[%] Drudge Dread

before I say anything, this is what I just screen cap'd at Drudge. Pay special attention to the blue text:



See: I thought that Andy Rooney was an educated person who had a somewhat-shrewd view of the human condition even if it wasn't a Christian view of the human condition. Dude: you call someone who calls himself an "African American" a "negro" -- you fat rich white guy -- and see if it's a "perfectly good word".

I think the left has nothing left, and now all their icons are staggering around wonder what they just wasted their lives on. Even if Bush's popularity stays in the sink-hole for the next 12 months, it'll be hard with friends like this one for the blue-staters to make the case that they care about anyone.

UPDATED: that little media junkie Political Teen apparently has the audio. We hate him for being so well linked, but this is priceless. And WordPress, as of this posting at about 2:30 PM CT, has been overwhelmed by Drudge clickers, so give it an hour or so before ou try to listen for yourself.

[#] Jesus and Losers

UPDATED: Stop the Blog! Before you read this post, make sure you have read this link and are aware of the meta that's taking root at Parents Behaving Badly. It will enhance your reading pleasure by a factor of 10.

There's an interesting blog called Parents Behaving Badly that turned up on the referring site chart last night, which might deserve its own read if you have some free time. They poked some innocent and clean fun at me for reading and posting at a salty blog called "Dad Gone Mad" (which we're not linking to; young people read this blog -- and I know what you're thinking: "Frank -- you linked to Dooce. DGM can't be worse than Dooce"; you're wrong).

Here's the set-up: DGM blogged about his son's soccer game in which the goalie for the other team started crying because he was getting sieved, and his Dad then went down onto the field and started blocking shots on goal with him/for him.

To which, I admit I commented: "Somebody tell that wuss-Dad to put on his big-girl panties and deal with it. And his daughter, too."

So what kind of Christian says something like that, anyway? And does he have to be a credo-baptist to say it, or will right-minded paedo-baptists say such a thing as well?

Before I talk about what Jesus thought about poor losers, let me say that I am pretty sure Jesus never told anybody to "put on their big girl panties and deal with it." Not even in the Message by Eugene Peterson. Is that a fair disclaimer? That turn of phrase, said to a stranger, prolly would begin a fight; said to Pecadillo or C-Train, it would be met with the commensurate degree of dogged-faced shame. It's not so much how you say it, but to whom you say it, and the joke's not funny if nobody gets it.

On the other hand, Jesus didn't think much of people who got their nose out of joint for no reason. For example, He didn't think much of people who asked Him too many questions in order to trip Him up and make themselves look good. He didn't think much of people who thought they were morally perfect and deserved a prize. He didn't think much of people who sold pidgeons in the temple, or who made a big show out of how much they gave to the poor.

But did Jesus ever say anything about being a sore loser? He did say this:

Mt 5:13"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.

14"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

And admittedly, He was speaking to those who have faith, so maybe it doesn't matter if you're a crybaby if you're not a Christian. But if you are, what is it you are showing others when you cry because you didn't practice, or you didn't prepare to compete, or maybe you have have just met somebody who's better than you are?

Are you the light of the world except when you get your face handed to you?

Readers coming here from Parents Behaving Badly might be thinking, "yeah, but cent: we're talking about a kid here -- maybe 8 or 9. It's a little much to get in some kid's face about being a crybaby." Walking in the mall, or in the grocery store, or maybe on the playground, you might be right. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't start heckling some kid who was being a brat. But on the field of play, that's another story.

If I were his coach, he'd come out of the game. Being a crybaby doesn't make you a better goalie -- period. Out. Or suck it up. There's nothing in the rules that says the other team has to take it easy on you because you're a "sensitive" kid, and asking them to do so is really just telling them that you're an emotional bully: my tears trump your superior ballhandling.

If I were his Dad, I'd take him out of the game. We play sports to enjoy it, and if it makes you cry you aren't ready to play sports. Sports are for big boys who can behave like big boys even when they are getting man-handled. Crying over sports is for bookies who are losing real money when the Cubs somehow muster a winning streak.

That's the advice I give to the parents of the kids we coach: no crybabies -- not on the field, and not on the sidelines. And we coach the little kids who might be playing sports for the first time ever. Your kids are going to get hit by the ball; they are going to fall down; we want them to win, but sometimes they will lose. None of it is the worst thing that will ever happen to them, so use a little perspective and don't abide drama.

We are always supposed to be an example of the kind of savior we have. Jesus didn't tell us to be good when it was easy, and He didn't say that we should never expect to lose. He said we should expect to demonstrate that losing is not the end of the world.

If I don't get back to you people today, spend the Lord's day in the Lord's house with the Lord's people. They might all be hypocrites, but there's always room for one more.

[#] the hand off

baptism ?!   you're still on about baptism ?!

Last time I left you all hanging with the following statement:

The burning question, then, is the one which is also asked by the advocate of this view: do we have a reasonable justification – or an express warrant, if you want to be a hard-nose – to say that the way God hands down the covenant has changed from the old to the new?

Good thing it wasn't Friday, because I am sure some people would have taken the easy way out rather than take their chances as to whether I would actually answer that question after the weekend – something I am well-known not to do either because I am busy doing other things on the weekend, or because I string my readers along in order to get them to come back and read my drivel.

So has it changed? Well, the real question is "has what changed? And if so, in what way? And is that relevant?"

In the comments, one of our wily readers has alleged that the covenants are like chapters in a book, and in order to understand them properly you must understand them all as progressive revelation. In that, the "New Covenant" is better because it is more-complete revelation than the old covenants. That's an interesting theory, but it is also not actually founded on Scripture, is it? For example, is the Law a better covenant than the Abrahamic covenant? Scripture doesn't say so. However, it does say the New Covenant is better that the old covenant (the Law in particular) – and not merely because all the plot complications have been fleshed out or all the characters have been introduced.

There is a reason that the New Covenant is called "new", and it is not merely because it is the next one – like the "New" International Version, and then "Today's" New International Version (and what's the next one going to be? The Today's "Revised" New International Version? Sheesh!). The Book of Hebrews says this:

8:6But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8For he finds fault with them when he says:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
9not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
11And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."

13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (ESV)

In that, the first thing to note is that the covenant which Christ mediates has changed from the old covenants with Israel. It has changed! It is explicitly different than the Law or the covenant of circumcision.

So in what way is it different? The writer of Hebrews says it is different because it is faultless -- if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. It is also cannot be broken because of transgression -- I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. There are other characteristics of this new covenant, but the last I want to highlight here is that the executor of the new covenant is God Himself -- I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So the New Covenant is better than the old; the difference is relevant to those who are inside the New Covenant. But is the New Covenant handed down or handed off in a different way than the old? For example, the old covenant was "handed off" to male children on the 8th day with their circumcision. Is the New Covenant handed off by a ceremony, particularly through baptism?

Ironically, I would say "yes" and "no". I would say "yes" in this respect: we can make a fair assumption that those who are rightly baptized are participating in the New Covenant externally, demonstrating the work of that new covenant in them.

Well, what does that mean exactly? Anyone who has read this blog for more than a couple of days knows I love definitions when we are talking about theology, so I'd like to propose that Scripture defines baptism specifically at least once – and if someone has another definition from Scripture, I'd be willing to look at it. The definition I'm going to propose here is this:

1Pet 3: 18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

It is a short explanation, but it is utterly instructive. In the first place, Peter makes a point to say that it is Christ's work that saves – and none who are in this discussion with a piece of territory staked out is really willing to deny that in any way. But in what way does Christ save? Peter says He suffered once for sins – righteous for the sake of the unrighteous – in order to bring us to God. Fair enough, right? Peter also expounds that Christ was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit". That is to say, righteous Christ died and received new life, and we also do not have to die in sin and receive punishment, but we receive new life in the Spirit through Him.

In the second place, Peter demonstrates a type of this in the Ark: some are delivered to life as many are delivered to death. But then Baptism "now saves you". Who is "you"? It is the people Peter was writing to, which are " those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood". Very bracing stuff for us Calvinists, no doubt.

But in what way does Baptism "save"? This is the definition of baptism which I think we must abide by if we are to abide by any at all: "Baptism now saves you not by a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through Jesus Christ." Think on that: Peter is defining baptism not as the washing of the body per se, but instead as the appeal to God for a clean conscience through what Christ has done.

What Peter is not doing here is saying, "you don't have to use water in baptism." Clearly he is referencing the act of baptism – the washing of water – through the type of the Ark, and by explicitly speaking of the ordinance. But what Peter is also doing is explicitly saying, "if you go into the water and come out fresh as new laundry, you haven't been baptized – you go into the water to appeal for a clean conscience and forgiveness of sin through Christ's work."

And it is in that "yes" that I also answer "no, the New Covenant is not handed off in baptism". It seems to me that Peter here says that you go into the water because you are making a confession of faith in Jesus Christ. We can construct a hundred other theological Rube Goldberg machines to say, "well, the Jews let their kids into the old covenant," or "God makes a lot of promises to families in the Bible," or "we're making the doors of the visible church a lot more narrow than the doors of the universal church". When it comes down to the tale of the tape, there is an overt definition of baptism in the NT which we cannot ignore. And that definition is explicit in its criterion that baptism is an active petition for forgiveness. It's hard to justify infant baptism in that light.

There's not much else to say about that. If we can agree that this is a seminal definition of baptism, then we can agree what baptism ought to be. The rest of the argument – like the charge that we are somehow "excluding" our children from the covenant – is hyperbole at best. Man does not have the power to exclude or include anyone in the New Covenant – and anyone who says he does needs to think about what he is saying.

[$] Google "quit prosapologian"

Somehow I come up when you do that.

The problem is you can't "quit" prosapologian: you have to die or get bodily assumed into heaven to "quit" pros.

... and who would want to quit? I love those people (except for Red), and "quitting" would somehow indicate that there's a problem or an issue.

I have no issues. Well, that's not true -- I have issues, but not with #pros. Dr. White has been a friend to me for a while, and the other channels ops are just peachy. They're like evil bandiwdth chibis waiting to torment me for a laugh.

So when you Google "quit prosapologian" and this blog comes up, go look for trouble someplace else.

There's something else that may startle you, speaking of Google: I am not Dr. Frank R. Turk. Dr. Turk is a world-famous expert who is associated with the national Association of the Deaf (pictured at the right). He's a reputable person. I am the guy with the Bugs Bunny eyebrow. I know that you might mistake Dr. Turk for me if you were somehow under some nefarious influence, but to keep the record clean, we need to dispell the rumors.

[$] It's not right to laugh at this

So don't read it. Dr. Mike Adams is perversely cruel to those who tell him he's a hate-monger, and he uses crude language.

But seriously: tell me you never thought this stuff. Tell me it wasn't what you were thinking. I know it was. You know it was. That doesn't make it right, but when I stop laughing I'll give the lecture about Ephesians 5 and the Christian standard of conduct.

[%] News you can use

Apparently, Joe Wilson has bigger problems than his wife's secret identity. Interesting how things turn out when one goes digging.

[#] Shoot. I was wrong!

Apparently, Ann Coulter did not lose it today. In fact, she seemed a little giddy over the Alito nomination. Good for her.

I'm going to have the Magic 8-Ball tuned up since it has let me down.

[?] Prediction

I predict that, in tomorrow's column, Ann Coulter is going to lose it over the Alito nomination. She's going to decry his qualifications as another Souter.

Anyone else have any predictions?

[#] incorporated

Like the last meaningful post here on the blog, this is about a certain passage of the Bible which is used for the purpose of underscoring God's use of families in the plan of salvation. The verses in question go like this:

Acts 3: 11While [the lame beggar who was just healed] clung to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them in the portico called Solomon's, astounded. 12And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16And his name--by faith in his name--has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.

17"And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, 20that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.' 24And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. 25You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' 26God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness." (ESV)

The broad point that the Gospel is for families is here asserted, but is that what Peter is saying – that in families God has made promises, and therefore the promise is rightly viewed as being passed from parent to child?

Let me make it clear before I put my foot in my mouth that I am not saying that children of believers are rightly reckoned as outside the new covenant as a point of fact. That's an overstatement, and it overlooks so many things that I would otherwise agree to from those making the claim in question about this passage.

However, this passage does not say that the New Covenant is handed down from paternal parent to child in a one-to-one correspondence. That's the chief flaw of the argument that this passage is being used to promote: the idea that we can presume that because parents are believers, children are rightly counted as believers in the fullest, soteriological sense of the word.

What Peter here preaches is that there is a heritage of faith. There's no question about that as he begins the sermon by establishing that God is the God of our fathers. And let's also make no doubt that these men Peter is preaching to are Jews, and therefore are rightly called "Israel" in the genealogical sense.

And in making those concessions, one seems to give up a lot of ground to the argument that God uses families to propagate the covenant which Abraham. If we agree that here Peter is speaking to the Jews about the covenant of Abraham, and in that these men (and we can presume that some women, I guess, without harming the text) are the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, what's stopping us from saying, "well, dagnabit! The covenant is for parents and children together – down to a thousand generations even!"

The problem, of course, is that the covenant with Abraham in not actually the New Covenant, is it? Christ fulfills the covenant with Abraham, but He establishes a New Covenant in His own blood. So even if the Abrahamic covenant is, without any fine-tuning, a family covenant to Abraham and his fleshly kin, that's not the New Covenant which Christ established at the cross.

The burning question, then, is the one which is also asked by the advocate of this view: do we have a reasonable justification – or an express warrant, if you want to be a hard-nose – to say that the way God hands down the covenant has changed from the old to the new?

It is a great question. I have an answer on my other laptop (the good one, the Mac), and I will get it up here as soon as I smooth it out.

[?] too much like me

So in the driveway, I take my kids aside before we go out and I hear myself saying, "Listen: this is going to be really fun if you remember one thing: we are dressed liked superheroes. We are not really superheroes. Don't try to do anything dangerous like run in front of cars or put a forcefield in front of a truck to protect yourself, OK? It won't work. This is pretend."

The crazy thing is that they understood exactly what I was saying.

We won first prize at church, btw. My wife had a costume, too. She slaved over them, and I was pretty much blown away over how much she's willing to put up with to be in a family full of superhero wannabes.

And no, you cannot see my kids faces. Those are the rules.