George Bryson

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:23:33 -0700
From: “Mike Lawyer”
To: “Frank Turk”
Subject: Re: George Bryson

Hi Frank,

I did talk with Mr. Bryson on the phone. I assured him, without knowing how he quoted the CA paragraph, that Doug was indeed endorsing the book by mentioning it at all in Credenda.

Of course Doug was not endorsing it in the sense that he thought Mr. Bryson’s book’s conclusions were accurate, only that he described Calvinist theology correctly and well, which is what the quote on Mr. Bryson’s new book says.

Doug is still on vacation, but when I described what I’d told Mr. Bryson, he didn’t disagree with me.

Next week, he’ll take a look at it and probably write something on his blog.

Perhaps someone, like you, should do with Mr. Bryson’s book what Doug did recently with the atheists’ books.

Thanks for asking and paying attention to all of this.

Mike Lawyer
Christ Church, Moscow
www.hishandiwork.blogspot.com
__________________________________

With that, I offer my apology to Mr. Bryson for making an issue of something which is not an issue, and for any offense I have caused him.

A loose end I forgot about

Hello? Anybody still have a feed open?

This is a picture of the Dickson family. Matt and Jenna used to be members of our church, but they moved. The reason they moved is an interesting story -- they sold their big house in order to live is a smaller house; they wanted to live in a smaller house because they wanted to serve God with their money, rather than to serve their money.

That's an interesting idea, isn't it? Serve God with your money.

However, that's not why I'm violating the hiatus to post this. I linked to this video about a month ago:



In 2 weeks, Matt is slated to start work in Carrollton, TX, with Gospel for Asia.

Because 100% of all money given to Gospel for Asia for missions work is sent to the mission field, the home team missionary staff must raise their own financial support. The Dickson's goal is to raise a total of $3,600/month in support to meet their family's salary and insurance needs. This support is provided by those who feel led by God to partner with them in helping reach the 2.7 billion people who have never heard the Gospel.

Today, they have sufficient support in one-time gifts to make the move, but they are short by about a third in continuing dollars. Rather than overwhelm you with what a third looks like, here's what I'm thinking. Go to their blog, read their story, watch the video a second time (you didn't watch it the first time? One of my readers?), and send them a commitment for on-going support.

Now, under normal circumstances, about 300-400 people a day read the blog. With the hiatus being all official and what-not, there are maybe a couple-hundred hard-core hangers-on who are reading today. In that, I'm going to make two specific requests:

[1] Al Sends: contact Matt and Jenna and see if you can plug them on your radio show, dude. If you can't support them with $20 a month for the next 5 years, maybe you can get their story into the ears of 50 people who can. Even if they are Presbyterians.

[2] The rest of you: Think about $10/month to support this family who is going to serve God rather than money. Matt is giving up a great job -- the kind most of us are still clawing up the ladder to get -- in order to go and serve the Gospel with the talents he has. Jenna is, well, following him there, and taking 3 boys under the age of 10 without any questions. If 100 people can commit to give $10/month for the next 5 years, it will be a foothold for the Dicksons in their new life in world missions.

This of it this way: there are usually about 22 week days in any given month. Get a jar, and label it "Jesus Loves Matt and Jenna". Every week day, when you come home from work, drop 2 quarters out of your pocket change into that jar rather than dropping those quarters in the ash tray of your car. And when you drop that money in there, pray like this: "Father -- I'm grateful that at the end of the day I have a place to stay safely, and I have more than enough to live on. These two quarters are a gift which I usually take for granted, but today I'm not going to treat the extra you gave me as if it was worthless. Bless this money and the work of those it is going to support. Keep the Dicksons safe, and thank you for their example about what my priorities ought to be. I love you, God, and I am glad I can remember your grace even in this small way. May your name be glorified in this. Amen."

At the end of the first month, you can send the Dicksons $10, and you can keep $1 for an ice cream cone or something -- maybe the hardcore among you will give that $1 to your church as a love offering. But listen: even though this isn't Katrina or anything, this is the time we have to answer the question about who we serve.

Ok, ok ...

What a terrible week to give up blogging, but this is really the last one:

Here we have a Mormon defending a Hindu as if either of them believes in the same god. It's just too much.

Somebody please blog this. Please.

Hiatus

I've been on vacation for almost two weeks, which was nice. However, part of that time was spent assessing personal priorities, and it turns out that as much as I like blogging and believe I have something to say, it's at the bottom of the list of personal priorities -- and things which I say I value more than the blog are getting pushed out.

For example, I have a lot of weight to lose; you can't lose weight if you don't exercise, and I only have a fixed number of hours in the day. I also have two children who deserve to have a better Dad than the one who sits in front of that stupid flat screen monitor half the time, and I have a wife who works much harder than the average wife who deserves not to have to work that hard -- she deserves to have a better husband than I am.

There are also the issues of whether I am doing in real life what I blog so passionately about here, and again there being only so many hours in the day, you get the idea. What about my church? What about that trailer park? What about my pastor? What about the Gospel and lost people?

So that all said, thanks to you loyal readers. Keep your powder dry. booyah.

Loose Ends

• The Jon Zens paper didn't get finished here, but you can figure out the rest if you understand the stuff I have already posted. It will be on the top of the list of things to finish.
• I prolly have some snarky comments about GUTS Church which I could muster, but I don't have that kind of energy right now.
There's about to be an extended exchange at D-Blog with Dan Edelen about the Charismatic gifts. I'm sure it will be interesting

If you have something you need to remind me about, drop it in the meta. I'm sure I'll get back to it eventually.

Little is much

Listen to this 3-minute MP3 from John Piper and then ask yourself: will I trust God to say something right about Jesus to someone today?

Just say something. You.

Mean Calvinists, part 54671

You should read this post by my friend Mark. In the comments, where George Bryson makes an appearance, will be an educational experience.

Presby-schmerians

There's this little throw-down opening up at Doug Wilson's blog over what credobaptism "means", and one commenter tossed out this doozy:

A word about baptistic baptism. I grew up in the Church of Christ, where, even though they'd rather be stoned to death than be called a "Baptist," nevertheless their concept of baptism is uber-baptistic.

There is more to the credo part of credobaptism than just a "background check," or even "confirmation." Underlying the baptistic concept of baptism is the philosophical premise that God does not interfere with the unadulterated, absolute free will of men (who, by the way, are morally tabula-rasa at birth).

In other words, credobaptism, at its foundation, is an explicit denial of both God's sovereignty in the area of human will, and the fact that man is dead in sin. This is why it is so repulsive. And this is primarily why I left the COC ("this" being the denials, not the symptomatic credo-stuff).

So when a COC elder or a Baptist pastor starts the interrogation, what they're looking for is: 1)some kind of evidence that the baptismal candidate has reached the mental age where (the philosophical argument goes) she can be reasonably expected to exercise a high level of beloved rationality, and 2)some evidence that the candidate has in fact used her rational ability to remove her own heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh (all by herself).

Uuugghhhh... I believed that stuff for 30 years...

Yeah. Whatever. My first response was that this was dumb-factor of 12 on a scale of 5, and I invited our blog friend here to D-Blog this subject, but he passed. Instead, he wanted to know where his opinion went south, and I told him something like what follows.

That said, the "interview" is seeking evidence of faith. Just like in a paedo church prior to confirmation when they comb over the catechism so as to confirm (hence ...) the evidence of faith, so does the ordained baptist malcontent when he asks for one's "testimony".

Seeking the evidence of faith does not imply the superiority of free will over God's sovereignty. It seeks to announce His sovereign action through Baptism. Baptism is for the faithful not for anyone we hope will get faith.
For example, when John the Alcoholic gets baptized at age 47 because Pastor Abe at First Proper Presbyterian evangelized him at the barber shop, presbyterians would not then go an baptize all of Abe's college age atheist children, would they? Why not -- because human free will is sovereign? Or because baptism is for those in faith? See - if what is at issue is that faith is promised to the children of the faithful, then the age of the person gaining faith shouldn't matter. And that goes double for the classic "household baptisms" defense. "Households" in those days were often extended family deals - so what do we do with that if we go paedo on the one hand?

Those adult kids of John the Alcoholic don't have a reservation at the fount just because Dad is suddenly regenerate: why would the infant kids?
I know there's a WCF answer to this, but it only answers the latter half of the question -- not the former half. It ignores the former half.
The comeback was classic:

Whoa, hoss. First, adults who display an obvious lack of faith are presumed to be unfaithful precisely because all the evidence says that they are. Infant children of covenant parents are presumed to be faithful precisely because all the evidence says they are.

Second, you must recognise that credo-baptism is no more "reliable" a measure of true faith than paedobaptism. In both cases, those administering the sign of the covenant are relying upon God's promises concerning covenant status. John says that no man can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (good enough for the credo-b). And Paul says "but now your children are holy" (good enough for the paedo-b). In neither case do you get a signed, notarized certificate, and in both cases you get the occasional bad apple, which apparently is okay with God, if circumcission is any indicator.

See: the presumption that someone has faith because their parents have faith is fine - unless they do things bad by their own free will. Then we can judge them sinners who need to repent. So while LongShot here wants to pin some kind of crypto-pelagianism on baptists, he's a crypto-pelagian as well because of the value he hangs on bad works.

See: what makes us sinners is not the sin we do - it's our nature. We have this sin nature which makes us sinners. And the question is whether there is a faith which lives inside us as a result of Grace. Baptism is a demonstration of what God has done in us, not what he might do in the future.

Last off, there’s no question there are some false credobaptisms. But let’s be serious: is anyone saying there are –fewer- false paedobaptisms? How about in churches ordaining women and openly-gay men? The objection is hollow when we think about what one of the objectives of baptism is – which is that it brings those who are called by God to Him and demonstrates His work upon them.

No seriously: NOW I am going on vacation.

Candies and Nuts

From the e-mail bag, before I go on vacation:

Date:  Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Frank Turk"
Subject:  Re: Maybe she should have left
To: "Coram Deo" 

Notes below.  If you want a sound bite for your blog
or whatever, I'm sure you can find a way to position
me in the worst like possible using something from
below.

--- Coram Deo  wrote:

> Frank,
> 
> Long time no speak (mostly due to being banned from
> both your blog & Pyro), 
> but nonetheless I thought I'd share this one with
> you.

Wow.  How nice of you to share.  It's odd that you
don't remember being banned for giving lectures --
that you just say things and don't defend them, and
are unwilling to defend them, and what you say doesn't
lie up to any facts.

Just being banned.  That says something -- about
-you-.  Too bad you don't know what that is.

> I guess your pastor calling the police and having
> you dragged from church in 
> handcuffs is grounds to leave your local church even
> in Frank Turk's world, 
> right?  Or maybe not?

Because you are a reactionary who doesn't read
anything thoroughly, you have apparently missed this
part of the story:

[QUOTE]
According to Mrs. Caskey, she contacted her lawyer and
asked her to represent her in the meeting at the
church. The meeting was not held, and through friends
in the small town of Allen, Caskey was told that “they
were going to try and dismiss me from the church.”
[/QUOTE]

Now, let me ask you -- where, in my recent series of
posts, have I ever advocated going back to a church
that you have been thrown out of?  Anywhere?  List one
post.

Yes: the meeting "was not held".  The fact that they
notified her that they wanted to hold it would be
enough to tell me -- and any reasonable person -- that
she is not wanted there.  However, she never
followed up as to why the meeting wasn't held.  The
article doesn't say why it wasn't held.  But she knew
that she was no longer welcome.

If you can point me to where I said, "go back until
they carry you out in cuffs," you can then have some
royal indignation.  Until then, You are only
demonstrating to me that I did a really smart thing by
banning you.  You're an ignoramus who thinks that he
has some moral high-ground from which to issue edicts.

> Perhaps this gray haired
> saint should just take it up 
> with the elders after she's been sprung from the
> pokey?  Oh, and how about 
> the other members?  Her children, grandchildren and
> other family, her 
> brothers and sisters in the Lord beside whom she's
> faithfully served 
> alongside for 50 years, I guess so long as they're
> not being arrested and 
> dragged from service they ought to just stay put and
> remain under their 
> loving pastor's authority and care, right?

No.  She shouldn't have gone back.  Do I think her
"pastor" did something despicable and vile?  Why yes:
yes I do.  I think he's the villain in this little
morality play.  But he's a villain who has been
enabled by all those who left and so-called elders who
have no way to hold him accountable.

Mrs. Caskey is certainly one victim in this event. 
But it seems rather stupid to go back when one is
being actively told they are not welcome, doesn't it? 
You might paint this as her being persecuted -- and I
might find a way to agree with you about that.  But
isn't that /what we should expect/ when we stand up
for Christ against the world?

When a worldly man takes over a church as pastor, it's
the Gospel against his slice of the world.  We should
expect the world to hate us.

Shouldn't we?

> Coram

To save you some time, I'm going to post this e-mail
to my blog for people's summer reading.    Then, when
you mis-represent me (again) you can link to that post
so people can see the whole conversation.

Happy 4th -- don't handle any lit fireworks.

in Christ,

Frank

UPDATED: here's CoramDeo's reply, via e-mail:

Thanks for taking the time to reply Frank.

I wasn't sure I'd hear back from you,
but the tone and content of your 
response is about what I expected.
I do pray that the Lord will open your 
eyes to the truth someday soon in
order that He might use your not 
inconsiderable gifts for His glory as
opposed to their current wasteful
misuse defending the harlot apostate church.

Enjoy your vacation and God bless.

Coram Deo

What a guy.

Just one. No, really ...

After a week of listening to guys like Roy Hargrave and Tom Ascol speak (yeah, yeah, David Wells ...), I'm full. Not another bite. I couldn't read a single word of Zens paper even as a purgative.

However, I do have a question for anyone reading this blog today -- and it stems from some things that happened to me and Dan and Phil not directly related to the Founders Conference, or related to anyone we saw at the conference.

Let's imagine you're a pastor, and you have a statement of faith which begins like this:

We believe:

the Bible is God's Word. It is accurate, authoritative and applicable to our every day lives. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

Seriously now: good on you. That's real meat -- real Confessional foundations there. That's where any other statement about the faith you could make would have a place to stand as you roll out your convictions.

But then let's imaging that this is the rest of your statement of faith:

there is one God who is the Creator of all things and is eternally existent in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. (John 14:18-27)

that man was created in God's image, but is separated from God by sin. His only hope of redemption is in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Gen. 1:26-31, 3:1-7; Romans 5:12-21)

in salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

that our eternal destination of either Heaven or hell is determined by our response to the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 3:16-17, 5:24)

in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as a subsequent gift to salvation. (Acts 19:1-6)

it is the Father's will for believers to become whole, healthy and successful in all areas of life. Because of the fall, many may not receive the full benefits of God's will while on earth. That fact, though, should never prevent all believers from seeking the full benefits of Christ's provision in order to better serve others.

1) Spiritual (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)

2) Mental (Philippians 4:7-8)

3) Physical (1 Peter 2:24 )

4) Financial (2 Corinthians 9:6-10)

As they say: that's it. That's the whole statement of faith.

Without getting all fisky over the problems evident in this affirmation, let me ask you: if the Bible is "God's Word ... accurate, authoritative and applicable to our every day lives", this statement of faith seems to leave out, well, most of the Bible.

I couldn't say much more today without passing out from theological overload, but I want you to think about this: if this is a valid statement of faith for a church, why would anyone have a reason to attend that church faithfully? Would attendance even be on your radar?

I know it is for you people. Be in the Lord's house on the Lord's day with the Lord's people this weekend, and try to treat the "accurate, authoritative and applicable" Word of God as if it has more than 27 verses of Scripture in it. Because you know what? It does -- and they are.