Josh/Dennis: Mere sophistry. If I can’t make that choice, then I’ve no choice but to be a Calvinist, no? And if I can, then how do I choose God in the first place?

A perception of choice is not the same as a choice. I perceive that I chose Christ, but I now understand that He chose me. My will, from my perspective once in bondage to sin, is now in bondage to God. From God’s perspective, I was chosen before the foundation of the world. Chosen for what? For a dalliance with Christ, an affair consummated but then abandoned? Or is He who began a good work in me faithful to complete it to the end?

Arguments run both ways, but it’s insulting to good people when the common definition of the word “choice” is used as “proof” of the fallacy of a doctrine which rests on strong scriptural support. Dennis, you especially should know better, since the common definitions of many word, like “father,” are often used as “proof” of the falseness of the church of Rome.

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

Josh: Me too :) Another factor in my reformation from reformation: I dropped it 20 years ago after getting sick of all the nitpicking and fault-finding of that day. I’ve noticed 20 years later it hasn’t stopped. Too many different camps (Steve Camp not withstanding) bitching and moaning, calling each other heretics, fighting over the smallest jot and tittle! EEEKKKK!!!

Since becoming a believer fifteen years ago I’ve been unable to operationally define two terms: evangelical and fundamentalist.

Ryan the only conclusion I’ve been able to come to regarding the English Civil War(s) and the regicide of King Charles is that it had very little to do with Christianity and a lot to do with political power.

I would think that most patrons of the bar would side with King Charles on his ecclesiastic views; I would also think that we could toast ‘Charlie’ today and ‘Ollie’ tomorrow…

Dennis, get gmail. I haven’t had a single one of those buggers get through yet. Everything gets filtered into a spam folder and dumped after 30 days.

Dennis: Please note that the “Federal Vision” controversy is over—in essence—what the definition of “continue in the faith” means in that passage. Is Paul referring here to the invisible church, the personal faith that is between God and an individual person? Or to the visible church, a public statement of faith, that visible church which all would concede contains some (or many, depending on your skepticism level) who are not members of the invisible church (“the elect” I would say, preferring biblical language, but some people get all wiggy).

So what does it mean to continue in the faith? Given that it’s only be the grace of God that any of us do so, and that even the faith itself is a gift from God. In what sense do we continue in that faith? Michael’s answer seems to be that, based on the context of the Tanakh, it is a willful choice to serve another god instead of God, which is not the same as the more-common foolishness of attempting to serve another god in addition to God.

Proposing a toast to King Charles the Martyr (who is commemorated today) probably wouldn’t be a great idea in this bar, would it? :-)

Have any of you EVER bought any product from one of those SPAM emails? You don’t have to say you bought your errection meds or anything, just a general “yes I have bought from SPAM” is enough. If you have… I am pissed-off at you.... Errrrrrr I am so tired of getting those emails. I have all the blockers on my server and filters on my client.. some of them still get through….

Someone must be dumb enough to buy this stuff, or they’d give up. Not just one or two people either…. there must be a whole damn army of morons out there!

_{~ OK, rant is over, reformers… you can now resume your anger at me for chipping away at PoS.}~~

Michael: “I believe that would rule out the fear that failing to live up to God’s “standards” means you lose your salvation. Everything in the Old Testament and the New convinces me that this means abandoning Christ for another God/King, not just failing to live as a good disciple.”

What does this do to the reformed “perseverance of the saints” if we can actually make a choice to follow another god/king? Saying, “They were never saved in the first place” negates Paul’s own words in this Colossians passage.

No one lives up to God’s standards. If God’s standards are the criteria for ones keeping salvation, the defacation has hit the oscillating blades.

Is Faith and Practice a Rule 40 candidate? Probably. But before I go there, I want to link his post asking the pressing question: Is John Macarthur a fundamentalist?

Assume you were convinced of some kind of universalism, and you needed a proof text. Isn’t this it?

Colossians 1:19-20  19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,  20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Isn’t this text a pretty plain and convincing statement that, eventually, all things WILL BE reconciled to God through Christ? Including the spiritual realm (Satan, demons) and all of God’s enemies? Isn’t the “all things” here without conditions?

I’ve been studying Colossians 1 for a couple of months. There’s a couple of things that impress me about these words:

Colossians 1:21-23   21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,  22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,  23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

The first is that verse 23 really can’t be understood until we have a Biblical perspective on what it meant to NOT continue in the faith. I believe that would rule out the fear that failing to live up to God’s “standards” means you lose your salvation. Everything in the Old Testament and the New convinces me that this means abandoning Christ for another God/King, not just failing to live as a good disciple.

Second, verse 23 seems to me to be a description of the proper function of the church: Proclaim the message, exercise apostolic ministry, hold on to the Gospel faithfully, build a community of steadfast, loyal Jesus followers.

BHT 3-D report:

Let’s see….Josh is nearly as excited that I am now a Lutheran as I am that he is now a hippie pomo emergent type.

BHT Christmas gifts are so good, they are now being passed around in the same season. Regifting!

Joel and Josh discussed socialized medicine, which somehow tied in to the killing of Jews.

College teachers apparently have many cruel nicknames for their favorite annoying students.

If stealing wireless is a crime, the BHT will be well represented.

The Christian profession of at least one BHTer was questioned.

The BHT cruise is in the early stages of planning. Looks like the debate will be Joel Garver debating both Fide-O guys.

Fish and chips was the favorite.

Leif offered to tell offensive jokes, but we begged him not to.

Noel and Ryan were in the fresh blush of an Anglican communion service.

We were clearly the most annoying people in the bar. The big guns had to be hauled out to make us leave.

N.T. Wright was praised and denounced.

The mystery of TR fanboy blogs was explained.

A good time was had by all. I was very glad to see Matthew and hope we can see him again soon. We thought of all of you, and talked badly about several of you.

Ha! First one to post following the BHT “Meating”. Good food. Good beer. Hilarious conversation. I’m going to watch Anchorman so I’ll let Michael summarize.

I am leaving right now for the BHT 3-D in Lexington at 6 p.m. O’Neill’s Irish Pub. See you folks there.

Bill! Kurt! PW! You still have time!

Thanks for the welcome!

I’m Ellen – a forty-?? old widow from West Michigan. I have 2 kids and 2 cats. Theology-wise, I’m pretty reformed; the church I belong to is reformed, yet curiously charismatic. How we believe enables us to reach out in love with what we believe.

I’m trying to finish college (my kids and I are all taking a class together) and I work with severely impaired students with autism (ages 7-13).

There’s way more, but I think that’s it for now – I’m really looking forward to being able to converse here (and yes, I do like my stout)

Kent: No pain inflicted whatsoever. Your descriptions of group coverage could very well be an example of the free market at work, if – and this is the key – membership in the group was voluntary.

Oil: The price of oil as denominated in dollars has risen the last five years largely due to the inflationary policies of the Fed. For an example of what inflation has done to the value of your dollar, I paid $2.39 a gallon yesterday to fill up my car. In 1981 dollars, that is $1.05 a gallon. Anyone remember the price of gas 25 years ago? I do. It was around $1.00 a gallon. So prices appear to have risen slightly. However, once you account for the taxes you pay in each gallon of gas that were not part of the equation 25 years ago, the price of gas has remained largely unchanged.

In related news, Iran is preparing to open an Oil-for-Euros trading exchange, (or bourse, for financial geeks like me). The prospect of a world-wide commodities exchange which allows traders to buy oil with euros rather than dollars is Very Bad News Indeed (VBNI) for the dollar. If it happens, Asians will no longer be forced to buy US Government bonds to exchange for oil. Since Asians have been financing our government for the last several years, (Asian central banks are the largest holders and buyers of US bonds), the repercussions for the US economy could be very severe. Don’t believe that Iran’s nuclear aspirations are the only reason we are rattling our sabres in their general direction.

Welcome Ellen! Nice to have another female beer enthusiast.

I am still working on reading the posts you emailed me. It takes this mom of three a while to get to some things . . . Thank you for sending them. I am interested to see the questions you raise.

Jack, mostly to inflict your renal organs with pain I’d say that two approaches to medical care are equitable. Your approach of a totally free market wherein the government remains completely on the ‘outs’; or universal coverage.

A major problem in our current system is that the government taxes all for medical care and only provides medical care to some. I don’t like that I pay for somebody else’s medical care and with what is left over I have to pay for my own (inferior I may add) medical care.

To me ‘universal health care’ means that we’ve put together one large group medical plan. It is much like the group plan my company uses only it has a broader base. In group medical insurance larger companies get better deals; I’m sure that there’s a point of diminishing returns…but this makes the most sense to me. The days of working for one company for years and years are over, one is penalized every time one changes insurance groups and there are generally costly gaps in coverage.

Re Economics: Gasoline/Oil prices violate every law of supply and demand that I’ve ever been taught; no matter what happens the price goes up.

On the Proposed Evangelical Homophoborium: Maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea if we led (meaning that our ‘theme’ should be) with the simple gospel message. We don’t need to head straight for the most destructive, pervasive sin in our lives, stick with the ‘petty’ (jn) stuff like greed, gossip, slander, envy…the stuff that everybody struggles with.

Maybe, just maybe, by opening our hearts, arms and lives to others, spilling and reveling in the love and grace of our saviour we could make a bigger difference than by building fences to keep ‘certain people’ out. I don’t know where I got the impression that this was wrong (jn), but it just seems to make sense to me.

The possibility of having Richard as a pastor is the second reason I’m considering emigration.

Nice to have a new BHT friend. I really like your blog…. its a go-to for a real dose of honesty! “I’ll stick to my “Young’s Double Chocolate Stout” or Guiness Extra Stout.” There’s nothing finer than a woman who drinks real robust beer and loves the Lord! If you can get your hands on Siletz Choc. Porter you won’t be disappointed.

Welcome to the family!

Someone at Pearls Before Swine has been reading Internet Monk.

Civ IV won’t play its opening movie on my computer. (stutters) My computer is a sweet system.. I don’t get it. NVIDIA Geeforce FX 5200. 128 Ram on the video, 512 on the system. Any ideas? The rest of the game plays great.

NEW BHTer today is Ellen. Her blog is right here. Everyone be nice.

Wow, I’ve missed a lot of good stuff…I’ll only add for now an agreement with Bill that indeed, I do not have an accent. Western/Upstate NY folks are the only people in the world who speak properly, and all the rest of you “talk funny.”

Anyway, my wife and I are heading back this week to a little independent church about 15 minutes from here that we visited about a month ago. When we visited previously, the congregation had lost a dearly loved member, so we got to see the church in its grief. They handled things in a manner worthy of the people of God, in my opinion, and we actually left the service wishing we had known the lady who had passed away.

Phillip is of course right in pointing out that I over-simplifed the complexities of supply & demand and free-market pricing. However, economics can become endlessly and – might I say – needlessly complex. I didn’t think any but the most hardcore econ-wanks would read a detailed analysis, so I simplified.

And I stand by the substance of my simplification:

To millions around the world, universal healthcare means “it doesn’t cost me anything”. That is quite simply a lie. It costs each of us plenty, but the costs are not direct and therefore not obvious to the casual observer.

Likewise, the surest, simplest, quickest way to determine demand for your product is through the price. If your product is not selling at the price you ask, you gotta lower the price till it starts moving. Likewise, if your product is selling quickly, you raise the price as high as the current market will bear.

Subsidized medicine removes this fundamental indicator. Furthermore, as Jim points out, if a drug company gives away its product to poor people because it fears reprisals by either government or special interest groups, the action is not compassionate and those who intimidate the drug company are as immoral as those they acuse.

I am really quite disappointed with Mark Driscoll’s rant in response to Brian McLaren’s post on a “pastoral response” to the “homosexual question. Let me say first that I like Mr. Driscoll and almost always profit from what he has to say. But his tone here is quite unworthy of a servant of Christ. He seems comfortable in using the word “gay” as an insult, in suggesting that a good brother might be into bestiality (that bit has now been edited out) and in calling himself a “male lesbian”, which is either the most sophomoric kind of humour or just plain offensive. Should we overlook such childishness because Mr. Driscoll pastors “a church of nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people”? I think not. I should say, however that Driscoll’s rant serves one important purpose – It perfectly illustrates one of McLaren’s points, namely that when the subject of homosexuality comes up many evangelicals turn ugly, resorting to slurs, defamation and bathroom-wall humour. To millions of people it sounds like hatred, and as Mr. McLaren puts it “most unchurched young adults I meet wouldn’t want to be part of an anti-homosexual organization any more than they’d want to be part of a racist or terrorist organization.” We need to remember that.

Now to be sure Mr. McLaren’s post is not above reproach. The biblical texts seem much clearer than he lets on and the idea of a 5-10 year moratorium on discussing the issue is silly. We have 2000 years of Christian consensus behind us (as well as an even more ancient Jewish consensus) so it’s unlikely that another decade would bring greater clarity. And besides who would call for such a moratorium? The Pope? Dobson? The chief Rabbi? And would Fred Phelps get the memo?

The genius of McLaren’s post is in his response to the situation he describes in the first paragraph: “The [heterosexual] couple approached me immediately after the service. This was their first time visiting, and they really enjoyed the service, they said, but they had one question. You can guess what the question was about: not transubstantiation, not speaking in tongues, not inerrancy or eschatology, but where our church stood on homosexuality.” Some would advocate giving the blunt “biblical” answer to such a question: “Homosexuality is a sin, an abomination.” The problem is that to so many of our neighbours this sounds like “God hates fags”. This is completely unacceptable (here I refer you to Jim’s excellent post below). So what did pastor McLaren do? He did the wise thing and quite possibly the only Christlike thing. He treated them as people, he tried to get to know them, he took his time:

“Instead I asked, “Can you tell me why that question is important to you?” “It’s a long story,” he said with a laugh… the young woman explained, “This is the first time my fianc้e and I have ever actually attended a Christian service, since we were both raised agnostic.”... Later that week I got together with the new couple to hear their story. “It’s kind of weird how we met,” they explained. “You see, we met last year through our fathers who became . . . partners. When we get married, we want to be sure they will be welcome at our wedding. That’s why we asked you that question on Sunday.””

McLaren’s answer/question opened up an opportunity for fruitful ministry where a strictly biblical answer probably would have done the opposite. This is not cowardice. It is pastoral wisdom. There is always a question beneath the question. There is a time for explaining the biblical position but it’s not at the onset of a relationship. What was called for at that moment was an answer that took the questioners seriously as real persons with real feelings and real issues to deal with. The goal at that point was not to give them a lecture in biblical sexual ethics but to assure them that Jesus is interested in them and that He has a place for them (and their fathers) at the table. The always pastorally sensitive Scot Mc Knight makes a good case that Jesus and His table fellowship is the proper place to start thinking about this issue. But to get them to the table we need to insure that they see (in Jim’s words) the open arms of the prodigal’s father, and not the self-righteous indignation of his brother.

The Tall Skinny Kiwi has a long post about Mark Driscoll. If you like Driscoll, you ought to read this, because it is a good analysis of a number of factors that are going to come into play as Driscoll becomes more prominent.

Jack said: ”... free-market prices are the only accurate indicators of demand.”

Phillip: calls that “Complete nonsense.”

I’m not an economist, and both of you probably have more post-secondary education that I do. But I have some thoughts on this topic.

When economists chart demand, the graph is a function of price. When they talk about the effect of monopolies, short-term fluctuations, capital fluctuations, and the like, they are no longer talking about demand – they are talking about elasticity, which is the rate of fluctuation in demand (or supply.) But demand itself is a function of price and quantity. Demand is defined as “the quantity of an item that the market will consume at the current price.” None of the elasticity factors can function as a demand indicator. They can alter the accuracy of demand measurements, but they can’t show what the actual demand is for an item.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have been successful for a number of factors, including:

• improvements in their marketing strategies, and the accompanying changes in legislation governing the advertisement of their products.


• an increase in the “medicalization” of a variety of conditions that were formally not considered candidates for applying medicine. (ED and a variety of “mood disorders” come to mind.0


• an overall increase of wealth within the populations where demand for their products is highest (i.e., we pay more because we can)


• product improvements and innovations made possible by the very success that the companies have experienced (that is, they are reinvesting their profits and seeing a return in new & improved products.

The fact that pharmaceutical companies can and have been “shamed” into benefice doesn’t mean make such shaming any more ethical than the alleged greed on the part of the companies. Compassionate activities that are compulsory are abhorrent, whether performed at the end of a government leash or at the insistence of a pressure group.

Patent law is hopelessly flawed, and exhibit b in that case is the pharmaceutical industry. Exhibit a, of course, is the software industry.

Jack: ”...free-market prices are the only accurate indicators of demand.”

That’s complete and total nonsense, the second such nonsensical statement in your post. (The first is “Universal access to medical care promises a free lunch…” It doesn’t.)

Had you said “free-market prices are the most accurate indicators of demand,” I would agree. But the word “only” means that you’re claiming the free-market prices are an accurate indicator of demand, which is not always true. For many good and services, even most goods and services, they are, at least over a long enough period of time. Other modifiers, however, which make free-market prices not at all an accurate indicator of demand include: pay too much attention to short-term fluctuations, (artificially-)limited supply, false information believed either by some or by all, a supply monopoly, the amount of available capital (both in general and available to those who might otherwise provide demand), and others.

I’m against government price controls and price supports (for companies, not counting provision for people, as in the case of Michael’s mother and many others). I do believe that the market should generally set prices. But you’re skipping an incredibly long list of factors that help to explain why companies with government-backed monopolies in the form of patents and huge marketing budgets are artificially inflating demand for more expensive and often less-effective goods and services, taking advantage of fear and misinformation to do so.

I’m not in favor of the Canadian approach, even though it’s the reason I met my wife. (Her father refused to let “a Canadian butcher” perform surgery on her sister, and moved to the U.S. instead.) However, I’m also not in favor of hiding behind rights while people suffer around the for want of $10 of medication.

Generally speaking, BigPharmCos have been doing well in the last 10-15 years, or at least better than they used to, in providing medicines to people who honestly need them and honestly can’t afford them. They’re doing so because people put public pressure on them, embarrassing them by publicizing exorbitant profits compared to photos of dying and dead people.

There’s more to medicine that pure economics, is what I’m saying, and even purely economically, it isn’t A-B-C, but roughly 26 complete letters involved.

Douglas Wilson has a bang-up post today on Israel. Check out Blog and Mablog.

As Wilson acknowledges, there are wheels within wheels here. But here is the kicker paragraph for me:

Because of what I have said here, and because how sentiments on a volatile topic like this tend to run, it is necessary to finish by distinguishing non-Zionism from anti-Semitism again. The anti-Semite has a problem with Jews no matter what they do, and no matter where they go. Doesn’t like them in Israel, doesn’t like them in Brooklyn, doesn’t like them in banking, doesn’t like them not in banking. Doesn’t like them in anything. Anti-Semites don’t even like Jews in Christ. A Jew could come into the Christian church, and yet there are anti-Semites who despise the waters of their baptism, believing the heresy that blood is thicker than baptismal water. A good example of this would be the contempt shown for Christian baptism by the kinists at Little Geneva. Marvin Olasky is the editor of World magazine, a Jew who came to faith in Christ, an elder in a Presbyterian church, and a man with whom I have had significant differences. But he is a brother in Christ, and a very good man. But how is he referred to at Little Geneva? As that “Jew Olasky.” The contempt for Jews there is of course appalling. But the contempt for Christian baptism and the Christian church is far worse.

I commend the entire post to you.

I know I’m late to this particular subject, but when you guys start talking economics, you’re treading on my territory. Some of your comments bely an economic ignorance as profound as my theological one.

The fundamental rule of economics is TANSTAFL – There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Universal access to medical care promises a free lunch, but it ain’t remotely free. The benefit of universal access to medical care is that you don’t write a check when you go to the doctor. The cost of universal access is massive waste and misallocation of resources.

The second rule of economics is that free-market prices are the only accurate indicators of demand. Free-market prices tell suppliers how many widgets to produce. Artificial price controls distort that signal, resulting in a misallocation of resources. Without the information provided by free-market prices, producers either make too many or too few widgets for the actual demand of the market.

Government price controls and price supports on drugs, hospitalization, surgery and general medical care distort market signals and make it impossible for the producers of those goods and services to accurately gauge demand for their product. Thus, everyone involved in the production and delivery of medical knowledge, medical technology and medical services misallocates resources that would be put to more economic use in the presence of better information.

“Rights” imply “obligations”. If I have the right to life, you have the obligation to honor my life. If you have the right to liberty, I have the obligation to honor your liberty. In light of that, is “universal access to healthcare” really a right? What is the concommitant obligation? Who bears that obligation?

A “need” is not a “right”. You need salvation, but you do not have a right to it. Your need for salvation did not obligate God to save you. Salvation is a gift freely bestowed by a loving God, not the obligatory fulfillment of your rights. Medical care is also a need, but it is not a right. When you claim that Grandma has a right to expensive drugs to save her life, you also claim that someone else has an obligation to expend time and resources so that her “rights” are honored. That philosophy is commonly known as “Marxism”. It is a theory that has the benefit of making those who espouse it sound compassionate, and the liability of having been proven to be utterly unworkable.

Airports need free wireless access for people with layovers of three hours or more. 23 cents per minute? C’mon.

I’ll be in Louisville at 8:10 and Nicholasville by 9:30. Tomorrow is the UK-Arkansas game (I’m in the nosebleeds unless Josh or Joel can get me a couple of student tickets) and then the BHT Meating. Geekiness will abound. Someone has to live-blog this so the TInklings can see what a REAL group blog gathering is like.

I’ll make a prediction that the TR’s of the world will be disparaged greatly.

(posted now because I ran out of internet minutes at the airport and am now pirating a wireless signal from someone’s house in this neighborhood).

Michael: You big sexy “Hatching Church Movement” Stud! roflmbo…

JS: I have one question for you- Are you persuaded that infant baptism is true by scripture alone, or scripture and tradition?

I’m persuaded to my position by scripture interpreting tradition, as best I understand it. That and Fred Malone’s book. :-)

Before I put him on rule 40 so I don’t have to type stuff like this again, let me say that a TR named Doxoblogy has announced that I am part of the emerging church. That’s either not true or inaccurate or a mistake or an intentional lie. I have no idea which, but it’s one of the four.

I tell you Doxo, if I am what the emerging church is all about, they’ve got problems.

Defend- just DEFEND- the right of someone to have a part in a discussion, and the TRs are printing bumper stickers lying about you.

I would say what you are, but since I don’t know you, I have no idea.

Where is the BHT Center For Verbal Violence Against Men? I feel objectified. (jn+)

Michael – Don’t feel harassed – I had the disciples pictured in my mind specifically. I did not mean to be condescending toward your opinion on the matter, which I really do respect.

Put me at the top of the list of people who tend to take themselves too seriously (“adultish”), like to exclude others, especially when I don’t understand how they could contribute to my plans for things, and all around thick headed (dunder-head).

>adultish, exclusivist dunder-heads…

I feel harassed. Is there a lawyer in the house?

I agree with JS. – Given that Jesus told the disciples to quit preventing the children from coming to him, for of such is the kingdom. I know this passage isn’t talking about baptism, per se, but shows that we tend to be adultish, exclusivist dunder-heads while Jesus showed Himself to be mysterious and inclusive.

I don’t think that “for such is the kingdom of heaven” can only be interpreted analogously, that we adults in the life of the church are to have child like faith. It doesn’t seem fair to the text to devoid it of all literal meaning.

“Layers, Layers”

Kent: I think we’ve already established that I alone, of all BHTers, have no accent but speak perfect American english. Travis may, I suppose, be included in the “no accent” club.

Jim’s accent isn’t too bad, for someone from New Jersey. I’ll let Michael tell you about when I commented on his accent, gave entirely the wrong impression, then just dug myself in deeper as I tried to correct it. He and Denise found it amusing.

Great insight on Driscoll, McLaren and others from TSK. About McLaren:

Brian is great at stimulating questions but can frustrate people by not arriving at answers for them in one sitting. He generally wants them to think through the issue before formulating a response which causes fundamentalists to pull their hair out. And Brian’s background is not Reformed so his books will probably never be published by Banner of Truth.

Maybe the ‘problem’ with Brian McLaren is that he’s a teacher.

Jim, Scot and Brian are right and by deduction so am I as I agree with them all. I’m going to agree with Bill because I think I could understand his accent, I know I can understand Jesse’s accent ‘cause I’ve talked to him but I still think he’s wrong…I think he’s going through a phase.

I agree with Dennis too about how if you believe in the total depravity of infants and the salvific nature of baptism that you should get a job as a missionary babysitter and smuggle infants into LCMS churches. Archie Bunker did that in All in the Family (though I think it was a Catholic church) with his grandson because Meathead was a pagan. The Mormons practice baptism in abstensia which is a damn efficient way to make converts but it doesn’t bring in a lot of income because dead people don’t tithe.

If you baptise a baby and model Christian faith throughout his/her upbringing and have a meaningful spiritual relationship with the child they’ll probably be happy with the decision you made for them.

If you baptise a baby and don’t model Christian faith throughout his/her upbringing and don’t have a meaningful spiritual relationship with they child and they become a believer anyway they may choose to be baptised again based upon their own decision/commitment. I did.

Frankly, I’m glad that scripture gives us a great deal of freedom regarding the forms of baptism we practice.

The evidence is this is lacking, other than the fact you “think” and “probably.” I am not sure there is enough “deal sealing” evidence there to build any kind of case for infant baptism. It’s not like “I know” Jesus asked his disciples to wash each others feet, so we will obey. IMHO

Michael, I think that it’s entirely likely that I would have baptized infants after spending three years with Jesus. And I think that the disciples, who actually did spend three years with Jesus, probably baptized infants, which seals the deal for me.

Jim is also right.

Dennis: Wow, that’s not the first “guerilla baptism” I’ve heard of by a Lutheran. I wonder how widespread the practice actually is. I don’t think the LCMS encourages such behavior.

Dennis, I’ve got some stuff to attend to today, so maybe Josh will descend upon the tavern and smite you all with the sword of Chemnitz in the meantime. But I would be interested in hearing any responses to what I wrote.

I am enjoying this discussion on infant/family baptism, but I am confused (as per this discussion) as to the relevance unless you believe baptism to be salvific in nature. If I believed infants we’re “totally depraved” (and I don’t) and baptism to be salvifically efficacious, then this argument for infant baptism might seem logical. The obvious conclusion of this type of hermenutic would be that the sacrament becomes the “savior”, which leads to what my Luthern friend did to an infant. She was babysitting, and she knew the mother of the infant didn’t go to church. So while the mother was shopping, my friend took the infant, without the permission of the parent, and baptised her. She was so excited to tell me. I was mortified. I can’t fathom that kind of misapplication of baptism. But it is logical, based upon what I am reading here.

I like Michael’s description of baptism as a mature, conscious expression of an already existing faith. I’ll add to that with this: It is the first major act of obedience to the Savior from whom, and to whom that faith is directed. For my part, I am extremely grateful that experience was not denied me, on the day I went under the waters of the river before my friends and family and expressed before them and God my faith in Christ.

It is almost a marriage ceremony, if you will pardon the analogy. To take liberties with Michael’s description, marriage is a mature conscious expression of an already existing love, performed before God and man, in obedience to God. I see baptism like that.

The abuses and mistakes don’t negate the theology. That argument has never logically held water. It’s not a perfect system, because we aren’t perfect. There will always be credobaptized people who turn out to be unregenerate just as there will always be paedobaptized people who grow up to be Wiccans.

On the paedo side: While I obviously don’t hold to the doctrines, I think the Lutherans and Catholics have the soundest, most consistent reasoning for baptizing infants.

Annie: I was mostly interested in the word “logically.” Wilson’s case was really good. The best of its type, in my opinion. But at its key point, the transition from circumcision to the baptism of infants, it is a case built on “logic,” not text. And that’s where I get off the train. I would have preferred the case been made from church tradition than on a “logical” deduction that this is the changed sign. I don’t believe God left us with the Bible, but we need to do the right math to understand the obvious things, and that is what infant baptism seems to me to be: the right math to solve the problem of what happened to circumcision.

As to the “household” argument, I think credoscholars have addressed this (see Beasley-Murray, Malone or Jewett.) The assumption that household includes infants for some things does not mean that household would include infants for everything. Do I need to cite examples? The paedo assumption is that those texts must- logically :) include infants when baptism is mentioned. I simply don’t believe that it is necessary for the word “household” to usually mean “all without exception.” The term household could be all-inclusive in every instance, or it can be generally inclusive in specific instances. The paedo assumption is the first, but I think it isn’t enough logic to overturn the great silence of texts that explicitly state infants must be baptized.

Again, I leave with one question: If I spent three years with Jesus, would I baptize infants? I am convinced not, but then again, I’m wrong so often I probably shouldn’t be listened to except in a “here’s one certainly WRONG position” kind of way :-)

Gone for the day. Cya’ll.

OK. I’m off to take my beagle to the vet, then work day at church. Maybe back in the early PM ‘cause I have two papers to write this weekend and haven’t done the reading necessary to write them. (call Ripley)

Promise you won’t drop the baptism issue or lose interest until I get back.

Michael – You said - to view baptism not as the culmination of an EXPERIENCE, but a mature, conscious expression of the faith that has long before embraced you. This definately clarified your position for me. I asked a while back if your stance on baptism had more to do with the christian community you were in than with arguments becuase I couldn’t put it together with most of the theology you argue for. This ties it together and makes sense.

I would agree with you that seeing baptism as a new seal of the covenant is a key part of the argument. If it is not a new seal, replacing circumcision, then it becomes more difficult to extend the practice to infants. And if it is not, then what is it? I believe I recall someone saying here something to the effect (Bill?) – “Jesus said do it, so we do it. Good enough for me.” The nominalistic randomness of such a stance doesn’t make any sense to me.

If it is, then Wilson’s arguement that such a change in the seal, to exclude it now from infants, would have caused a big noticable stink in the NT, becomes pretty convincing to me.

A question in return; You also wrote, Raise them in the Lord. Teach them to confess and trust in Christ. Baptism as the adult confession of that faith and entrance into the life of the church. NOT treating them as “unwashed pagans” before that moment, –
Doesn’t this give a strange rationalistic flavor to “life in the church” to define it as something only adults partake of? And is there still not a bit of arbitray judgement going on? HOw does this fit with the “household” baptisms, which would seem to argue for the life of the church to be defined by family tie more than age.

Hope I am making sense, I am nursing the baby at 4am and typing with one hand!

And my baptized baby just pooped all over my leg. Great.

What Jim said. I hope to say a bit more on this tomorrow (today?) if I get the time.

I think Mclaren is right, for what it’s worth. Whether it’s accurate or not, the abiding perception that the world has of the evangelical church is that we’re all raving homophobes. They have ceased to take us seriously, because, frankly, we can’t be serious. In their eyes, the church’s response to homosexuality is so incongruous with our response to virtually every other sinful act that we can’t even open our mouths to speak on the topic without revealing ourselves as hypocrites.

Thanks to the combined (one almost is tempted to say “coordinated”) efforts of the likes of Fred Phelps on one side and radical gay activists on the other, we actually have reached a point where to say “homosexuality is sin” is almost universally equated with saying “God hates fags.” Again, I don’t think it’s an accurate perception – although to witness the paranoia that some conservative church leaders exhibit when talking about gay & lesbian activists, gives one reason to wonder – but it is the entrenched perception.

Here’s an experiment to try: The next time you’re asked about homosexuality from someone you know isn’t a believer, start your reply like this: “Well, God hates fags. What I mean by that is…” You’ll find you lost your audience at the first period; if they continue to listen, it’s only to fuel the rage of their reaction to you, or to use you as a humorous anecdote.

What I’m saying – and what I think Mclaren is saying, perhaps behind some posturing – is that we need to shut the hell up about “homosexuality” and start showing the same Christ-like compassion for homosexuals that we do with most other forms of sin. We need to drop the conspiracy model and start viewing those who are gay or lesbian as our neighbors. We need to look hard at ourselves, individually and as churches, and see what the homosexuals in our communities see. To the extent that we can influence it, we need to do what we can to insure that any person looking at the church from the outside sees the open arms of the prodigal’s father, and not the self-righteous indignation of his brother.

I’m covering Song of Solomon this week. Ignatius Insight has a timely post, and the entire introduction to a new exposition of the book. (Joel…you will really like this.) Good stuff.

I prefer to be known by what I refuse to negate, so from now on I should be known as the “ananabaptist”.

Bill, none intended. I intentionally chose ‘antipaedobaptist’ for my question rather than ‘credobaptist’. Not to define you or any particular Baptist in my mind, but to highlight what I take (and have experienced) to be the underside of a particular way of defining a christian community. I did not try to make that clear enough (I do try to corner the market on obtuseness around here :-)

So, when I said antipaedobaptist view entail some predictable practices, namely, drawing ever-tighter definitions around who is a child of Christ by redrawing ever-narrower ecclesiological boundaries, I had in mind a rather specific group: namely, baptists who not only do not recognize the baptism of infants as a valid christian baptism, but those who would (or at least be inclined to) raise additional barriers to fellowship with them, and, for that matter, with other credobaptists. I’m trying to use ‘antipaedobaptist’ in a very narrow sense: a species of credobaptist whose relations with other christian communities begins from a standpoint of something like glowering skepticism. By no means was I trying to lump all credobaptists into that camp (I probably failed to exercise due care in how I used ‘antipaedobaptist’). But I think all credobaptists have a stake in what’s going on around this IMB thing, especially if they are in any kind of communion with the SBC.

My motivation: as a former SBCer myself, the actions of the IMB are mystifying to me (and I’ve read more than a little defense of those actions). If there’s more going on besides mere politics, I’m wondering what it might be that’s driving the redistricting efforts. The IMB’s actions (praxis) entail a theology. Is it different views of salvation? The spiritual life? Authority? (I can’t shake the strangeness of how very “popish” this decision was, which just adds to the irony.)

So the antipaedobaptist is now incarnated as the anticharismatic and the antiloseyoursalvationist.

I speculated that Baptists who have some historical ties to the English Reformation and Puritanism in particular will constantly be attracted to Landmarkism because the ecclesiology that they inherited was at pains to raise a very tall barrier between themselves and Rome. For example, Spurgeon:

We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves.

A testimony about close communion from a former Southern Baptist turned Lutheran.

Annie: Reading your pieces on paedobaptism (and Wilson’s excellent presentation), I read these words:

Why change the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant? Logically it makes sense to have a “new” seal when a pivotal event has taken place.

Kathy, the San Franciscol lurker, sends me some recipes for a Friday Monkish Happy Hour.

No offense taken, but I don’t care for the term anti-paedobaptist. That is certainly not how I would describe my position. I prefer to be defined by what I affirm, not what I deny. I am a credobaptist. I didn’t reject paedo and become credo by default, rather the reverse.

I begin right here: How would Jesus have treated homosexuals? The answer to that question is incredibly simple: he would have treated
them as Eikons, as human beings made in God’s image who are designed to
reflect God’s glory in this world by relating to God lovingly, to
themselves lovingly, to others lovingly, and to the world lovingly.
They would have been welcomed at the table of discussion, they would
have been invited to listen to him, to interact with him, to follow
him, and to fellowship with his followers. They would have been
challenged to live before God as Jesus taught. In short, they would
have been loved by Jesus. Not shunned; not humiliated; not ostracized;
but given a seat for as long as they cared to be with him. He would
have told everyone and anyone that there was a seat (or place; they
didn’t use chairs) at the table for them.

Joel’s Baptism Question:

I think there are tendencies in both views. The tendency towards subjectivism and narrow definition based on ______________ for the credo team, and tendencies toward all the horrors Bill or any other Baptist deacon could recite on the other side. Both could be confirmed by a trip to any Baptist church with a serious revivalist in the pulpit, followed by a trip to any mainline that baptized all its kids who are now Hindus and Wiccans.

For me, I needed to hear credo baptism explained by a European Baptist (G.R. Beasley-Murray) OUTSIDE OF the context of American revivalism, etc, to see that there was a way to view our children virtually identically to the covenant view of children, and to view baptism not as the culmination of an EXPERIENCE, but a mature, conscious expression of the faith that has long before embraced you. Dr. Beasley-Murray said that European Baptists do not baptize before age 16. And of course they don’t have revivalism. So what you have is a kind of advanced confirmation and adult credobaptism, not revivalism, subjectivism, fundamentalism, etc.

I think that is the context that most suits my understanding of credo baptism and covenant theology. Raise them in the Lord. Teach them to confess and trust in Christ. Baptism as the adult confession of that faith and entrance into the life of the church. NOT treating them as “unwashed pagans” before that moment, and not constantly seeking the “experience of getting saved,” which really is the problem.

Gotta LOSE the TRANSACTIONALISM. That’s the ticket. Lose it. Keep Credo. That’s me. (And that’s why I understand paedo, because it is much closer to what I believe than revivalistic views of baptism.)

Rule 40 intact, but I can post what someone else says :-) The movie quotes are great.

We are going to meet the inlaws tomorrow. I’ve been thinking of a few things to do to break the ice:

Take puppets. Use them to talk to everyone at the table.
Watch a PSP movie with Clay, and laugh a lot.
Talk about back hair, and why it bothers people.
Read quotes from Josh. Especially today.
Explain my persistent doubts that Noel is my real daughter.
Talk about how the tent scene in Brokeback Mountain just won’t leave my mind.
Have Clay help me do some scenes from “This Is Spinal Tap.”
Explain what I would do if I met [name deleted] in a restaurant.
Talk about the Brewer’s chances to win the NL Central.

Joel, is there not some middle-ground between Landmarkian Redefinition and equipping ordained pastors for squirt gun evangelism?

Rocky Mountain Oysters: the ranchers in Colorado ate those things…they’re also called ‘lamb fries’. I always thought they were nuts.

internetmonk.com ป Southern Baptists and Charismatics: What A Long, Strange Trip It’s Been

Yeah, don’t click the photo gallery on that site. Gross.

Are you serious about eating these? I think I can safely say that I will never put balls of any species in my mouth. Gross.

Actually, if I were to have ‘moral compassion points’ it would be for serving the needs of the disabled and the mentally ill five days per week (for pay of-course).

Our client’s care and medical needs are paid for by state-funded programs.

One struggle that many direct care professionals in Minnesota have voiced is that as ‘working citizens’ they don’t have access to the same quality of medical care as do their clients…unless of course they work for the state.

State employees caring for developmentally delayed individuals make 70% more than employees of private agencies.

I guess that one could make the point that they ‘could always find a better paying job’. Which is true; but you should say that to them after watching them care for the needs of a helpless client. They are ‘wired’ for what they are doing; gifted by God with tremendous compassion and patience for the ‘least of these’.

Josh, you hurt my feeling and now I’m going to go sulk and cry quietly…

Michael’s consternation with the recent IMB policy led to his post here. In said post, he asked paedobaptists and sacramentalists to not comment on the proper understanding of baptism per se. Fair enough. It’s his nickel.

But teh BHT is a conversation, no? So this paedobaptizing sacramentalist is going to raise the question I’d like to ask: does not the antipaedobaptist view entail some predictable practices, namely, drawing ever-tighter definitions around who is a child of Christ by redrawing ever-narrower ecclesiological boundaries? Doesn’t resting the validity of baptism on faith profession follow from the determination that one is no longer reforming the church but reconstructing it from the ground up? By “ground up” I mean: severing all historical ecclesiological ties to the Roman Catholic church. And doesn’t this resting the validity of baptism on faith profession then continually raise the issue of who is really in the communion of saints because one can always question the validity of someone’s inner cognitive state or the validity of some community’s interpretation of that faith profession? Theology entails practice and practice entails theology.

Here’s my take: no one should be surprised that Landmarkism (in principle, if not in name) must constantly be resisted amongst antipaedobaptizers. Nothing is more natural once you’ve determined that the “true” church must be defined in an ever-narrowing circle. So even fellow antipaedobaptizers may not be copacetic: charismatic? Strike ‘em off. Christian & Missionary Alliance? Nope, they don’t believe in assurance rightly. And so on…

Baptists: what think ye?
Sacramentalism: It Keeps You Orthodox (or at least Protestant). Just ask Calvin.

Josh, blather, blather, blather, blather.

Richard, I’m reconsidering the importance of those ‘roots’.

Josh: One label applies to people I care about, while the other applies to people you don’t. ;-)

My mom has five meds.

The companies give her three of them- including a $90 per month Lipitor- free. The new Medicare plan (Humana was our choice) pays 100% of the rest. This can all change, of course, but at this point I am very happy to be an American. Medicare and a Medicare supplement paid almost every dollar of a five figure hospital stay in October, and Social Security provides mom with an income that we can work with. Yeah, there are lots of problems and millions of people don’t get what they need when they need it. But sit in a doctor’s office or emergency room for a day and watch how people try to abuse the system (come to Clay Co and watch people work over the doctors for drugs to abuse. It’s sickening.) My doctor is paying $80,000 a year in protection money to stay in business. He isn’t getting rich down here in the mountains. We may not have socialized medicine, but we’ve got a system that, despite the determination of whole segments of the population to abuse it, still works for millions of people.

Josh, another oft-abused concept of medical treatment is that of medical necessity. I continually had to fight my grandmother’s physician to allow her to stay on medication that was generic and wonderfully effective. His habit was to constantly upgrade her to the ‘latest and greatest’ med with much higher profitability. The money for all those pens and coffee cups needed to come from somewhere and the pharmaceutical marketing machine continually pressured the docs to ‘try this’. Usually it was at an expenses paid trip to Hawaii for a ‘medical seminar’.

In the last 2-3 years of her life her bill for pharmaceuticals exceeded her monthly income and she had no coverage for meds. This year the Medicare coverage for medication begins, but ask any pharmacist and you’ll hear stories of an overwhelmed elderly population pressured to make a fast ‘plan decision’ or risk losing a percentage of their benefits each month they remained undecided. They were also faced with the reality that should their doctor change their meds next week, the plan they chose last week could turn out to be a poor one. I’ve talked to social workers and guardians who found these choices difficult after years of experience working with system issues and particular training.

Frankly, I see the pharmaceutical industry as a big part of the problem. It’s simply too profitable and built on false promises…they industry can claim that the research costs are so high and that’s why they need $10-20 per pill…everyone knows that their production costs are dirt cheap. Physicians do very little besides pharmaceutical interventions, and these interventions are often have nowhere near the efficacy claimed. As a nurse I worked with once told me; “you can get over a bug in seven days, or take a pill and you’re fine in a week”.

In closing I’d ask a question; Why do the pharmaceutical companies focus so much marketing on consumers? You can’t obtain their product without a physicians