Truly this doth seem very strange, I do know full well, to the natural man, to him that is yet in his unbelief, because he goeth by beguiled reason; but for my part, I do know it is so, and shall labour also to convince thee of the truth of the same. – John Bunyan, The Doctrine of Law and Grace.

It’s been 10 years since the Rodney King riots struck LA. I remember the day well. I had been a bailiff in a military court martial all day. A foolish young man got busted doing and selling drugs at work. He even took his two-year old son in the car to buy drugs one time. At about 9 AM he plead guilty to the charges (there were three if I remember correctly). The judge went over each and every one and explained what it meant and what could happen if he plead guilty. After each one the young man acknowledged his understanding and plead guilty. After that was over (it took an hour or so) the judge recessed to decide if he would accept a guilty plea. After a while the judge returned and announced that he would accept a guilty plea and the trial proceeded to the punishment phase. Lawyers from both sides argued their point about the amount of punishment that would be appropriate. When that was done, the judge gave the panel instructions and sent them off to deliberate. That took a couple of hours and we were back in court. The young man got a pretty stiff penalty I think. When the trial ended it was about 5:30 PM. My head was spinning. I thought when someone plead guilty that was it. I figured we’d be out of the courtroom by lunchtime. The care the court took in punishing this young man really got me thinking about justice. As I left the courthouse I walked past a break room with a TV announcing the Rodney King verdict. I shook my head and thought, “It sure looked like they were using excessive force to me. But if the court found them innocent, then they’re innocent.”

As I left the base that evening, I was passed by a police convoy hauling weapons down to LA to help in controlling the riots. The image of Reginald Denny being drug from his truck and getting cracked in the head still sticks in my head.

I was just reading John Tombes’ Catechism about Baptism. Tombes was an antipaedobaptist. “After questioning the infants’ interest in the covenant while delivering the 1627 catechetical lectures at Magdelan Hall, Oxford, John Tombes pondered his views for 15 years before he finally came to credobaptist convictions.” Here are a few highlights:

Q. 16. Did not Baptism come in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.11,12. and so to be used as it was?

A. The Apostles words import not that our Baptism came in the room of the Jews Circumcision; there is no mention of any bodily Circumcision but Christ’s, which our baptism cannot be said to suceed to, as there it is made the cause of Spiritual Circumcision, without arrogating that to it which belongs to Christ alone, and Baptism is mentioned with faith, as the means whereby we are in Christ, and compleat in him.

Q. 20. Had it not been a discomfort to the believing Jews to have their Children unbaptized, and out of the Covenant?

A. The want of Baptism to Infants was never any grievance to Believers in the New Testament, nor were they thereby put out of the Covenant of Grace.

Q. 25. Are not the Sacraments of the Christian Church in their nature, Seals of the Covenant of Grace?

A. The Scripture doth nowhere so call them, nor doth it mention this as their end and use.

Q. 26. Doth not Peter, Acts 2.38.39. exhort the Jews to baptize themselves and their Children, because the promise of Grace is to Believers and their Children?

A. Those he then spake to were not then Believers; and therefore the words, Acts 2.39. Cannot be understood of a promise to Believers and their Children as such, but the promise is to all, Fathers and Children as called of God; nor are any exhorted to Baptism without fore-going repentance: nor is the promise alledged as conferring right to Baptism, but as a motive to encourage them and hope for pardon, though they wished Christs blood to be on them and their Children. Matth. 27.25. In like sort as Joseph did, Gen. 50.19,20,21.

Q. 35. How came Infant-baptism to be common in the Christian Churches?

A. As Infant-communion came from mistake of John 6.53. So Infant-baptism began about the third Age of the Christian Church, from mistake of John 3.5. the opinion of its giving Grace, and the necessity of it to save the Infant dying from perishing, and after Augustin’s time became common, which before was not so frequent.

FINIS

Iain Duguid, Living in the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham:

Praise God that he prepares his people through many difficult circumstances before he calls them to any task! By the way, that’s not just a lesson for young people to learn. Moses and Abram were still in their preparation stage long after most people have retired!

This is good new to a guy who will start seminary at the age of 40. :)

Its a miracle! My website has been healed! I hope the new look is more appealing and easier to navigate. Graphics coming soon. Drop me a comment and let me know what you think or to offer any constructive criticism.

I think I want the Job action figure. Light skin version please. Wonder if he comes with detatchable boils?

This is where voter apathy can lead. Let it serve as a warning.

Speaking of the Far West Region Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Talbot Seminary, there was an excellent parallel session give by Erik Thoennes of Talbot on the Impassibility of God. During the great presentation, he showed a long quote from the Wesylean hymn “Amazing Love”. At the end of the session, he displayed it again and had us all stand and sing then he closed in prayer. This is fantastic because it is where theology should lead: worship. If our theology doesn’t lead us to worship God better, it is a waste of time. Thank you Dr. Thoennes!

Hey, check it out, Tristan Immanuel has posted Part 3, “How do you know baptism replaces circumcision?” of his two part brief on baptism. This is not his response to my critique but it is a beginning of an answer. I like the way it starts:

In response to my latest series on infant baptism, one critic wrote, “In your articles you state that the New Testament doesn’t argue against infant baptism, so the practice of infant baptism hasn’t changed since Old Testament times. But you never cite a verse in the Old Testament that indicates that infant baptism was ever practiced. If it was never practiced, why should it be continued?”Cute. Very cute. But it misses the mark completely.

I think this is a hoot! Can’t wait to see where it all goes.

Friday I was at the Far West Region Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Talbot Seminary. The plenary speaker was Dr. Mark Seifrid, Professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I really liked one thing he said:

We need to think of ourselves as ‘Reforming Christians’ first and only secondarily as Protestants. 

I think this is great since I really believe we need to get over the Reformation and press on. Rome chose her path and we’ve clung to the biblical truth. Let’s stop worrying about Rome and focus on the work of the Kingdom. We can deal with Rome when they get in the way but we don’t need to go pick fights. She doesn’t have the political power to burn Reformers at the stake any more.