Pete's Blog

Why should a Christian go to his church's worship service on Sunday? Maybe your first instinct is to go to Hebrews 10:24, 25 ("And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near"). Applying it to this question it says, "Gather with your whole congregation on a regular basis," but it doesn't apply to why a person should go to Sunday morning worship every week. Realistically, in the whole Bible there's probably no explicit command to do so.

I say "probably" because the fourth Commandment is to work six days and to rest one day. One of the things that the Israelites would do on the seventh day was to gather for corporate worship. So some Christians, particularly those following the Westminster Divines as their standard confession of faith (e.g., Presbyterians), would use the fourth Commandment as a justification to say that worship must be a weekly event. They're called sabbatarians. This isn't the camp I fall in. But, if sabbatarianism were true, then it would be explicit that Christians should go to corporate worship on a weekly basis.

One option would be to argue from apostolic example that we should corporately worship every Sunday. For example, the church was gathered in Ephesus on Sunday for worship in Acts 20:7 ("On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight"). And Paul said that the collection was to be taken from the church in Corinth on Sunday in 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 ("Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up . . ."). I find this compelling, but it's difficult to argue. If this were the only way, I would use it, but I think that there's still a simpler way.

Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." You say, then, that the leaders of the church, the elders, have said that worship on Sunday is the most important program that the church runs every week so all are required (i.e., not optional) to go. QED.

Here's a possible objection. A disobedient person might say that the elders of a local church aren't his leaders. Is he a member of a visible church that other brothers might be able to bring him before if he's in sin ("tell it to the church . . . if he refuses to listen even to the church. . ." [Mt. 18:17])? If he isn't, then he's being disobedient for not being a member in covenant with a local church. If he is a member of a local church, then it's even easier to counter. "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock" (1P. 5:1-3, emphasis added). Seems pretty obvious that the elders are leaders.

Another objection might be to say that leaders are only allowed to enforce biblical commands. The response to that is to go back to Hebrews 10:24, 25 and say that it is left at the elders' discretion how often the congregation needs to meet in order to not neglect meeting. This is similar to how it is at the elders' discretion how often to celebrate the Lord's Supper—whether it be weekly, monthly or quarterly (though quarterly seems too infrequently in my estimation).

In summary, the argument why a person should go to the main corporate worship service their church has (not just the second service in the evening, if it's a second sermon, different from the morning sermon) is be he is told to by his elders.

--

Loving theology, I am compelled to state where my foot falls concerning sabbatarianism. I'm not a sabbatarian. The only defense (two parts: 1, 2) of the position that I've ever heard was by Dr. John Frame, professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. I found it compelling, but not convincing enough. Colossians 2:16 says, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." So, it seems clear to me that it's not wrong to not practice the Sabbath. Despite Dr. Frame saying that the Colossians passage is the most difficult challenge to his position, more compelling than the Romans one, I find Romans 14:5 even more compelling than the Colossians passage. It reads, "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." This comes up in a passage where Paul is talking about amoral questions (i.e., questions that aren't morally binding one way or another, see a previous blog post to expand on this). Thus, it stands to reason that neither celebrating the Sabbath is wrong, nor is keeping each day as equally important is wrong. That's why I'm not a sabbatarian.

I think that the Bible would be invaluable in counselling. Suppose you have a man who's feeling depressed. He's with a nonchristian counsellor and the latter's trying to figure out why he feels that way. Meanwhile, the man is cheating on his wife. This is how I imagine their conversation going:

"What sort of things are going on in your life right now and over the past few months? Have there been any significant changes?"

"Well, two months ago I began an affair with my secretary from work," the man reported shamelessly. "Other than that, nothing different really that I can think of."

"And you don't think this affair's affecting you?"

"How could it? My wife doesn't have a clue and it's just for fun, so why should it be affecting me? I'm not hurting anyone so I shouldn't feel guilty."

I wonder what a professional, certified psychiatrist would say to that. Since the best answer that an evolutionary worldview can produce to account for morality is that immorality is, by their definition, the cause of unnecessary pain, adultery in this cause would not, by definition, be immoral. The best response, I think, that the counsellor could give, would be to say, "Are you sure your wife doesn't know?" Because, if he's not sure, then he might be anxious that she'll find out. But that's not the point.

The first thing the Christian should say to the man is, "REPENT! You're hurting your soul, most importantly." But the humanist psychiatrist can't go there. He needs to look for something else going on. And then, if he fails to find something else, blame it on an alleged chemical imbalance. (If you're interested in this stuff, then listen to this lecture from the 2001 Shepherd's Conference on medicating psychological illness, given by a former pharmacologist gone pastor.)

Not off the above topic, though indeed changing focus, Carey Hardy, the pastor I referenced above, talked briefly about placebos in his lecture and even more briefly on dream interpretation. What a neat subject the mind is. As much as the Bible talks about the nature of man which comes in very helpful in the subject of counselling, it doesn't talk a lot about medication and dreams.

I wonder where dreams come from. Are they somehow spiritual (e.g., do only our bodies rest when we sleep our do our souls shut down as well?)? Do they have any relevance to our lives? On the Wikipedia article on dreams, there is lots of hypothesis but next to no certainty. I wonder whether God has locked the science of the mind to shame the futile efforts of godless scientists.

And as for placebos (a medically inert substance given under the pretence of being a medical drug), remarkable things happen by the power of suggestion. Let me quote part of the Wikipedia article:

Placebo effects can last for a long time: over 8 weeks for panic disorder, 6 months for angina pectoris, and two and half years for rheumatoid arthritis. Placebo effects after verbal suggestion for mild pain can be robust and still exist after being repeated 10 times even if they have no actual pharmacological pain killing action[.]

That's amazing.

I've had a few thoughts about this myself. First, I think that this explains why people of every religion who pray are more likely to get better than those who don't pray. They (we, maybe) are suggestion to themselves that there is hope of getting better, and this suggestion upon the mind has a placebo effect, causing them to get better. Second, I think this would explain why people get sick a lot. Because they psychosomatically inflict it upon themselves, making themselves more vulnerable to real infection.

I'm not a doctor, I can't verify either of those things. But I think they're true.

The problem I have in stating these is that I fear I am granting too much power to the mind. The Bible is clear that the human mind is not lord over the body which is God's creation, He is. So the idea of the mind healing the person still seems an inadequate explanation to me. Yet, the evidence for the utility of placebos seems strong. And it answers how prayer can appear to work for nonchristians in the case of healing. Another problem that I have with this is that it seems very "name it and claim it." Bad theology.

Anyway, things to consider where science hasn't even begun to scratch the surface.

Starting t Today (Update: awkward wording fixed) will start tradition of uncertain length, where I'll post sequences. I'll post the answers on the following week's sequence.

Anyway, the follow following (Update: conjugated the verb) are the first forty terms of a sequence:

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, . . .

It may be of interest, though probably unhelpful in determining the pattern, that the limit at infinity of the sequence does not exist, though max_{nє{1,2,3,4, . . .}}{a(n)}=∞. Therefore, it follows that the derivative of the mystical curve of best fit is also non-existent at infinity.

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

It's pretty tricky. I think you'll need a hint. So, if it hasn't been solved by Thursday, I'll give a hint then. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

Update: Hint: Think prime numbers.

No effort whatsoever was made to ensure historical reliability of this story. The societal conditions in this story are purely there for the sake of advancing the moral of the story, not for advocating a certain societal hierarchy or suppression of opportunities for some.

Wade Crawford was a boy who was picked on for many of his early school years. His father was severely injured in a farming accident when he was young. It was difficult for his mother to find work, as women didn't have many opportunities back in those days. But the community knew what had happened to Mr. Crawford and compassionately gave her a position at the school. (It was very fortunate that Mrs. Crawford came from a wealthy background so she had the rare chance of being well educated and a woman, so she was actually qualified to teach.)

This didn't make it easy on Wade. It was bad enough that he was teased regularly for his father not working, but he was also teased for being the teacher's son. He hated it. He would go home crying from school, so his father would ask what was going on, but would be of little help. So when Mrs. Crawford would arrive home later from school, Mr. Crawford would tell her that Wade was upset, and she would go see him.

She would try to console him, saying, "You don't deserve this; it's not your fault."

Sometimes Wade would retort, "Mom, how can everyone be so mean to me? I don't understand why there isn't anyone who helps me."

"They're not all against you. They're scared of becoming the new targets. So they go along with the crowd. I'm sure that most of them would be good kids if you got to know them apart from the group as a whole."

"I wish someone were mean to them so they could know how it feels."

"Wade, you have such a good heart. I know you don't mean that. When you see someone hurting, though, remember how you feel now and try to help him. Someday you can be a hero if you help someone else. Don't be like those followers who stand with a crowd doing the wrong thing."

"Not now, Mom," he said in protest to her soothe-and-teach combination.

"Wade," she replied sternly. "I know you're hurting, but it's really important to remember that everything happens for a reason. So use this tough time to learn to stand up to bullies."

"I know, Mom. I will. Could we stop talking about this now?"

Wade really did take the lesson to heart, though. He would come to the realization that people broke into two categories, the bullies and the bullied. He wanted to stand for the bullies bullied (Updated).

With his father out of the picture for working on the farm, that put him and his three brothers on the front lines of doing what they could. So it was natural that they were always the strongest boys for their respective ages. And with his mother teaching, Wade had also developed a strong mind. He decided to practice law. He became very competent at his profession.

One day along his career, Frank, the owner and sole employee of an apple orchard came to him asking for his help. Frank (short for François), explained that he and Mrs. Kurt, a lady who had a stand in the local market selling pies, had reached a disagreement. His friends seemed to be doing very well, one had bought a new horse, another had taken his wife on a long voyage to visit England, and another had just acquired a field where he was planning on planting a vineyard. Seeing his friends' advancements, he thought that it might be time to raise the prices on his apples. Mrs. Kurt, who was his main customer, said that if he raised his prices, she would go to another orchard, since he wasn't the only one in the business.

Frank and Wade were friends so the former knew the latter's background, thus he appealed to Wade's sentiment, "We'd been in business this long, and this is how she reacts when I act on behalf of my business? It unfair. She's treating me like I'm disposable and insignificant. If I lose her, how will I provide for my family?" Strangely, Wade was persuaded by this. He saw Mrs. Kurt as the bully, and Frank and as the bullied.

He went to Mrs. Kurt and, using all the gimmicks he'd learned in his profession to be persuasive, he informed her that breaking business with Frank would result in significant legal repercussions. To add to the deception Frank had over Wade, Mrs. Kurt believed Wade. And she sought out the apples that Frank was selling, indeed, at the higher price, for fear of the punishment of not so doing.

--

I'm a poor writer so I suspect many of the details of the story don't seem plausible. For example, how could Wade be manipulated so easily, and how could Mrs. Kurt be so easily duped? And isn't it typical in stories for the person who's picked on in the beginning to be the protagonist in the end? I'm not deluded to think that the contents of this fiction are believable. But the essence of it is happening in our contemporary society with a twist.

The market price for manual labour is below what the workers' unions deem reasonable. So, with the protection of the provincial government, they threaten their employers. For example, if workers go on strike, an employer is not allowed to dismiss those workers and hire new ones. Imagine Frank had said that he wouldn't sell Mrs. Kurt any apples until she paid a higher price per pound of apples, and she wasn't allowed to go to any of the other orchards because of the sway of Wade Crawford. That's so unfair. It is likewise with unions getting the government to take their side against their employers and management. It's an unfair fight when it's the government plus the union versus the employer. In the end, the customer loses because prices go up, adjusting for the union's demands.

This has been fun. I think Mondays will become Sequences Day on my blog.

Anyway, the follow are the first twenty terms of a sequence:

1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 6, 1, 5, 10, 1, 6, 15, 20, 1, 7, 21, 35, . . .

Same idea as the past two days. Describe the pattern of the sequence. Once you figure out the pattern, help me out with the behaviour of the mystical curve of best fit for this sequence at infinity. Is it infinity, or does it not exist? The derivative of the mystical curve of best fit, at infinity, like the function itself, is either infinite or does not exist.

If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments. If it hasn't been solved at the time, Thursday I'll post a hint in the comments section, and Friday, I'll post in the comments section the solution.

If you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

Since the previous one was solved so quickly, I figured I'd put up a new one. Here are the first ten terms of a sequence.

1, 3, 7, 12, 18, 26, 35, 45, 56, 69, . . .

Same idea as yesterday, describe the pattern of the sequence. Also, since I'm not stating it this time, what would the magical curve of best fit for this one do at infinity? What would its limit be? What would its derivative's limit be?

If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments. Thursday night, I'll post in the comments section the solution.

If you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

The following is a list of the first 106 (hint: note, not the first 100) terms of a sequence, {a(n)}.

1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, . . .

The pattern this sequence employs, if it is to contain each of the positive integers, must take on the form above, with no variation. However, if you were to deviate slightly, and neglect that rule, the sequence would be constructed purely on how you define a(1).

Three possibly interesting, yet useless, characteristics:

• The sequence is non-decreasing, that is, a(k)≤ a(k+1).
  
• The limit of the sequence at infinity is infinity, that is, lim_n→∞a(n)=∞.
  
• The sequences flatten as it approaches infinity, that is, in calculus speak, if a magical, continuous curve of best-fit could be drawn for the sequence, its derivative would be zero at infinity, lim_x→∞f'(x)=0, where f(x) is the function of the magical curve of best fit.
  

Describe the pattern of the sequence.

If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments. Tomorrow, if no one's solved it, I'll post in the comments section a sequence that follows the same pattern, but not following the strict rule of containing all of the positive integers. I think you'll find it helpful. Wednesday night, I'll post in the comments section the solution.

If you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I love math.

From Blog and Mablog:

[F]eminism, far from liberating women to compete with men on a level playing field, has actually resulted in a removal of many ancient constraints that provided protection for women—protection from one another. Feminism has not liberated women to get in there to race with the big dogs. But it has succeeded in multiplying the cat fights. Women don't compete with men. But they can be prevailed upon to compete with other women, in the presence of men, for the approval of men, or for the men themselves.

I took the quote out of context, though, it does speak for itself. Read the whole thing.

The proposal of the quote seems both logical and plausible, but not infallible. I can imagine a feminist saying, "That's simply not true." Anyway, I wonder about its validity. Plus, it was written by a man.

--

Doug Wilson, the author of Blog and Mablog, one of my favourite blogs, among other things, writes interesting narratives, they're parables. That's where this quote came from. He's a pastor, a professor, and an apologist. He did a series of debates with Christopher Hitchens (here's the only one with free audio that I know of, three parts: 1, 2, 3, and there's a transcript of all some of their written back and forth).

I am a conservative. As such, I am capitalistic in my thinking, though not a complete libertarian capitalist. Following are some of the truths which make me lean in such a direction. It is a quick list. I might think of others at another point.

1. Capitalism promotes wealth distribution based on merit.
   
2. Labour and natural resources are not the only economic resources in calculations of merit (e.g., a good idea can be very valuable, yet not cost a person a nickel).
   
3. Economics is not a zero-sum game.
   
4. A higher price in one (geographic) place (e.g., in one country) over another (e.g., the higher cost of medical care in the US over Canada, ignoring that the provinces catch the bill in Canada for its citizens) does not imply inefficiencies in the former.
   
5. Money not spent on consumption (e.g., what Bill Gates didn't spend in a year back when he was pulling in an income), and corporate profits are still productive, and can cause economic growth which includes job creation.
   
6. When the economy hurts, most feel it, rich and poor. (Refer to 3.)
   
7. Taxing the rich disproportionately to the rest of the population is a disincentive for working hard. (Refer to 1.)
   
8. The economy has a natural way of setting prices and wages: supply and demand.
   
9. When the government intervenes (e.g., minimum wages, price fixing typically taking the form of ceilings, subsidizing an industry) it creates inequalities which cause the economy to unnaturally shift, distributing wealth where the government deems fit, not where it is merited.
   
10. Government programs (e.g., running a war, universal healthcare, Universities), whether they're good or bad, do not maximize economic productivity. (This one needs a clarification. I haven't looked into this, but many economists have argued that WWII ended the Great Depression. I've never heard someone dissent from this conclusion. Government programs spend money. So they naturally stimulate the economy. The problem is that the government needs to make an assessment of where to spend the money. Individuals are better at making that decision than the government, which is I why I am a proponent of tax cuts across the board to handouts.)
    
11. Capitalism provides an incentive for people to work hard and give their all, while giving natural consequences for laziness and idleness.
    

Some further considerations. As stated above, I'm not a complete capitalist, in fact, I'm a Christian (surprise, surprise) and that has significant implications on the way I think about economics and politics. I know that there are drawbacks to capitalism. I will list some.

1. Since an economy produces maximum human employment when consumption is high, it can tend to promote consumerism, where people store up treasures on earth, blinding them from the greater treasures in heaven found in Christ.
   
2. Capitalism relies on the self-interest of individuals to keep the economy rolling, which can lead to self-absorption and self-obsession, and thus, neglect for other individuals.
   
3. People, though all created in the image of God, are not created equally able to earn wealth, for example, a mentally handicapped person has much less capacity to produce wealth than the average person, yet he should still be provided for, being an image bearer of God. (Actually it's really interesting to think about how God's image is reflected in someone who isn't able to think and communicate above a three-year-old's ability. Maybe it's the way that they are fascinated by everything. Maybe it's the way they are gentler than others. Any other ideas?)
   
4. Capitalism can easily give people an unnatural measure of success and a life well lived. People are on earth to glorify God, not inherently to make money.
   
5. Capitalism has no natural way of punishing immorality (e.g., murder, stealing, racism), so several government programs are necessary, in my mind, such as police departments, prisons and, more abstractly, a government to make law.
   
6. Self-interest could cause a person to live with a scarcity mentality, so his consumption would be lower than it could be, and if every individual behaved in this way, the whole economy would slow down, causing unemployment and poor wealth creation. (This is why WWII was effective at ending the Great Depression. It forced consumption where not enough was happening. I am willing to concede that a government stimulus package can work, but it depends on the situation.)
   
7. If an individual is rightly following his own self-interest, he would realize that having children, and taking care of a child once one is born, is disadvantageous, so capitalism is not able to naturally provide for children. (The question of how much the government should intervene, going against the parents' will, in a child's life is debateable, but I think in certain cases it's necessary. I will blog about this sometime in the near future.)
   

When all has been said and done, there are still two more reasons to go for a more capitalistic system than a more socialistic system for a country's economic policy. First, whether or not you have public healthcare (e.g., in Canada) or private healthcare (e.g., in the U.S.), or high taxes (e.g., France) or low taxes (e.g., the Caymen Islands), as long as people are choosing where to apply for work, where they're going to spend their money, what brand of shoes to buy, the economy is fundamentally capitalistic. There may be more or less socialistic intervention, but the fundamentals are capitalistic. Authoritarian communism failed in the U.S.S.R. and is being marginalized in China (every year I end up reading at least one article saying that China is becoming more and more capitalistic). Like Churchill saying, "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time," capitalism, while it has some dangerous implications, is the only winner so far. (See the YouTube video below.)

Second, an economic system which is more capitalistic, as opposed to less, by implication minimizes the size of the government. In Christianity, we acknowledge that people are sinful, and whenever power is concentrated in certain institutions (e.g., governments) or individuals (e.g., dictators) dangerous outcomes may occur. Have you read 1^st and 2^nd Kings? It's something to consider, at least.

In terms of resources, the only one that immediately jumps to mind that I would recommend is a talk by Wayne Grudem on Why Do Poor Nations Remain Poor? There is also a handout to go along with it. Grudem also wrote a book on the issue called, Business for the Glory of God.

I guess upon second thought I think of a YouTube video that Justin Taylor showed on his blog a few days ago by Milton Friedman. Friedman's a libertarian and he's not a Christian (I'd argue that the two are mutually incompatible). Nevertheless, he and I would have a ton in common to talk about if we were in a room together. His mannerism reminds me of one of my math profs at Carleton, Professor Sam Melkonian. Here's a video of him talking about the benefit of applying capitalistic principles in economic policy:

A paedobaptist is one who says that the baptism of children is legitimate. In my experience, it's not very common in Canadian evangelicalism. It's more common in the US than it is here, especially among Calvinists.

They make many arguments, but I really only find two compelling. One is the origin of infant baptism. If the NT is thoroughly credobaptistic (i.e., the conviction of believer's baptism), where did infant baptism come from, especially since we have records of infant baptism going back to the mid-second century? This isn't the argument I want to challenge, but to direct a word against it, if the early Church were struggling as much as it was on justification by faith alone, the deity of Christ, the supposed eternal virginity of Mary, and other things in Scripture, it's no surprise they erred on baptism.

The other is the connection of circumcision and baptism. That is, the paedobaptist would argue, if children were circumcised in Israel, and since "you were circumcised . . . having been buried with him in baptism" (Co. 2:11-12), i.e., baptism is New Covenant circumcision, children should be baptized. I don't want to deal exhaustively with this one either, but here's a word about this argument: Do paedobaptists baptize their children on the eighth day? Do they only baptize boys? No. Yes, there's continuity between baptism and circumcision, but even the paedobaptist must acknowledge there's also discontinuity.

Also, paedobaptists say that the Lord's Supper corresponds to the Passover (at least reformed paedobaptists do). The whole family, children and all, ate the Passover meal in Israel. But who's allowed to eat the Lord's Supper? Only believers. So it would seem logical that the rites the Israelites practiced that correspond to New Covenant ordinances are reserved for the Church, believers only. But, I've now spent more time on this than I wanted to.

The objection that paedobaptists make to credobaptists that I want to deal with here is another argument from history. They say that children have been baptized for centuries and that only baptizing adults is a (relatively) new invention. I at one time found this argument convincing. Thinking upon it recently, though, I realized the poverty of the argument. For I would say back to them that their view of baptism is a relatively new invention as well.

In the NT, in Catholic teachings, in Luther's writings, and now in credobaptists' theology, a baptized person is always a saved person (or, at least someone thought to be saved). The Catholics believed that baptism saved its recipients. And Luther was simultaneously a paedobaptist and a credobaptist. He said that baptism was a sign of the faith of a person, but indeed, he baptized babies. Seem inconsistent? Almost. He believed in infant faith.

Their position is no less historically novel than the credobaptist's is. In fact, before Luther's day ended, there were Anabaptists (the historical root of the modern day Mennonites, surprisingly, not the modern day Baptists) he was responding to who were practicing what he and the Catholics called re-baptism (Anabaptists are re-baptists since the prefix "ana" is Greek for again). So there's as much historical precedence for credobaptism as paedobaptism.

This isn't a positive argument for credobaptism. In fact, only the connection between the Passover meal and circumcision with the Lord's Supper and baptism that I pointed out here is a positive argument for credobaptism. The others are answers to arguments that paedobaptists make. For a positive statement, read Piper on baptism. For other resources, read this blog interview between Justin Taylor and Steve Wellum on the relationship between baptism and the covenants (long, but so helpful). Also, listen to the three part (1, 2 and 3) debate between Tom Schreiner (credo) and David VanDrunen (paedo).

If you're interested here's a list of contemporary figures and their stance on baptism:

• Credobaptists:
  
  • Mark Dever;
    
  • Al Mohler;
    
  • John Piper;
    
  • John MacArthur;
    
  • Wayne Grudem;
    
  • C.J. Mahaney;
    
  • Mark Driscoll;
    
• Paedobaptists:
  
  • R.C. Sproul;
    
  • Ligon Duncan;
    
  • J.I. Packer;
    
  • Tim Keller;
    
  • Sinclair Ferguson;
    
  • John Stott;
    
  • Derek Thomas.
    

Perhaps, also of interest, here is the position of some historical figures (thus demonstrating my limited knowledge of Church history):

• Augustine (paedo);
  
• Anselm (paedo);
  
• Aquinas (paedo);
  
• John Calvin (paedo);
  
• Huldrich Zwingli (paedo);
  
• John Owen (paedo);
  
• Richard Baxter (paedo);
  
• John Bunyan (credo);
  
• Jonathan Edwards (paedo);
  
• Charles Finney (paedo);
  
• George Whitefield (paedo);
  
• J. Gresham Machen (paedo);
  
• D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (credo);
  
• William Carey (credo);
  
• Adoniram Judson (credo).

I wonder how long I could convincingly pretend to be colour blind.

I doubt I could for very long pretend to be deaf, physically disabled or completely blind (remember the challenge it was for Ziyi Zhang, in House of Flying Daggers?), but pretending to be colour blind might be doable. I wonder what fumbles would be the first give aways.

Maybe you've seen it already, but a new article has been released criticizing the ministry of Pastor Mark Driscoll. It rides on the heels of a column that Pastor John MacArthur wrote a while back, sometime in 2006 (one of the biggest problems with MacArthur's ministry's website is that none of the resources have dates on them). I don't want to quote much from either of these. By and large, I don't think they're helpful. They're primarily arguments from authority, that is, they pronounce judgment, maybe state a Bible verse, and then leave their word in the lap of the reader, not explaining why what Pastor Driscoll is doing is wrong.

For example, in the article I mention, Mrs. Cathy Mickels' article, her primary accusation against Driscoll is that he talks about sex. The whole time I was reading her article, I was wondering, Why does she have a problem with him talking about sex if the Bible talks about sex? It was true, he does talk about sex, but there's nothing wrong with that. That's why I don't want to quote too much from them.

At the same time, I find myself hesitant to endorse Driscoll, mostly because of the contempt he shows for his opponents, and the quantity of humour that he uses, from the pulpit. That said, I find it really easy to see faults in people, while looking past their strengths. And I certainly do that with Driscoll. So, I'm going to try to do the exact opposite hear by sharing what I respect in him.

He's frequently being praised for being theologically conservative, and I could join in that choir, talking about how the four doctrines I used to most enjoy talking about (baptism, spiritual gifts, God's sovereignty and gender) he and I would agree on—which I do greatly appreciate, but I want to point out another strength of his which goes less spoken.

The things that Driscoll is being criticized for are things that he thinks aren't forbidden in the Bible, which others might. He sees no evidence in Scripture that humour is wrong, so he tells lots of jokes from the pulpit. He sees Jesus insulting the Pharisees, so he openly mocks his critics and opponents from his pulpit (to be fair, I've never heard him do it by name). That said, he has an amazing confidence in the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone. If the Bible doesn't say it's wrong, it ain't wrong. We don't need tradition or culture to tell us what's right and wrong, or to tell us about God. Only the Bible has authority to speak on God, faith and practice.

I'll give an example. The Southern Baptists, whom Driscoll frequently praises, in most corners of their ministry have a vow of temperance (abstinence from alcohol). Driscoll says that since Jesus made wine, he's going to feel free to drink.

Another example. Many reformed pastors (e.g., Mohler, Piper) speak of not making pictures or paintings of Jesus because it borders on violating the Second Commandment, not to make an image of God (Ex. 20:4-6). Driscoll on the other hand, has worn T-shirts with Jesus' face on the front, saying that since God did have a face at one point, it's not blasphemy to try to capture that face in art.

Agree or disagree, Driscoll's example shows that the Scriptures are enough. That Truth changes everything. It means that you don't need to worry about whether it's wrong to have a vacation. You don't need to wonder whether you're sinning by taking two days off per week instead of one. Driscoll does a fantastic job of making that clear. He understands the relationship between the sufficiency of Scripture and the believer's freedom in Christ. I admire his desire to do only what the Bible tells him to do.

--

The title of this entry is not meant to imply that I am less of a sinner than Driscoll. I'm certain the opposite is true. But, as I'm sure he'd agree, he's also a sinner. In this post I'm trying to not focus on where I disagree with Driscoll, thus seeing the good in the sinner.

Update: There's been a bit of controversy on this post in the comments section, particularly over my assertion that Dr. MacArthur's column is largely an argument from authority. So please refer to the comments. If I haven't already, I will soon respond.

Update: I scratched off a chunk of the entry because it was unfair. See the comments for why this came about.

C.J. Mahaney asked Dr. Wayne Grudem a few questions and posted them with Grudem's answers (it's four parts: 1, 2, 3 and 4). One of the questions that Mahaney asked was what area of ministry Grudem was typically most tempted to feel discouraged in. At the end of his answer (I think this was the question that Grudem gave the longest answer to), he told this story (it's in the fourth part):

One event that still puzzles me concerns my book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (2004). I had been involved in the controversies over biblical manhood and womanhood for over 20 years at that point, and during that time I had compiled a list of 118 objections that egalitarians (evangelical feminists) had made to the biblical teachings on men's and women's roles in marriage and the church. I then researched and wrote detailed answers to those objections, and added a number of appendices that could not easily be found anywhere else, key documents on the controversy over men's and women's roles. Many evangelical leaders gave strong endorsements to the book.

I had hoped the book would provide a final answer to the manhood/womanhood controversy in the evangelical world, but instead I don't think it had much impact or visibility, due to some mistakes that were made so that it was not sent out for review to influential journals, and I didn't find this out until over a year later, when it was too late for reviews. I believe that God is still sovereign, and in his wise providence he will yet use this for good, but I don't understand it at this point. I leave it in the Lord's hands.

I'm very familiar with the book, so I know how significant it is for the book not to have been peer-reviewed. I remember listening to him talk about the book in 2003 with Mark Dever and sound very excited about it almost being done (though I only listened to the interview for the first time within the past year since I wasn't even a Christian when they had the interview). The book's free online and I refer to it whenever I have a question about the gender controversy going on within evangelicalism. It's super readable, and though scholarly, totally accessible to readers of all brands and types. Imagine working months and months, and years and years on something, and then seeing nothing come of it. I thank God that Dr. Grudem found enough encouragement in Romans 8:28 to go on.

I pray that I learn that when things don't go as I plan, that God is still sovereign, and that He means it for my good.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Kim Riddlebarger (a guy, not a girl), a pastor who's best known (which is a relative statement since relatively few know him) for his work studying eschatology, in particular, defending amillennialism, wrote a funny blog entry today. He comments that Rick Warren has released some new Purpose Driven materials, and quotes Warren as saying that they arrived just in time for the financial crisis for people to find hope in the tough times. Dr. Riddlebarger then implies that it's a money grab.

Anyway, Riddlebarger satirises Warren's announcement, writing an ad for his own books. There's one line in there which I think is hilarious. Here's an excerpt from the satire, and I've emphasized the parts which contribute to his great line:

In these days of economic uncertainty, a proper view of the end-times is a must. To help you navigate these perilous times the Riddleblog reminds you of the two books written by its proprietor. If these uncertain times have you worrying about your job, retirement savings, and 401K, you need to buy both my books (multiple copies to give to all your friends and family) which will help you know what is going on, and will also ensure that I don't have to worry about these things. [Emphasis and hyperlink added.]

If you read the full post, you'll notice that Dr. Riddlebarger comes down very hard on Rick Warren. Just so you know that I wouldn't drink Jim Jones' kool-aid (i.e., that I don't automatically believe or agree with everything certain people say), I'd like to point out that Dr. Riddlebarger's approach doesn't seem to demonstrate Christian love. Rick Warren might have a low view of repentance (at least in application, probably not in word) and he might have a differing view of God's sovereignty than my own, but I don't have any reason to doubt that he's genuinely interested in the salvation of lost souls through his materials. If Dr. Riddlebarger does, he doesn't present it in this post. I think that he should give Warren the benefit of the doubt. (I made my thoughts aware on his blog post.)

--

I highly recommend a lecture that Dr. Riddlebarger delivered where he gives a couple of the best arguments for amillennialism. He also runs through a few of the objections that come up from this system. The lecture's about an hour long and then there's about ten minute's worth of questions and answers. He starts off with a long introduction, talking about the dangers of dispensationalism, the existence of popular dispensationalist materials and scholarly dispensationalist materials, his own books, and other stuff. It's good, maybe a bit repetitive, but if you only want to hear him talk about amillennialism, start at 23:43.