Conversations with a Two-year-old

Aiden: I want oatmeal bar.

Kirsten: Baby, we don't have any.

Aiden: Go to Walmart and get oatmeal bar.

Baptism Pictures

Below I've posted some pictures from Jack's baptism this past Sunday. Our pastor, Mike Biggs, preached a great sermon on the nature and meaning of baptism which, eventually, should be available here. If you scroll down quickly it is almost like a movie. John Stuart shot the pictures frame by frame and it looks great. Thanks, John!

.

.

.

.

.

.

Veritas Classical Academy

I recieved my finalized teaching schedule for Veritas this year. I am really excited about it. I'll be teaching 5th grade Bible and Lit., 6th grade math and a combined 6th/7th grade science class.

If you've not heard of Classical Education or you have and want to know more there are several websites available. Here is ours.

Veritas Classical Academy, Norman

and a reading (or two) from another:

The Lost Tools of Learning, by Dorothy Sayers.

The Trivium, fleshed out.

Dispensational Logic Lessons

As it has happened, the last two evenings I have been in the car when a particular half-hour radio program has been on. Now, most of the time, I quickly turn the station to something a little more substantial--sports talk--but the last two days I've stuck around to listen. What caught my ear was this particular evangelical, fundamentalist, premillennial dispensationalist explaining the first three chapters of the book of Revelation. Tonight, he argued for why the 'radical change' between chapters 3 and 4 prove the doctrine of the rapture. What boggles my mind is the number of fallacies involved in the argument for a secret rapture of the church. Question begging, argument from silence, ad hominem, are just a few of the numerous hiccups to be found in such an argument.

My favorite bad argument:

(1) The word 'church' is not mentioned in chapters 4 through 19.
(2) If a word is not mentioned, the concept does not exist.
(3) Therefore, the church is raptured.

Now, it should be clear that this is a really bad argument. In the first place, this is an argument from silence. It doesn't immediately follow that because something isn't mentioned, it doesn't exist. Moreoever, (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2). All that follows is that the concept of the church doesn't exist between chapters 4 and 19. Unless you assume the doctrine of the rapture at the outset there is no reason to think there is a 'radical change' (i.e., a rapture) between chapters 3 and 4. But, thirdly, the real problem is the assumption that makes up (2). It is never actually stated, but it must be the assumption driving the argument. But it proves too much. The word 'God' never occurs in the book of Esther. It would follow from this assumption that God is not in the book of Esther. But this is absurd. The reason Esther in in the Canon is because God is The Chief Actor in the book. By His might and providence, He preserves His people and destroys His and their enemies. If follows from this that (2) is false and hence, the argument is a bad one.

Yesterday, he argued, as is typical, that each of the seven churches represents seven epochs in the life of the Church. Two things struck me. First, the church at Sardis is that age which corresponds to the time of the Reformation. Now what Christ says to that church is that she is dead. What this teacher claimed is that while it is true Martin Luther did a good thing by talking about justification by faith, he didn't do enough. What didn't he do? Why was the Reformation-era church a dead church? Why identify Sardis with the Reformation? Because...the Reformers didn't talk about a pretribulational rapture. That's right folks. Calvin said nothing about a Rapture, therefore, the age in which he wrote and worked was dead and under Christ's admonishment. (Oh, and there was the small detail that churches descending from the Reformers, that is, those who weren't of the Anabaptist tradition, are just hold overs from the paganism and ritualism that came out of the Roman Church). The next age, however, was lauded and magnified. Why? Because Charles Finney preached. That's right. Charles Finney. He (in part) is what maked the Philadelphian age a good one for the Church. Calvin, no. Finney, yes. SHEESH.

Now, if I every write a logic text, it will include in the section of informal fallacies, as examples, the arguments coming from those who hold to the rapture.

The Joys of Fatherhood

Several weeks ago I was getting my oldest son ready for bed. [That sounds great by the way, 'my oldest son']. This nightly event includes, among other things, changing him into his jammies and changing his diaper. Everything was going as usual until my wife asked me a question. I had just put Aiden on his back in order to begin changing his diaper. I looked up to answer Kirsten's question, just as I had taken off Aiden's diaper. About half-way through my answer I felt something warm and wet on my pant leg. I looked down just in time to see the last bit of Aiden urine streaming out of him and onto my leg. As any red-blooded anyone would do when realizing he's been peed on, I jumped back away from the spray. This jumping, of course, made Aiden laugh--and laugh hard. And what happens when you laugh really hard? You guessed it, you pee more. And more he did. He laughed so hard it made him pee even more on my pant leg. This is made all the more amazing when it is realized that I had jumped back a good six or seven inches. Quite a range that boy has .

Independence Day and Trinity Sunday: Which Do You Observe?

If I were to set the over/under on the percentage of evangelical churches who said the pledge of allegence and sang the Star Spangeled Banner, I would set it at 88%. What gets me about these churches though is that they would look askance at the suggestion that we say the Apostle's or Nicean Creed or sing The Church's One Foundation. Why are churches who are self-consciously against the Church Calendar (i.e., Trinity Sunday, Ascension Sunday) the very same churches who consistently and without hesitation keep the National Calendar (i.e., Memorial Day and Independence Day)? Why celebrate American holidays but not those holy days the Church has for centuries celebrated? Why wouldn't they confesss what they believe and where their allegences lie by reciting, in unison, the Nicean Creed? [By the by, this kind of thinking is the same that will argue against paedobaptism on the basis that there isn't an explicite command to do so but with in the very next breath ask when you are going to dedicate your baby despite an explicite command to do that!]

There are several reasons for thise kind of thinking I suppose, lack of understanding what worship is about, phobias about things that look remotely Catholic, etc., but not the least, I suggest, is that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of where their loyalties should lie. Our loyalties are not first and foremost with America. How can they be? Our loyalties should first and foremost lie with the Kingdom and the Church, whose job it is to exapand that Kingdom. Now, before you label me anti- or un-American, don't get me wrong. I am thankful for those who have fought in wars to protect America. My grandpa and cousin both served and I have friends and other family who have also served. They are truly heroes. I think America is swell. I'm not interested in living anywhere else and given the right circumstances, I'd fight to protect it. But that is my point. The reasons would have to be darn good ones. But for the Church and Kingdom, I am called daily to fight and I'm much more willing to do that (though I fail at it often). For many, the Church is nothing more than a haven for conservative Republicans and if you aren't one of those you probably aren't Christian. Somewhere along the line, Church and State got all mixed up. We need men and women who are followers of Christ first, and Republicans (or better perhaps, Independents or Libertarians) last.

More Pictures

Check out more pictures of the Spears boys here.

Props to Becky

Becky Robertson did a fantastic job taking the preceding pictures. I highly recommend her. Thank you, Becky.

Aiden again

Slumber Jack

Jack

Aiden and Jack

GA Goings On

Joel Garver posted a resolution that was denied at General Assembly a few weeks ago. Overall it was a well-written resolution but a couple of things were especially interesting to me. Here are two of the propositions that were up for resolving.

(1) Justification is through faith in Christ alone. We affirm that justifying faith will necessarily produce good works. We deny that good works are a constituent element of justifying faith.

and

(5) Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. We affirm that the grace of baptism confirms our salvation and strengthens our faith. We deny that the ritual act of baptism accomplishes salvation or creates faith.

First, it strikes me as odd that this resolution was even necessary. Everything in it is found in the Westminster Confession, why reinvent the wheel? The answer to that question leads me to my second interest. The reason this wheel was reinvented was because there are some who would have others believe that there are ministers in the PCA who deny these things.

Who denies these really? Presumably, what was underlying this resolution was a felt need for the PCA to distance itself from those associated with Auburn Avenue and New Perspective. But of these men, who denies that justification is by faith alone? Who affirms that good works are a 'consituent of justifying faith'? Who's the Lutheran among us who maitains that the 'ritual act...creates faith'? Sheesh.

The problem with resolutions like these is that they are too pithy to really mean much. As to (5), the first sentences is fine, as is the second. But what does the denial mean? In what does the 'ritual act of baptism' consist? What is meant by 'accomplishes salvation'? What exactly is the connection that is being made between ritual and accomplishment? Is it something like what the Larger Catechism claims

Q161: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A161: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

What is important to note here is that the writer of the resolution should be careful to define 'accomplish salvation' in such a way as to not deny the Catechism's teaching that the sacraments are indeed 'effectual means of salvation'. Is he making a distinction between 'accomplish' and 'effectual'? If so, what is the distinction? If not, why the hubbub? As it stands it is less than clear.

Now, this resolution seems to assume that there are those who teach that water saves. This, of course, is absurd. The question isn't, Does the ritual act save? The question is, Is Christ actually offered to us in the sacraments? Does the Holy Spirit make use of physical means to confer grace? To answer negatively is to be Baptist. To answer affirmatively is to be Confessional. To wit,

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
(WCF XXVII.6, emphasis added)

and

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
(WCF XXIX.7, emphasis added)

Caleb 'Jack' Jackson

Aiden eating pudding.

It's a...

Boy. Caleb Jackson born at 7:24am, 14 June 2005. 6 lbs. 10 oz. and 19.25 inches. Mom and Jack are doing great.