other. Classic Reformed thinking.

If Ventrella hadn’t been too quick to dismiss Horton’s article, he would have seen just a paragraph further on, that his and Horton’s views are at least compatible:

So Christians are not called to make holy apparel, speak an odd dialect of spiritual jargon, or transform their workplace, neighborhood, or nation into the kingdom of Christ. Rather, they are called to belong to a holy commonwealth that is distinct from the regimes of this age (Phil. 3:20–21) and to contribute as citizens and neighbors in temporal affairs.

Here Horton begins a paragraph that does distinguish “vocational differences” between the christian and non-christian. Ventrella’s criticism is defused.

The question I have is this: why is Ventrella calling out Horton’s view as one that “ultimately produces antinomianism, and hence cultural corrosion,” on so facile an analysis? Kinda smelly if you ask me.

¹Argument by sloganeering is my irrefutable counter-argument to Josh’s defense of Bush’s (non)connection to Exxon’s record profits. Nope, nothing about his domestic and foreign policies had any bearing on that or this. (jn) Are corporate profits inherently evil? Of course not and I never suggested as much. Is $36.13 billion in profit (not revenue mind you, but profit), a sum greater than 2/3 of the world’s nations’ GNPs, evil? I don’t honestly know. Obscene? Yes, definitely. That’s enough to provoke a critical eye (at least), IMO. Limbaughesque apologetics are icky.

I might have to put this year’s Desiring God conference on the “might do it” list. Any BHTers interested at this point?

Looks great. I’m in.

Josh: I’m too tired to go back and prove this, but I think you’ll find that I’m using specific terms in response to other people who first use those terms. I don’t tend to use terms like perseverance and sovereignty unless someone else uses them first; it’s part of my general approach of avoiding technical terms. I try to deal in concepts, not technical terms. In addition, I’m responding to concepts that others have introduced as well, using just those terms; specifically you, Dennis, and Michael.

Every attempt to form anything like a semi-rational all-encompassing view of scripture has many moments at which good people throw up their hands and declare “it’s a mystery.” Lutheranism is no more an exception to this than Calvinism or Roman Catholicism. It doesn’t have to be “us vs. them” all the time. That you’re able to swallow the spots in which Lutheranism glosses over things more easily than the spots in which Calvinism does the same says less about Calvinism or Lutheranism, I think, than it does about you. And the same for me.

And to think, it was just yesterday that people were accusing Calvinists of spending too much time arguing over word definitions or somesuch. Sheesh! {:)}

Michael, the igrace stuff is pretty good stuff. I’ve got Sandra McCracken’s The Builder and the Architect. Excellent hymnody.

Mere Theology is liveblogging the Bethlehem Conference for pastors. “How Should A Pastor Die?” is the theme. I love the fact that Christians can talk about this.

Our poetry slam was the shizzle. I mean, we may be the only Christian school in America to pull this off. Packed house. Real poets. Real poetry. Fantastic atmosphere. I’ll post pics later, but our kids were superb.

I’m listening to Indelible Grace IV. Like it.

My first issue of Christian Century arrived today. I am now subscribing to Touchstone, First Things, Christian Century and the Wittenburg Door. That about says it all, doesn’t it. (My SBC mags are all free, and worth every dollar.)

I wish Mark Dever would chime in on this syndication business. He has some important things to say.

Jeff Vantrella critiques Michael Horton’s view of the church and culture.

Tom Ascol has good comments on the SBC Pastor’s conference line-up.

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but CBC Radio in Canada rocks. It is so refreshing to listen to radio that doesn’t pander to national ADD like American radio does. Imagine spending more than 4 minutes exploring a topic, any topic. You might respond that Hannity and Rush do that, but 3 hours of “Democrats are bad” repeated over and over don’t count.

If Richard would post his wife’s Tourtiere recipe that would put Canada over the top.

Phillip: Good thoughts and I do highly respect you and your comments!

The syndication of Mark Driscoll.

Did they cross a line? Should there be a line? (HT:Jordon Cooper)

For the record, I remembered Charles with pride yesterday, Ryan.

:-)

Off to try and visit with my AMiA buddy.

Michael: I’m confused. Does your emailer believe in purgatory, or hell before heaven? Amazing. Simply amazing.

I’m sure that the fault is mine. I’ve been extremely busy, and guilty of drive-by posting, so I’m sure I misunderstood your intent, and probably that of Dennis and Josh as well. I’m sorry to all.

Dennis: I really dislike doing this, but just so I can ensure my sanity is intact, I’ll review the discussion. At 9:58am, you asked a question, a very reasonable question. At 10:27am, I gave what I hope you agree was a very reasonable answer, if not a complete one. At 11:00am and 12:01pm, Josh and then you each affirmed that the idea of a conflict between choice and perseverance is (part of) why you are no longer Calvinists, and you added (amusingly, to my eyes) added that infighting was another factor.

It was only after that declaration that perseverance collapses (“Kinda blows it away…”) in light of biblical language involving choice that I posted at 12:14pm, pointing out (“mere sophistry”) that the apparent conflict should not result in a rejection of one or the other, since both choice and sovereignty can and do coexist in scripture.

I did add a bit about “silly nit-picking” which I regret in retrospect. I thought it was funny, given your criticism of Calvinists for such behavior, but of course your statements aren’t really in the same league as those of many TRs, and I apologize for my lack of respect for your statements.

‘Twas against that statement that you responded at 2:05pm, so clearly it was the most offensive part of my responses to you. Nevertheless, at 10:33pm, I replied to Michael, and overstated my view using words like “ludicrous” and “silly” and so on. I can only plead fatigue, and then I’ve got to run, as I’m late for breakfast.

I hope you can see now that I overreacted, and that your (and Josh’s) statements were less personal and subjective than you might have intended, and the effect was indeed a “ganging up.” Of course, we “gang up” on Arminians like Matthew all the time, so that in itself isn’t a perjorative in my mind. {:)}

Ahhh… finished my class. 9 hours done, 51 to go.
Con: 60 hour MA program. Pro: No anti-alcohol pledge.

Welcome Ellen

Michael: A few days ago you mentioned European Baptists. Can you recommend anyone’s work? I can’t think of any off the top of my head beside Spurgeon. I suspect I am pretty close to being a European style Baptist.

On McLaren: I do think I’d like him personally, but unfortunately whenever I read him I see a lot of mushy thinking. There’s a big difference in agonizing over what the text says and agonizing over how to apply it in a difficult situation. He’s right about rejecting glib answers, but I can’t remember ever reading him giving a solid answer at all.

In his example that started all this, I do think he did well in finding out where this couple was coming from before answering (although he never actually got to that) I see Jesus doing a lot of that in the Gospels. I’m not a pastor, but for what it’s worth I can’t see why you would exclude the homosexual fathers from participating in the wedding.

Phillip: I think if you read all my posts carefully, and without the accusations and shotgun sensitivity demonstrated, you will see that I was trying to get an answer to a very real question. Is there a person here on BHT who doesn’t believe that God is Sovereign? How that Sovereignty is enacted in the interaction between God and mankind is where we may not agree. I asked the question and then gave my personal experience. You perfer to describe it as “ganged up”, “ludicrous”, “so-called Calvinist-killer argument”, “silly”, and “Mere sophistry”. I guess that answers the question for me!

I certainly haven’t read everything of Augustine’s (the man was a writing machine), but on the face of it, the claim that he “moved away” from infant baptism would require some serious substantiation, especially since he wrote at least two letters on the subject. There’s a reason Augustine was canonized and oh, say, Tertullian was not.

Probably because of the Donatist influence in North Africa, it was not uncommon for parents to withhold baptism from their infants (because a sin committed after one was baptized resulted in the loss of one’s salvation). Eric is correct. Perhaps the person who made the claim is confused by that fact that Augustine was baptized by St. Ambrose when he was 33 years old.

Randy Alcorn on the End of the Spear Controversy. Rather amazing post.

Read this nut job who wrote me about Kyle Lake. I “unsubscribed” from his unsolicited and unwanted diatribes, and this is his last post. Scary.

PW: I wasn’t commenting on any statements made by any Calvinists in the bar. I was posting random thoughts on the general topic. If something I said sounded accusatory, I apologize. I never meant anything aimed at any Calvinist at the BHT.

It is true that Augustine was not Baptized as an infant, but this has no bearing on his belief in Baptismal regeneration. According to the footnotes in my printing of his Confessions (trans. Henry Chadwick), many parents, believing so strongly in the regenerative effects of Baptism would defer the sacrament until their child was lying on his deathbed. This was the choice of Augustine’s mother concerning her son.

I, xi (17) When I was still a boy, I had heard about eternal life promised to us through the humility of our Lord God, coming down to our pride, and I was already signed with the sign of the cross and seasoned with salt from the time I came from my mother’s womb. She greatly put her trust in you. You saw, Lord, how one day when I was still a small boy, pressure on the chest suddenly made me hot with fever and almost at death’s door. You saw, my God, because you were already my guardian, with what fervour of mind and with what faith I then begged for the baptism of your Christ, my God and Lord, urging it on the devotion of my mother and of the mother of us all, your Church. My physical mother was distraught. With a pure heart and faith in you she even more lovingly travailed in labour for my eternal salvation. She hastily made arrangements for me to be initiated and wahed in the sacraments of salvation, confessing you, Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins. But suddenly I recovered. My cleansing was deferred on the assumption that, if I lived, I would be sure to soil myself; and after that solemn washing the guilt would be greater and more dangerous if I then defiled myself with sins.

Though the text tells us that Augustine believed the complete opposite, the Reformed Baptist is probably using this (ancient, erroneous, and now abandoned) practice to suggest that Augustine moved away from belief in Baptismal regeneration.

Oh, and a hearty welcome to Ellen! A stein of the house’s finest stout on me.

Michael: Maybe my memory’s failing in my old age, but I don’t remember the Calvinist in this conversation mixing choice and perseverance or free will and sovereignty. ‘Twas Josh and Dennis who ganged up to try to proclaim Calvinism a failure on that ludicrous basis. The Calvinist (me) merely pointed out that their so-called Calvinist-killer argument was silly, and nothing more.

I agree that our choices are very real and that the warnings are real warning, and all the while God remains completely sovereign. I don’t see a conflict there, but apparently Josh and Dennis believe that the one negates the other. Odd.

The idea that Augustine abandoned, or even came close to abandoning, infant baptism is wishful thinking on someone’s part.

Josh

The homosexuality “issue” is going to be around and how the church handles it will be watched by the world. Seeing as how the “world” hates a whole lot of what the church does, why should the way we deal with homosexuality be any different?

It’s when we start to equivocate (within a church or a denomination) that things look worse.

My denomination put out a magazine that in February notes that the First CRC in Toronto is agreeing to acknowledge the CRC’s position and to tailor its ministry accordingly.

On another page, a professor at Calvin College says that (in dealing with the homosexuality issue) we need to examine evidence from “general revelation” (the world) as seriously as we examine special revelation (the Bible).

My frustration shows and I’m planning on a little letter to the editor.

Did somebody say Augustine?

Anyway, I find it interesting that someone says Augustine changed his views on infant baptism, especially since no reference was given. Augustine might have changed his views on some things, i.e., free will and predestination (and even that is contentious), but I find it difficult to believe that he changed his mind on infant baptism. I think in one of his letters (to Boniface) written somewhere around the early 5th century he talks about infant baptism, explaining its mechanism, or something like that. He thinks it is possible (and not just possible, but actual) for an infant to be regenerated through “another’s will” (per voluntam aliam or some such Latin phrase).

Looking in his Retractiones is probably the best way to figure out what the mature Augustine believed about baptism, but I would be surprised if it turned out that Augustine did change his views, and that this did nothing to sway the course of the catholic view of the sacraments. After all, Augustine towers of the Western Church.

Could someone who knows about Augustine help me with this one. Quote from a Reformed Baptist blog

Even Augustine changed his views about the sacraments (moving away from infant baptism) the more he studied the Scripture.

What have I missed?

Well at least we can’t say President Bush fails to keep his promises!

Foul temper today is brought to you by the cold virus currently redecorating my lymphatic system. I only wish I could have been more participatory last night at the event. I mean except for the Guinness. So many nuggets of wisdom and humor my head was spinning. Really. I’m still trying to figure out some argument Josh made involving spider monkey hijinks, Derrida, blogging and how the Reformed aren’t really Christians. Anyhoo, Matthew was just as kindly in person as he is online.

Oral’s slick wheels.

Well, that just about settles the issue!

Kent: Yeah, the claim of the Society of King Charles the Martyr’s claim that “It is now widely recognised that he was offered his throne if he would renounce episcopacy and the Prayer Book and embrace Presbyterianism. This he refused and so found himself facing execution.” sounds a little iffy to me, or at least vastly oversimplified.

PWinn: “The silly nit-picking and fault-finding is obviously not limited to those within the reformed camp, eh?” What’s with the Canadian “eh”, eh⚔ I think your canuck wife is getting to you ;-)

Phillip: The silly nit-picking and fault-finding is obviously not limited to those within the reformed camp, eh? ⚔

Without Question, your right about that! However, from my experience, many Calvinists spend the majority of their time arguing with the “elect” making sure they are right in their view of “election”. It’s tiresome to me! With those who believe God is Sovereign, yet chooses to limit his power in order to have relationship with mankind, I do not see as much of this “in house” feeding frenzy. I wasn’t trying to ridicule Calvinists, I know the arguments well, I was just sharing my extremely subjective view (experiential)! Sorry if I was seeming to nitpick.

Michael: See boys and girls….I told you that Dennis is a CAMPBELLITE. I know what that means :-) He makes fun of Calvinists!! (And in Ky, Baptists!)

Guilty of Campelliteness! BUT Innocent of mockery! I wasn’t realy trying to make fun of anyone. I was merely trying to make a rather rudimentary observation. But I forgot how tender a nerve exposed can be….. oh mamma! ;)

Ryan et al.: A toast to both Charlie and Ollie. Speaking of the latter there’s a facinating story about the head of Oliver Cromwell

When the monarchy was restored and Charles II reclaimed the throne he decided to take revenge on the regicidal former Lord Protector. He ordered Cromwell’s body exhumed from Westminster Abbey, publically hung and then beheaded. Cromwell’s head was then impaled on a tall pole at the palace where it remained on display for a couple decades. Eventually someone stole or “rescued” the head. For years its whereabouts were unknown until it was discovered in the late 18th century and then passed from one owner to the other (I think it might have been in America for a while) until its genuineness was scientifically established in the 1930’s. In 1960 the head was finally re-buried somewhere in or near the chapel at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Oliver’s college.

While living in Cambridge I loved to go into the Sidney chapel, look around, and try to guess where the head might be.

Leadership Blog: Out of Ur: Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 4: McLaren’s Response to Mark Driscoll.

For example, if you are certain without a shadow of doubt that homosexual behavior is always wrong, where do you draw the line: Do you let a homosexual person be a member of your church, or an attender? Does your exclusion apply only to “practicing” gays, or to celibate people of gay orientation? How many weeks can they attend without being given an ultimatum? How do you find out if a supposedly nonpracticing person is hiding their secret behaviors? How many failures do you allow before excommunication? And do you allow heterosexual people who attend your services to have gay friends? Must they confront those friends in order to be faithful Christians? What if they don’t? What if your leading elder comes to you to say his daughter has come out as a lesbian? What if your daughter comes out? Or conversely, if you are an “open and affirming” congregation, do you require fidelity or do you allow promiscuity? How do you enforce that? Do you accept people who think homosexuality is wrong? What if they repeatedly share their opinions publicly and in so doing scare away gay people whom you seek to receive? Are you then open and affirming of homosexuals, but not of people who consider homosexuality a sin? If you don’t find at least some of these questions agonizing, I’m not sure what to say.

new to you: The Mega Church Game for your PC | blogs4God

Michael, we’d probably not plan attend the conference but assuming it’s to be held in Mpls/StP as in prior years it would be great to get together one evening; probably Sept 30^th would be best.