Exhortation: Call Her Blessed

Grace, Mercy, and Peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

This church has been blessed with little ones. Over the years, we have had families with many kids. Their little sounds and their joy throughout the service is exactly what we need in this day. The sounds of infants are the sounds of a living church. We need to be reminded that every time we hear the sounds of a little child, these were the ones that Jesus called unto Him. The kingdom is made for them.

We are reminded today of the great responsibilities placed on parents to nurture these little ones. In this day of fatherlessness– and by fatherlessness I do not simply mean homes without a father presence, but I mean homes where fathers are present, but do not act like fathers–fathers have essentially given over their roles as a fundamental part of the training of children to their wives. Their wives are then left with the overwhelming responsibilities of disciplining and nurturing by themselves. But God has called the men in our midst to be an active supporters of this role in the home.

Today, we are grateful for mothers who have taken their roles seriously and have filled in the gaps; single mothers who work hard to see that their children grow up as true worshipers. Mothers are New Eves following the Risen Lord, taking dominion in all areas they are called to attend.

To our children this morning, you are encouraged and compelled by love to kiss and hug your mothers and to call her blessed, not only today, but all your days.

Prayer: Teach us, O Lord to love mothers and may they be blessed in their endeavors and may they seek your face and your grace to live faithfully to their calling.

Memories…

My uncle is a leader in the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARB) in Northeaster Brazil. Some years ago he published a book on the history of the GARB from 1950-2000. When I visited Brazil 3 years ago, he gave me a copy of that book.

This morning I spent about two hours looking through several boxes of books that are still in the garage, because of the lack of space in my office. During my search I came across my uncle’s book, only to find  a picture of my late father I have never seen. My father was also a leader in the GARB movement in the 80’s. Perusing through some of the pictures of graduates, I came across this picture of my young father’s seminary graduation in 1976. My dad is the one on the bottom right; the late Rev. Severino Tenorio.

img

Thoughts on Parenting…

In chapter one of On Becoming Baby Wise, Gary Ezzo stresses that a baby needs a family. This does not mean that families ought to give up their lives and well-being so that the babies may be the controlling force in the home, but rather that the babies become part of the family, and are accepted as a new addition to a family that already exists.

The relationship between husband and wife must remain stable at all times, particularly in the early stages of the infant. The baby notices when their parents do not love one another or when there is conflict. This in turn leads to confusion and fear for the infant. Hence, a healthy marriage is the first step towards proper parenting.

The reality is that child-rearing begins at birth and as such, babies ought to be trained in their earliest age to follow a routine that is conducive to a joyful family life. When the child becomes the center of all family activity, then the child develops from her earliest age a sense of entitlement, which is so prevalent in our own culture. Some parents “instead of building their children into a self-assured adult… are fostering the emotionally crippling attitude of me-ism (23).”

Though every covenant child is created in the image of God, this does not mean that they will easily develop biblical character. The fruit of the Spirit is something that parents must work very hard at instilling to their little ones. In other words, “parents must train these attributes into the heart of their child (24).” A significant part of this process begins by clearly defining roles in the home. Children are to submit to their parents, entailing that there is an explicit authority structure that must not be broken. In the United States some parents work hard at breaking that structure thinking that they are actually accomplishing something positive in their relationship with their children. They work hard to establish a buddy status with their little ones. Loneliness often leads parents to “elevate children to the level of peers (25).” This automatically shakes the authority structure and instead of children honoring their parents, they will begin to treat them as they would a brother or sister.

The idea that the entrance of children into the family is to be the only focus of the family is a dangerous concept. Unfortunately, due to societal pressures, parents cave in and make idols of their children, not realizing that the marital relationship is fundamental to the success of any structure. The answer is that husbands are to protect their marriages. It is a “safeguard against child-centered parenting. (27).”

Infant Baptism Debate: White vs. Strawbridge–Thoughts and Theological Considerations

Editor’s note: I have updated this post to add a few more thoughts on the debate (11-10-07).

strawbridge_case.jpg

I have just heard the debate between Baptist author/apologist James White vs. Presbyterian minister and author Rev. Gregg Strawbridge. Throughout my theological life, I have been influenced in many ways by both men. Gregg’s passionate exposition of the Scriptures has been a source of theological maturity for me. On the other hand, Dr. White has also played a role in my thinking, though in the last few years I have distanced myself in many ways from his theology. Nevertheless, White’s commitment to offer a Biblical apologetic against Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons have been a helpful resource in my apologetic library.

Their debate a few nights ago demonstrates what the Van Tillian tradition of apologetics has so long proved: ideas have consequences. Presuppositions and notions about hermeneutics affect the beginning statement and closing statements of a debate. Interestingly, the debate ended just as it began: the nature of the covenant. White argued persistently that the New Covenant provided only blessings–since it was only for the elect; while Strawbridge’s commitment to covenantal thinking and continuation led him to conclude that the New Covenant is not different from the Old with regards to recipients and structure, but only in regards to efficacy and eschatological intervention through Christ.

Though presuppositions determine all things, I would like to affirm that Strawbridge’s presuppositions is more consistent and faithful to the Biblical text. I do not make that statement simply because of my predisposition towards paedobaptism. I should note that when Sproul debated John McArthur many years ago, he (Sproul) suffered greatly to present a coherent covenantal model, and thus failing to persuade us why Credo-Baptism was erroneous. Nevertheless, however one may think of these types of ideas/exchanges, my conclusion is that White failed to give credence to a fundamental Biblical component of hermeneutics–that is, Biblical typology. In Biblical typology, the author connects ideas, which at first seem invisible. Indeed, this is the duty of the exegete: to bring together God’s revelation into one coherent message.

James White’s main point of contention in every discussion on baptism is that his Presbyterian brothers just did not separate themselves enough from Catholicism in the 16th century, and if Calvin would just have seen a little more light we would all be Credo-Baptists today. White threw out the “T” word to let everyone know that “Tradition” is the worst of all evils and he (White) has no heritage, no tradition influencing his interpretive scheme. White, however, appears unaware of just how much his tradition affects him. For instance, Strawbridge argues rightly that Hebrews establishes that the New Covenant includes believers and unbelievers. As an excellent reference he quotes Hebrews 10:29-30 which reads:

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.”

According to verse 29, “one” and “he” are two different people. Here is where White’s tradition enters the game. White argues, following John Owen (a historical figure; a respected man in White’s tradition) that the “he” in verse 29 refers to Christ and not to an individual. Grammatically however, notice that in verse 30 it is God’s people that is in mind in verse 29, not Christ. The text says that the Lord will judge “his” people. White never mentioned verse 30, which in my estimation confirms Strawbridge’s assertion about verse 29. If White would only abandon his tradition, he would see the simplicity of the text. In the end, the New Covenant maintains the structure of the Old Covenant, that is, a covenant made with believers and unbelievers. The radical change that White argues is non-existent. Once again, let us place the “radical” where radical belongs: in the person of Christ; that is what is radical about the New Covenant.

Strawbridge’s greatest strength is his ability to tie together New Covenantal language with its intended Old Covenant background. Reformed exegetes understand that New Testament writers did not write unaware of their Jewish context. They were not robots, rather their personalities and backgrounds played a deep role in writing what would become our New Testament canon. Their knowledge of Old Covenant language was always influencing their writing. This is the conspicuous reason there are so many Old Testament quotations in the New; there was an unspoken reliance on the Old Covenant canon because the Old Covenant was part of their identity as New Covenant writers.

White, on the other hand, unaware– or better yet,– unwilling to ever engage in this form of argumentation, lost sight of Gregg’s main point: the Children of Christian parents belong to the Lord because this was God’s purpose from the beginning. Of such is the kingdom of heaven; to such belong the kingdom. This is Biblical pattern–not merely a temporary pattern,– but one that would continue to all generations before and after Messiah would come.

Continue reading “Infant Baptism Debate: White vs. Strawbridge–Thoughts and Theological Considerations”

Bullinger and covenantal status…

Many in the Southern Presbyterian[1] tradition deny that infants born in covenant homes are to be welcomed in the full life of the church.[2] In fact, some even assume that they are not to receive any covenant privileges until they have reached an age where articulation of one’s faith is possible. This position seems to be a prevalent reaction to the high sacramental theology of various traditions. Unfortunately, this has led to the denial of the God-granted role for covenant children in the church. Infants are heirs of the promise simply because God in His free grace displays His holy affections to the family. As Bullinger writes:

…we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents.

Baptized infants are the proper recipients of grace and are commanded to live in light of his/her covenantal commitment. To live in light of his baptism entails a sacred commitment to piety and holy living. If one is enlightened (baptized) and deny the work of grace, he is then in the same condemnatory status as Judas. Bullinger captures this idea:

They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents.

So then, it is not a trust in the sacrament, but a life lived in light of the sacrament that grants assurance. The Jews thought they were secure because of their birth into the covenant family, but they did not live in light of that status, and thus, suffered the curses. The covenant Lord has entered into covenant with all baptized children, and infants are to grow in that covenant; repenting and believing that God’s grace is sufficient.

 


[1] For an excellent analysis of Southern and Northern Presbyterianism and how they understood sacramental efficacy, see Lewis Schenck: The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant.

[2] In the case of Baptist ecclesiology, infants are not even worth y recipients of the covenantal sign of baptism. Hence, there is a legitimate distinction between Southern Presbyterians and Baptists. Though both affirm that children do not receive any saving grace until they make a profession, Paedobaptists apply the sign of the covenant in faith that God will keep His promise.

The Deplorable Obama and the Biblical Imperative

According to ABC News, Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”

Plan Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger once wrote: “More children to the fit, less to the unfit: that is the chief issue of birth control.” Obama has supported Sanger’s dream for many years and his recent request for sex education is only a sure sign of greater support in the future. I realize he is not endorsing sex videos for toddlers, nevertheless, by affirming such, he is condoning, or at least, encouraging the idea that pre-marital sex is to be expected. Speaking of his own family he writes:

I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity,” Obama continued. “I’ve got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual.

Notice carefully that he does not condemn sexual interaction for young people, rather he states that he respects their opinion if they choose to wait until marriage.1 He further notes that his own daughters will be taught that sex is not something casual. By casual, I assume he means it is not to be taken lightly. But if sex is practiced outside its intended meaning, then it has become casual and it has turned its intended meaning upside down.

The travesty of such an approach is that for these candidates children will not be able to live healthy and robust lives before their Creator. They will wonder from their early days about sexual experimentation, which may consequently lead to early sex and possible pregnancy for many. It is true that curiosity leads to practice.

One reader commented that of all the things that could be taught to children, sex education is the most foolish. If Obama believes this will decrease pregnancy rates then he is blind. Children are to be taught by their parents, not by any public educators about the morality or immorality of sex.

What must be done?

a) What Obama misses entirely (this is expected in light of his pagan worldview) is that the indoctrination of children begins in the home, not at school. Hence, his reasoning, whatever it may be2 is bound to failure.

b) Christian parents have no other alternative but to pull their children out of public education. Public education has been doomed to failure from its inception. It is both unbiblical3 and finds no root in the Constitution.

c) Parents aware of the immense immorality of public education are compelled to share with other parents (Christians or not) according to I Corinthians 16:14 in a spirit of love. Unbelieving parents may dismiss your concerns outright, nevertheless, it is a worthy cause to instruct them on the harm this will cause on their children.

d) Though unbelieving parents may reject your presuppositions as Christians, there are other ways of making your point clear than through Biblical data.4 John Stossel’s series: “Stupid in America” may serve as an excellent introduction to the uninformed parent.

e) Finally, however the approach may take place, the solution is always a Biblical one: The regeneration of the heart and of the mind. Christian parents are to recognize that children are a gift from the Lord and showing compassion to them is to teach them in God’s laws.

The church has for too long allowed the world to set the standards of education, it is time for reconstruction in this important area. As Gary Demar has expressed: “Whoever controls the schools, rules the world.”

Footnotes

  1. Here I am assuming this is his meaning [ back]
  2. In this case perhaps one is to dispel myths about where babies come from [ back]
  3. Deuteronomy 6 [ back]
  4. Certainly, the Biblical data compels us to instruct others and frames our thinking as Biblical Christians, nevertheless, the methods used may vary. Gary North once said that if you would like to see liberals fear, remove your children from public education [ back]

The Incorrigible Son and the Implications for our Modern Era, Introduction

As a theonomist/theocrat, nothing is more critical than establishing a Biblical view of ethics. Throughout the Reformation, sermons were preached in Geneva 1 and in other parts of Europe attempting to establish an ethical system that would faithfully represent all of the Bible. In early American history, the Puritans developed a Biblical view of law and applied it to the society they built. If we are to believe that all Scripture is profitable 2 then we are not to deny the richness of ethical case laws in the Older Covenant. It is not my purpose in the days to follow to make an exegetical and theological case for the permanent validity of Biblical Law for modern society, since many in my tradition have already done so, 3rather I want to focus particularly on one case law found in Deuteronomy 21. This case law refers to the incorrigible Son. Here is the text in the English Standard Version: 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Many evangelicals in both Reformed and non-Reformed camps have assumed that God’s holy and righteous laws bear no significance to our contemporary society. To borrow the words of an evangelical ethicist, “the law of God is irrelevant today.” This attitude enters even into those who are committed to a Reformed approach to life. But if the law of God is irrelevant, then how shall we then live (to quote Schaeffer)? Shall we borrow the ethics of the Book of Mormons or Muslims? Shall we as Christians seek refuge in the nebulous natural law of the philosophers? Or should we as Christians rely on the Scriptures for our guide; as our rule book for faith and practice? I will presuppose that the readers in this series will  assume the latter option, for if you deny the centrality of Scriptures in the ethical dimensions of life, then this article will make no sense.

I am well aware that this short article may cause some to feel uncomfortable with the Bible and perhaps even embarrassed in how the Bible treats certain case laws. Nevertheless, I will presuppose that the Bible contains the good, the bad, and the ugly. It is often in the ugly that we learn how to produce the good.

Most opponents of theonomy have used the case law concerning the incorrigible son to mockingly say: “See, how absurd this law is! Therefore, the law of God in its totality cannot be applied.” This attitude is not valid. After all, we worship a God who killed His own Son. 4 Does this sound reasonable to the modern ear? But if we fear Jesus’ words that every jot and tittle of the law is to be taught and applied, then these laws take on greater significance.

For those who are theonomic and do not agree with my conclusions on this short piece, I ask that you at least read through this series. The esteemed John Murray, who I consider a moderate theonomist, did not believe in the application of this case law to modern society. 5 For those who are of a Reformed persuasion, but yet deny the applicability of the case laws, I ask that you at least consider my arguments. Many times, this passage has been poorly treated and given only a quick glance. However, my contention is that a proper study of this passage will enhance our view of the law and see its rightful place in our society.

Theonomy means God’s Law. I believe in it; and because of this conviction, I am led to deal with the most troubling passages and give it the attention it deserves. This paper is a weak, but honest attempt to deal with a difficult and sometimes horrifying text to the modern reader.

This series is based on a paper I wrote for a class on Ethics at Reformed Seminary/Orlando where theonomy is generally despised. I have divided it into four sections because it will give you the opportunity to interact with me bit by bit. When the series is over, please feel free to e-mail me and ask for a copy of the article in word format. As always be attentive to the footnotes. It is there where I place personal notes and helpful reflections and sources for further study. As Gary North has once said, “you gotta footnote them to death!” I always do my best.
Note: Tomorrow I will post the first section of this paper.

 

  1. Calvin preached over 200 sermons on Deuteronomy [↩ back]
  2. II Timothy 3:16 [↩ back]
  3. Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics is one of the most comprehensive treatment on the Law of God in the 20th century; also R.J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law. Both of these books make up almost 2,000 pages [↩ back]
  4. Acts 4:27-31 [↩ back]
  5. See Principles of Biblical Conduct by John Murray [↩ back]

 

 

    C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part XIII, Lewis and Charity

    Lewis’ discussion on charity is captivating and simple. It is in essence the summary of the law. Love is that great attribute of God that spurs us to love others and to obey God. This point is worth stressing. Love is never meant to be set in contrast to obedience. Love as John Murray once wrote is “feeling that impels to action… if it does not impel to the fulfillment of the law, it is not the love of which the Scriptures her speak.”[1]If ever charity leads to disobedience, then it has betrayed its Biblical purpose.

    Love impels to action, but to be overly introspective about whether we love is unnecessary. Since all our thoughts and actions will be in some way marred with our corrupt natures, the remedy to love is to love. As Lewis writes:

    Do not waste time bothering whether you “love” your neighbour, act as if you did.[2]

    This is similar to the gospel account of the father who asked two sons to accomplish a certain task. One said he would, but did not. The other said he would not, but he did. Who in the end fulfilled the command to love? The one who did. Whether his initial response was erroneous, that is beside the point. The actual proof of love is that he did do it.

    When husbands wonder if they love their wives properly and yet do nothing about, they are being foolish. Instead of thinking, do some lovely thing, buy some flowers, take her to a nice restaurant, and spend time with her. If we men consider all the time we spend thinking about how to love, we have wasted royal time.

    Some will choose to hate (whether out of their depraved nature or satanic influence) and will never taste of how great it is to love. According to Lewis this is a deadly cycle:

    The more cruel you are the more you will hate; and the more you hate, the more cruel you will become—and so on in a vicious circle for ever.[3]

    According to Titus, hate is descriptive of our former nature[4] and should not resemble our Spirit-led lives. If indeed hate resides within us, we are to seek deep repentance.

     


    [1] John Murray, Principles of Conduct, pg. 22.

    [2] Mere Christianity, pg. 116.

    [3] Lewis, 117.

    [4] Titus 3:3.

    C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part X, Lewis on the Role in the Home

    lewis.jpg

    Feminism is defined as the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Those of us in the 21st century are inheritors of the 1960’s. The despicable state of the family is in large part due to that despicable stage in American History. Sex, drugs and Rock n’ Roll and “human rights” formed the goals of that agenda. But beyond the vast array of feminist literature, nothing has proven more successful than those who have written concerning equality. 

    When feminism and their agenda is in the secular realm, it is possible to give a proper Biblical response to their pagan non-sense, but when that movement begins to masquerade itself in Christian clothing, the church is in peril. The untouchable idea of the patriarchal society has now been transformed into a matriarchal home. We are all aware of the abuses of the early church in respect to the women and their roles, nevertheless, what has happened has not been an attempt to fix those wrongs but a complete transformation of the social and Biblical order. Wives submit to your husbands has become husbands and wives, you are both spiritual leaders in the home and God has not placed any of you above the other. The Pauline logic has been altered to fit into preconceived ideas that have slowly and subtly injected itself into the church of Jesus Christ. According to C.S. Lewis, in every marriage there must be a head. Lewis writes:

    If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.[1]

    Decisions of course have to be weighed in the process of conversation and discussion, but if one is not above the other in these matters, then who determines what?  Lewis argues that the man is the natural head of the home because women will not want to assume certain responsibilities. The reason the husband is the head is because he is to protect the family, spiritually guide the family, and resemble that cosmic relationship between Christ and His bride. 

    God created them male and female in his image. There was no degree of difference when it related to their image before God.[2] But the man is created first so that he may lead his seed into glory and the woman as help-meet is to ensure that man fulfills his duties.[3]


    [1] Mere Christianity, pg.102.

    [2] The Imago Dei.

    [3] The woman at the same time has immense responsibilities while ensuring this familial success.

    C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part IX

    untitled.jpg

    The Greeks divided the idea of love into “eros,” fileo,” and “Agape.”[1] The concept of “eros” is not found in the Bible though, fileo and agape are. These latter two terms tend to be used for brotherly love and a divine love. It is usually common to make a sharp distinction between these two terms, but in reality the Greek New Testaments seems to use them interchangeably.  The idea of love has been a pervasive concept in poetry and philosophy alike. As a result it has tended to be misused in certain contexts.

    For Lewis, the idea of love was an insufficient reason for the maintaining of marriage. He writes:

    The idea that “being in love” is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds nothing, then it should not be made.[2]

    Professor of Ethics, Dr. Mark Ross, illustrates that if marriage does not resemble the sacrificial love of Christ for His bride, then every reason given for sustaining a relationship is futile. According to C.S. Lewis, the idea of “love” should never encapsulate our entire marriage relationship. There is also an element of a promise or a vow, by which both partners can look upon with security knowing that this is meant to last a lifetime. Our modern commitment to marriage is a horrific demonstration of how Christian virtues can be influenced by secularism and romanticism– both fatal philosophies.


    [1] Some add a fourth word storge. It refers to natural affection in Modern Greek.

    [2] Mere Christianity, pg. 98.