[#] A bit about truth

It's not a very classy new source, but at least someone is reporting on this.

[!] Baptism and the Gospel

Alert reader Scott Moonen has been giving everyone a little steeple chase over the matter of Baptism in the Welty meta, and his last comment went something like this:

That brings me back to my question: I don't know how I'll discern conversion[emph added]. God has certainly blessed children with a disposition to trust their parents (wince, what a convicting thought). And it seems to me that this trust will in many cases give way to genuine childlike faith — in the way that a seed grows, rather than the way that supercooled water freezes. When does the seed become a tree? I'm not thinking semi-Pelagian here; it's clear that all children are helpless sinners in need of sovereign grace. But God has been kind to surround children of believers with many means of grace; and for a child, conversion may not be dramatic.

At this point, there's an FV argument concerning God's promises for our children's salvation, for those parents who walk in obedience and faith. Now if there's a chance that this is true then that's something worth looking into! But, rather than showing a hunger to understand the depth of God's goodness and faithfulness, most credobaptist treatments of this have seemed summarily dismissive to me.

But regardless of when childhood conversion occurs (there seem to be differences of opinion even among the FV folks), and whether it is a promise from God or merely the way that His grace ordinarily works, my question is still unanswered. Just how should the credobaptistic church discern when to allow baptism and communion? The longer we wait, the more it seems that we're asking for something more than childlike faith. But what, and why? And waiting might guard against false assurance, but doesn't it also deny powerful means of grace that God has provided for believers? Are we frustrating our children's faith in some way by asking more of them than we do for new converts, i.e., evidence of perseverence?

I know many long-time readers of this blog are wincing as they see this diagram, but I'm sure you have a callous from where we applied it the last time. This diagram is my little contribution to the world of emergent-bashing.

Here's what it says, in a nutshell: Jesus enters human culture – that's very standard incarnational thinking. The method of entry into culture is always the Gospel. The result of the Gospel in Culture is always the Church. The Church has two components: the immediate visible church, and the eternal, universal church. All the members of the universal church are saved. Not all the members of the visible church are saved.

I will be bold enough to say this about my diagram: both the paedo and credo agree that the visible church has both the wheat and the tares present. That is, the visible church has members who are elect and assuredly saved and members who are not elect and are not saved. Any credo who tells you he doesn't believe this doesn't know what he's talking about; any paedo who tells you he doesn't believe this probably going to tell you in his next breath that he believes in baptismal regeneration, and those are not the paedos we are talking about or to.

The reason that I provide this diagram is to point out that neither side of the argument that boils over here would tell you that their method of baptism keeps the church free from unbelievers. Both sides will tell you that what their method of baptism does is bring people into the church for the sake of discipling them to Christ. So rather than the pure gold which lies on the outside of the dotted line in my diagram, the church is full of gold mixed with impurities, bread mixed with leaven.

That's important because neither side is offering a sure way to know who is "converted" and who is not in baptism. The Baptist certainly doesn't say that all who are baptized are saved. The AA advocate doesn't say that all who are baptized are saved.

The problem is that the AA advocate does say that all who are baptized are inside the New Covenant. That is where this whole enterprise becomes extremely hairy. The AA advocate says that baptism is initiation into the church; the church is the New Covenant community; anyone inside the church is inside the New Covenant; some inside the New Covenant will break the New Covenant; those who break the New Covenant will not be saved.

This makes the good Baptist grind his teeth – because to hear the phrase "break the New Covenant" sounds exactly like the phrase "mistake in the Bible" or "sins that Jesus committed". It's a non-starter.

As an editorial comment on the AA position, I think it does this: it offers the superficial solace that we can place our children inside God's covenant in Christ's blood without offering the true solace of the New Covenant in Christ's blood. I'm sure I know what some would say to that, and I'd like them to say it in their own words before I offer much more on this today.

[?] Update, etc.

Contrary to the evidence of meta in the previous entry, this is not Greg Welty's blog. He's much smarter than I am; I am much funnier than he is. Although I have heard that he is dashingly windsome, and in that it is easy to confuse us. For the alert readers of the blog, Welty's shekinah is more like the telepathic brain waves from Aquaman in the original "SuperFriends" cartoon, or the brainwaves you see rolling off the head of Professor X here to the right; my shekinah is much more 60's retro. Welty is also unable to do the eyebrow thing.

Yes, the shopping cart to the left has been updated. You can actually tell where one items ends and the next begins. Isn't it fascinating? And if you click on these items, you can actually buy them -- no need to go be frustrated at your local Christian bookstore which will not have them on the shelf. Buy it here, have it delivered to your door, and then read. It's like McDonald's drive thru for decent, popular-level theological reading.

The blog template has updated as well, most notably in the right sidebar. Links have their own special buttony flavor now, and once you click through they look like normal text. It's not fool-proof, but I think it is better than the ugly yellow thing we had going on.

Some of you may have noticed a new gravatar in the comments. It's the clown head. It's not a function of nefarious identity theft: it's editorial priviledge. If you're going to come to my blog and say things which you will not defend, expect to be tagged a clown. Everyone is encouraged to say whatever it is they have the audacity to say in the meta -- just don't pretend like you didn't say it or that you can walk away from what you have said as if you are not accountable for your actions. Clowns get clowned. There is no method of appeal. Live it.

Yes, and I have this new "ITEM" bullet which I am using for these update posts. I am sure it will evolve as I have time to look at it for a week or so and see if I like it. Post your complaints here so I can see what the people who read this blog think.

[#] Welty

The name itself should strike fear into any fool who dares to think he has said something about a topic regarding the Baptist theological system and the Reformed faith which cannot be dispted.

Greg Welty. He's like the Baptist Commander Data -- he's can cite the bibliography of his opinion in detail and then fight hand-to-hand with Ecumenical Klingons and constantly-adapting Finnean Borg without batting an eye.

And who knew he has an on-line paper summarizing the credobaptist argument against covenant baptism of infants which we could have been reading instead of listening to me drone on about "Doug Wilson said this" and "Doug Wilson said that" and "Presbyterian this" and "Auburn Avenue that".

Go read that paper. If you have any questions afterwards, it's because you weren't listening the first time. Props to Greg: he's the most tenacious advocate of Reformed Baptist theology I have ever witnessed.

[?] Field promotion

We're promoting Matt Gumm from "Gummby" to "Matty Gummpo". After lunch today, I don't want anyone thinking that Matt is a flexible, rubbery crybaby with a talking horse for a pal -- he's definitely a rugged loner who knows the backwoods way and lives by a code which he knows instinctively, willing to speak the truth concerning you or any man that lived.

That is, if he can get his wife to give him some extra screen time allowance at home. It's nice to know we attract some good people here -- and it's too bad I'm not one of them.

For the invasively-curious, we had Chinese buffet and we talked about our families and our lives as they related to John Brown University. If you want more, you'll have to ask Matt. He tells it better than I do.

[#] We're just checking ...

reformation police. your baptism and confession of faith please ...

I admit it: I think it's a great idea. We could make t-shirts. In fact, I'm going to make t-shirts. It's a great idea ...

[%] Oh cuddidout!

Just read this by Doug Wilson and don't put a cup to your lips while you're reading.

[#] Wicked and violent in a good way

BUY IT NOW!

I had a hard time coming up with my review of the book The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but the one I have will have to suffice. Let's be clear that there are scads of internet commentaries on this book, and if you want Cliff's notes or some such thing about this book, or a review of the movie, you'll have to go look someplace else.

This book is a violent and wicked book. It talks about a boy who would trade his brother and sisters' lives for a box of candy. It talks about a woman (sic) who would kill to maintain her power over a world she knows is much smaller than it appears. It is about war and merciless beatings against some whose only real crime is picking the wrong team.

So why's it so good? What's all the fuss about? And why, for pete's sake, do Christians claim this book as part of their literary heritage? Doesn't it underscore their own weird romance with the dark and vile parts of human nature?

In the first place, this book is good because it doesn't pretend that evil is chump change – that because good is greater than evil, evil is inherently a small or inconsequential thing. One of my real complaints about most Christian literature is the way it caricatures evil into a kind of minstrel Shylock; a real complaint about a lot of popular TV theology is that it completely minimizes the fact that evil is not just a nuisance but a problem so big that only God can deal with it effectively. Evil is not a small thing – which is why the problem of evil always seems to come up when you talk about God.

In the second place, it makes a clear statement – which is a Christian statement – that evil is not the steady-state of the universe but the state from which the universe ought to be redeemed and will ultimately be redeemed. But wait – is that redemption like cashing in old-time S&H green stamps (which is a sermon I heard once, and you will be glad to know I didn't have a stroke when I heard it), or is the redemption that is not just well-timed or pre-planned but bloody, precious and in many ways scandalous? When the Cross is reduced to a talisman – as it is in the "Left Behind" series – and abstracted from the incarnational idea that God did something He not only did not have to do but in justice could have demanded of those who did it to Him, we have left the Gospel preaching so far behind that it cannot be found except by google map.

In the last place, He's not a tame lion. You ought to be afraid. In the book there is a lot of violence against witches and monsters – some of it perpetrated by things which look like witches and monsters. I guess that's true enough. But if you (and I don't say "we" because my kids aren't exposed to this stuff) are willing to let your kids watch Pokemon and Power Rangers and Teen Titans and whatever – DragonBall Z, whatever – and they can tell you the names of their top 3 characters and what their powers are, you shouldn't flinch over them learning about fauns and talking badgers and a lion which created the world who rises from the dead to slay the witch which enslaves his people. He's not a tame lion, and I hope they get that much right. He didn't really ask you. And by "he", I might mean C.S. Lewis, and I might mean Aslan, and I might mean the creator and sustainer of all things. It works in all three applications.

I love that book – and ironically, it's not my favorite in the series. If I ever get back to this topic, I'll tell you what my two favorite books in this series are and why.

Now I have a post on Baptism to fix up and a book I have to finish reading before I can tell you what it is.

[#] I get what I paid for

So I came to work today with a short list of things to do for my employer, and frankly I figured I get the blog caught up on Derek Webb (that's why I keep bringing it up), but no. It's going to be one of those days where the blog decides what I blog on.

Fine. That's what I get for blogging anyway – a loss of liberty.

A fellow named "Allen" offered this in the comments today:

I think that the issue with regard to baptism here is that we have to regard baptized, non-excommunicated people as our brothers under the same covenant.

OK – I can assume that Allen has not read everything I've ever blogged – mostly because I blog a lot and not because he's in some way deficient. If we look over here, I have said something that is critically important to the discussion we are having: it is a mistake to see the "church" effect of the new covenant as something other than derivative of the "soteriological" effect of the New Covenant. Rather than reiterate all the supporting information in and around that, please jump over there (if you click, a new window will open) and brush up on what I would say against the idea that inclusion in the visible church equals inclusion into the New Covenant.

That doesn't mean we have to agree with them or stop calling them to repentance. If I understand Pastor Wilson correctly, he would break bread with McLaren even while he calls McLaren's teachings dangerous and damnable. By the same token, if McLaren were under Wilson's pastoral care, my understanding is that he would consider his teaching grounds for church discipline. To cite an extreme case: Jesus broke bread with Judas, even on the brink of his betrayal.

Well, I don't think that's actually the case. I think – and if anyone reading here is an advocate of Pastor Wilson's position, I'm open to correction – that the major advantage of the AA view of baptism is that it gives us ground to reject false teaching as a matter of church discipline. Let's imagine for a second that I'm a guy named Frank, and another guy named Brian and I are both baptized as infants and raised in the church. We both get homeschooled, and become very smart, and when we turn 18 Brian goes to college and becomes an English professor, and Frank goes to seminary and gets a Th.D. in soteriology.

Brian comes home for Christmas, and Frank is preaching on the incarnation for the vigil service. After the service, Frank is glad to see his Homeschool buddy and spends a few minutes before they go home with their families to catch up briefly. Brian, somewhat uncomfortably, tells Frank that his sermon was wrong because the incarnation was not a personal incarnation but merely a "manifestation" of God. Frank, taken aback, tells Brian that he'd like to talk to Brian about that in depth, and they make a lunch date to speak on it.

Turns out after lunch that Brian has written a book advancing the idea of modalism, and it is in the publisher's hands. Now: what is Frank supposed to do about it?

In the AA view, Frank has ample cause and ample justification to proceed into church discipline against Brian because Brian is a member of the New Covenant who ought to know better. So for Frank to work one-on-one, and then with some witnesses, and then with the elders and the whole church is completely justified and warranted, and the verdict of those proceedings – one way or the other – is based on the authority of the covenant for the members of the covenant.

And the AA argument against the Baptist (for example) view is that is Baptism does not mean that one is inside the New Covenant, then taking a person who is not inside the covenant to task using the means of the New Covenant is worthless and pointless. Because the Church is the manifestation incarnation of the New Covenant, it only has authority over those inside the new covenant. If baptism cannot be seen as the doorway into the New Covenant on an objective basis, then the Church doesn't really have a basis for all the things the church is called to do for itself in the New Testament.

That's a hack summary, but there it is. And I give it to say this: I don't think that Pastor Wilson would use AA theology to say, "it's fine to break bread with McLaren," though he might. I think it is much more likely that he would say, "Covenant Baptism is the basis for rejecting table fellowship with McLaren because he is a covenant breaker."

That's my guess – and I'd be glad to see where I made a mistake there if Pastor Wilson or someone who might know more about this than me has more to offer here.

As for his multiple meanings for "Christian", I think there is biblical warrant for this -- as Paul said in Romans 9:6, "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."

The question is if we can change the meaning of the word in mid-argument. When you play on the multiple meanings of a word in an argument, it is called equivocation. I would suggest that we work hard in this very complex and sensitive matter not to equivocate on words like church, Christian, covenant, and baptism.

Furthermore, if there are none inside the covenant who are not saved (and I presume by this you also mean "will be saved on the last day"), why so many warnings in the New Testament about the dangers of falling away?

Because I think it is possible to be inside the visible church and outside the New Covenant. See my link, above. If that link doesn't work it out to the degree that you see my point, I con work it out farther for you.

[?] 50K: the next big thing

If the stats curve doesn't bottom out, some time in the next 48 hours the blog will cross 50,000 hits.

50K. Did you know the average Christian retail site gets 800 hits a month? We do that before lunch Tuesday -- and usually twice on Wednesday.

And I mean "we": my counter doesn't count me -- I just post the content. "we" (meaning "you readers") have been extraordinarily kind in thinking I have something readable to say.

I'm going to have to come up with a T for the occation. Limited edition, available this week only.

Nice job. Now what was I saying about Derek Webb ... ?