By Farther Steps

Reformed and Reforming, semper reformanda to Christ's glory.

Archive for July, 2007

Hell Under Fire?

INTRODUCTION

The Biblical doctrine of hell is not a popular subject in our postmodern world. The notion of it offends popular sensibilities. Even Christians get a bit uneasy with the subject. And yet, Jesus preached on it often. John, in Revelation didn’t shy away from it. We’ve seen the stereotypes of preachers (typically sweaty Southerners) who appear to preach on little else. But they’re outdated, right? I’m going to spend a bit of time working through the subject to see how outdated hell is.

There have been defections within the evangelical camp on this issue. I’ve commented on Bart Campolo‘s abandonment of the doctrine. This American Life had a show on heretics (11/20/06) and they highlighted Carlton Pearson’s abandonment of the doctrine. Pearson was a popular, Black, charismatic preacher in case you’ve never heard of him. I even came across someone who says he’s a Reformed Baptist who denies the eternality of hell. While not an abandonment of the doctrine, it is an alteration of it. John Stott, an otherwise exceptional evangelical teacher, embraces a similar alteration of the traditional understanding of hell.

When salvation is merely temporal, i.e. no more than “changed lives”, an eternal hell makes little sense. I think that if we had a greater appreciation for what salvation means, we’d have a greater appreciation for what we’ve been saved from.I am not one to defend traditional understandings simply because they are traditional. I believe in the Reformed doctrine of ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est, that is that the church is reformed and always reforming. That doesn’t mean that we’re always changing our doctrine, it means that we need to continually check our doctrine. Are we being as Biblical as we can? I think this question needs to be asked of the doctrine of hell because of the societal pressure away from the notion.

The doctrine of hell is not esoteric, eschatological argument fodder. It has implications here and now as well as in eternity. During the Da Vinci Code hubbub last summer our church had a Sunday school class on the divinity of Jesus and the issue of hell came up. Did Jesus descend into hell? Christians have had different opinions on that question for quite a while and my wife mentioned that perhaps if we understood the doctrine of hell better we might be able to better answer that question. I think she’s very right.

So why all the recent drift on the doctrine? Perhaps there is a cultural influence that is driving the evangelical boat in an odd direction on this. I mean, when salvation is merely temporal, i.e. no more than “changed lives”, an eternal hell makes little sense. It seems that if we had a greater appreciation for what salvation means, we’d have a greater appreciation for what we’ve been saved from. We aren’t saved merely from destructive patterns in our lives, we’re saved from the very wrath of God (Rom 5:9).

Still, dealing directly with all of the positions on hell would be a book-length project. For a simple blogger that’s too much. Let me instead address what I believe is a common misconception of what hell is and hopefully that will at least lead in to some of the objections.

Right off, let me say that I believe that the Bible teaches that hell is a) real, b) eternal and c) horrible beyond what we can imagine. I also believe that all who are born are born under sin and therefore headed to hell unless God intervenes on their behalf. We are saved from hell only by faith in Jesus Christ. There. There, my cards are on the table.

A POPULAR FORMULATION

The sentiment I want to use as a spring board is this, “Hell is separation from God.” First, the Biblical support for this statement. Paul says of those afflicting Christians, “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (2Th 1:9) Another supporting verse is when Jesus is talking about the final judgment and he explains that some will say to him “Lord, Lord!” and he will answer them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” (Matt 7:23) These two verses would seem to indicate that in the final judgment, the unsaved depart from God’s presence forever.

Why might this concept of hell might be appealing? I have even heard this idea express as “God gives them what they wanted: nothing to do with Him.” This sentiment makes God passive in the damning of lost souls. It would seem to fit well with modern Arminianism which places man as the determining factor of his salvation. The counterpart of that would seem to be man in control of his own damnation as well. It also exonerates God from the horrors of hell.

Yet, this is insufficient because it doesn’t take into account all of what the Bible has to say about the subject. Perhaps, though, you can understand the attraction of this idea. The traditional view of Hell seems horrible and cruel. Eternal punishment, flames that don’t go out, flesh-eating worms that won’t die. An eternity of that for a sin that occurred in a finite period of time. Would our God do something like that? Surely a place like that must be beyond Him, it isn’t anything He would do.

A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION

Now I want to look at the popular conception outlined above in light of a broader Biblical survey of the doctrine of hell. It must, of course include the verses listed above or it falls to the same criticism.

The first scripture that comes to mind when I consider the question of whether hell is being out of God’s presence forever is Psalm 139. David is reflecting on how thoroughly God knows him. He then begins to reflect on where he could go so that the Spirit of God might not see him. In the end he confesses that there is no where that God does not see him: “If I make my bed in Sheol 1An Hebrew word that really denotes not heaven or hell but the abode of the dead. In other words, it encompasses both ideas. Both the righteous and the unrighteous are said to descend to Sheol. I was taught that Sheol was a place with two compartments and when Jesus died he went and released everyone from Sheol so they went to heaven or hell. There really is no Biblical evidence for this. The better way to think about it is to understand Sheol as an umbrella term for both, it is simply where dead people are., you are there!” (Psa 139:8) Even in death David knows that he cannot escape from God’s presence. I suppose it could be argued that David was sure he was going to heaven and so Sheol for him meant salvation. But that really doesn’t work in the Psalm itself. David already mentioned heaven. The parallel line in the second part of the verse encompasses more, it encompasses death in general.

Beyond that, what of the verses that speak of God’s wrath? I cited Romans 5:9 above but there others. Can we legitimately conceive of being subjected to God’s wrath as being simply out of his presence? When I’m angry with my kids I often send them out of the room so they’re not subjected to my (unrighteous) wrath! In other words, both Old Testament and New Testament examples of God’s wrath are active events, not passive. Let me cite one of each and leave it there for right now.

From the Old Testament, consider Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16. When Korah’s clan leads a rebellion against Moses, God responds by opening up the ground beneath them and it swallows them whole “[s]o they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol” (Num 16:33). The next day the congregation grumbles about it and the Lord’s wrath “goes out” and the plague starts (16:46). It is only by Moses’ and Aaron’s intercession that the plague was stayed. These events depict God’s wrath as an active thing.

From the New Testament, consider the winepress from Revelation 14:19-20 and 19:15. This winepress represents God’s wrath against the wicked who are thrown into it and trodden. Their blood flows to the depth of a horse’s bridle for miles. That imagery doesn’t portray God as passive in the punishment. Indeed, in 19:15, it is King Jesus who treads it!

Alright, but what about the “depart from me” language used above? If hell is God’s wrath, how are we supposed to integrate those other texts? The best way is just to read them. In Matthew 7 the people are dismissed from Jesus throne at judgment. In 2 Thessalonians passage, they are punished away from the presence of the Lord, yes, but the verse continues. “[A]nd from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints” (2Th 1:9b-10). This is not speaking of God in the completeness of His Trinity, but of Jesus Christ who is the One to come. They are away from Jesus and the “glory of his might” which is the cross. They are eternally before God but without Jesus Christ as intercessor and savior! What a horrifying place to be. To bear the full brunt of God’s righteous wrath all by yourself. This is horrifying and it really should cause us to be even more eager in evangelism. We need to warn more people of the judgment to come and their only hope for standing in that judgment.

COMMON OBJECTIONS

Is eternal punishment for finite sins just? There are two things that need to be addressed in this question. First, we need to understand who we’ve offended. If I were to take a can of spray paint and deface the sign for the city dump, I might get some jail time. Imagine if I took that same can and somehow got to the original Declaration of Independence! They’d throw me in a federal penitentiary and throw away the key. The magnitude of my punishment is proportional to the significance of the thing offended. When we sin, we offend an infinitely holy, eternally existent God who created us from dirt! How much greater should punishment for that be?

The second issue that needs to be discussed is the notion that once we die we stop doing things. In other words, it is presumed that in hell we won’t sin any more. But hell is “filled with people who, for all eternity, still want to be the center of the universe and who persist in their God-defying rebellion.” 2D. A. Carson quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, 193. Sin continues in hell and it is probably worse there because now the rebellious know that God exists and that Jesus Christ is the Savior and King and they still rebel and still hate him. So even in hell wrath is increased.

What about the innocent savage who never heard of Jesus Christ but tried to be a good person? Is it fair that they are sent to hell? The mistake behind this one is that is no “innocent savage.” I’ll let the Bible speak for itself here:

[A]ll, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:10-18)

The other part of the answer to this question is why we’re sent to hell. We aren’t damned (only) because of our response to the gospel. If it were true that those who don’t get to hear the gospel go to heaven, it would be the end of evangelism! According to Revelations 20, in the end people are judged “according to what they had done” (20:12). The offer of the gospel is totally grace in light of that. It isn’t owed to anyone and it is God’s mercy that it is offered to anyone at all.

Okay, this is quite long enough for a blog entry. Let me wrap this up.

Hell is a reality, not a merely difficult doctrine that some are embarrassed by. It is a place we are all headed, we are all “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph 2:3). But God doesn’t delight in the death of the wicked. He sent his Son to make a way for people to escape eternal punishment and instead enjoy eternity delighting in Him. Jesus Christ was more than a good teacher, though he was that. Though he was sinless, he died a sinners death not because God is unjust but because God is so just that the sins of his people must be punished. They are either punished on the eternal Son of God on the cross, or they are punished in the agony of hell. If you will put your trust in Jesus, acknowledging that He died for sinners and was raised from the dead to make them right with God, then God will not consign you to hell. In Revelation 20 there were two books opened. If your name isn’t in one, the other is opened and you’re judged by your works. If you will trust that Jesus is enough to spare you, you will find your name written in the first book. If not, the second book awaits you. I know that the things I have done in my life include many that I’m not proud of. I don’t want to be judged by them. It would be so much better to be judged by Jesus’ life than by your own. If the idea of hell scares you, it should. Believe that Jesus is sufficient to make you right with God and come follow him.

Re-reading this reminds me of a bunch of other things I have to say. I’m sure there will be further posts.

↩1 An Hebrew word that really denotes not heaven or hell but the abode of the dead. In other words, it encompasses both ideas. Both the righteous and the unrighteous are said to descend to Sheol. I was taught that Sheol was a place with two compartments and when Jesus died he went and released everyone from Sheol so they went to heaven or hell. There really is no Biblical evidence for this. The better way to think about it is to understand Sheol as an umbrella term for both, it is simply where dead people are.
↩2 D. A. Carson quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, 193.

Free Book Again

I don’t hop on every one of these free book give aways, only the ones that I’m interested in. Yeah, I’m a bibliophile but I do have my limits! :) This week’s is one of the books I was looking at for teaching evangelism, Questioning Evangelism. Should be an interesting read and so I’m throwing my hat in again.

Insiders Share

“But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” – Luke 9:27

I’ve been stuck on Luke 9 for a while. I understand the events but I was first, having a hard time deriving the discipleship issues from it and second, profoundly inconsistent in reading and praying over the past few weeks. Last night Ben and I purposely set aside about half an hour to read EM Bounds “Essentials of Prayer” together and spend a few minutes in prayer. This morning when I did some quite time, the Lord graciously met me in his word and the Spirit helped me to see. I don’t think it was a mechanical linkage, a tit for tat kind of thing, but I did ask the Lord in prayer to make me seek him more. Those are the kinds of prayers he seems to delight in answering quickly. Thank you Jesus.

The events in Luke 9 that have had me stumped for a while have been:

  1. The sending out of the Twelve (1-6)
  2. Herod’s interest in Jesus (7-9)
  3. The return of the Twelve and the feeding of the 5,000 (10-17)
  4. Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ (18-20)

This morning I sat and observed the text. Jesus calls the Twelve and sends them out. Herod is curious about Jesus because of what the Twelve are doing and what the people say about Jesus. The Twelve return and Jesus calls them. The crowds follow uncalled and Jesus welcomes them. The Twelve tell him to send the crowd and he won’t. Instead he tells the Twelve to provide for them and they say they can’t. So Jesus does. Jesus asks who the people say he is and the report is the same as what Herod has been hearing. Jesus asks who the Twelve think he is and Peter announces that he is the Christ.

Fine observation of the literary structure of the text but I got the feeling that it was way up on the top shelf. It didn’t really matter. I wanted to bring the text down to me. What am I supposed to learn from this? What discipleship principles are present in this text? 1Side note: I’ve been dabbling in Emergent Church and post-modern thought lately. It is amazing how the Emergent Church wants to focus on ‘narrative’ but what they do with it is very different than what I’ve just done. The Emergent folks want to “enter the world of the text” and “experience it.” There isn’t really any propositional truth they’re after, just the experience. I’ve tried to “experience” the text but I’m also assuming the author is telling this story for a reason. Why does Luke tell this story and what is it we’re supposed to learn from it? Well first off, this story is about the “insiders,” the Twelve. They’re the ones in the know about Jesus in a way Herod and the crowds aren’t. 2Again, an idea post-moderns are not happy about. The Twelve know more than others and that means we’re not all the same. They may have more truth or “better” truth than others. The Twelve have been given something others have not. Jesus has commissioned them and sent them out with knowledge the people don’t have and need. “He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal.” (9:2). The people didn’t know about the kingdom of God and they couldn’t heal themselves so Jesus sent his Twelve to do that for them.

Skip ahead to the feeding of the 5,000. The Twelve have just come back from doing wonderful things in Jesus’ name. Now when faced with something as mundane (literally) as food, they seem to have forgotten what they’ve been given. No, not food but the power of the kingdom, the excess of God’s abundance. They’ve been given all that God has and he has everything! So Jesus reminds them, “You give them something to eat” (9:13). After all, they’ve just healed and cast out demons and blessed in Jesus’ name why should they think that God’s provision ends there? You know the rest, Jesus feeds the crowds and there is a bunch left over. 3I once heard this miracle explained as not really a miracle. The crowd would never have go out into the wilderness empty handed (they’re way smarter than the Twelve!) They all had food tucked into their cloaks, Jesus just needed to prompt them to share. Ha. Well, it is a miracle then that the entire crowd of over 5,000 brought the same kinds of bread and fish! Also, it is pretty miraculous that the crowd had somehow tucked enough food in their robes to not only feed themselves, but those who didn’t plan ahead (like the Twelve) and still wind up with 12 baskets left over!

Doesn’t almost sting, then, when you hear Jesus ask “who do the crowds say that I am?” and “who do you say that I am?” As in, “don’t you get it?” Well, there is surely much more going on in that question; just consider what Jesus says after Peter’s confession! But one of the discipleship principles we’re supposed to get is that the Kingdom is not a kingdom of deficit but abundance. We can give away our loaves and fish to a greater need than they can possibly meet because we’re not on our own. We’re not doing this in our own name and so Jesus will bless it and multiply it. There is much more going on with our few loaves and fish than we can imagine! The discipleship principle I saw here is to give it away. Our supply can never meet the need but Jesus’ can.

This is the exact opposite of the health, wealth and prosperity gospel. That is all about accumulation for yourself. What Jesus is getting at here is giving away. In the midst of all of this, Jesus explains his coming death (21-22). Also, in this context is Jesus bidding his followers to take up their cross and follow him (23-27). It isn’t about what we can gather but what we can give away.

↩1 Side note: I’ve been dabbling in Emergent Church and post-modern thought lately. It is amazing how the Emergent Church wants to focus on ‘narrative’ but what they do with it is very different than what I’ve just done. The Emergent folks want to “enter the world of the text” and “experience it.” There isn’t really any propositional truth they’re after, just the experience. I’ve tried to “experience” the text but I’m also assuming the author is telling this story for a reason. Why does Luke tell this story and what is it we’re supposed to learn from it?
↩2 Again, an idea post-moderns are not happy about. The Twelve know more than others and that means we’re not all the same. They may have more truth or “better” truth than others.
↩3 I once heard this miracle explained as not really a miracle. The crowd would never have go out into the wilderness empty handed (they’re way smarter than the Twelve!) They all had food tucked into their cloaks, Jesus just needed to prompt them to share. Ha. Well, it is a miracle then that the entire crowd of over 5,000 brought the same kinds of bread and fish! Also, it is pretty miraculous that the crowd had somehow tucked enough food in their robes to not only feed themselves, but those who didn’t plan ahead (like the Twelve) and still wind up with 12 baskets left over!

More Manly Men

It is man’s business to pray; and it takes manly men to do it. It is godly business to pray and it takes godly men to do it. And it is godly men who give over themselves entirely to prayer. Prayer is far-reaching in its influence and in its gracious effects. It is intense and profound business which deals with God and His plans and purposes, and it takes whole-hearted men to do it. No half-hearted, half-brained, half-spirited effort will do for this serious, all-important, heavenly business. The whole heart, the whole brain, the whole spirit, must be in the matter of praying, which is so mightily to affect the characters and destinies of men. – E. M. Bounds, Essentials of Prayer

Friday Photo

Okay, this “Friday photo” thing is turning out to be more difficult than I thought! Or is it just that July was insane? Yea, July.

Anyway, this is a bridge at Sun Lake Forrest Perserve. The stream it crosses is pretty unimpressive but this bridge looked nice.

Friday Photo

No fresh photo since my camera was out of town this week.

This is an oldie. “The little boy in the picture is now in collage” old. But I really love it. I think my mom took this at the park near where we used to live in Southern California.

Hidden Hope

I got the most recent copy of Christianity Today yesterday and when I read the cover I set it aside with a heavy heart. The lead story is the spread of the health and wealth gospel in Africa. Great. We’re exporting our worst, greediest theology to the poorest continent. I couldn’t even consider looking inside. But I did and I’m glad, it wasn’t all bad news:

  • A big youth conference in England had a falling out when one of the lead speakers said that penal substitution was akin to cosmic child abuse. Part of the group split and will run their own conference and have Carson and Piper speaking on the atonement. Excellent!
  • In a brief article on the new creation-science museum, Ken Ham is quoted as saying, “Christians have problems answering the questions of skeptics because churches and Christian colleges don’t teach apologetics.” He’s right. We need help in this. Funny that I’m co-teaching an apologetics class at church.
  • The Nazarenes are struggling over the doctrine of “complete sanctification.” It is the idea that a Christian can become sinless, also known as perfectionism. Not sure if there will be a change but there is a discussion going on and that is a good thing.
  • In light of the recent conversion of ETS ex-president Francis Beckwith to Roman Catholicism, the editors wrote an excellent editorial on the relationship between justification and sanctification.
  • There is an excellent piece on life in a troubled church by Christine Scheller. I’m going to read it again.
  • Pastor Bob Roberts (his real name) is featured and speaks of church planting with a global perspective. I don’t know that I agree with everything he says, but I was impressed that after chasing the Big Church (I hear Peter Gabriel in my head) dream, he asked himself “Why isn’t Jesus enough for you?” Then he changed his approach to church and focused on the right things.

Good stuff hidden behind extremely bad news on the cover. If you get a chance, look past the heart breaking part and find the gold.

Friday Photo

Oops! Forgot the Friday Photo. Sorry, I was out of town.

This week I organized my book shelf. Too many stacks of books in front of books. So I pulled them down shelf at a time and put them back up in order. Did some dusting too. My cat Mojave, of course, had to check all this out. She found an open shelf and watched for a while.

Reformed Baptist Hermeneutics III: Our Confession

One of the defining principles of being a Reformed Baptist is that we 1Added 3/18/2020: I agree with the theology of Reformed Baptists but I don’t consider myself part of their tribe. I am an evangelical with Reformed theology and a baptistic approach to the sacraments. So when I say “we” I mean those who hold to that theology. have a confession of faith that is in the theological stream of the Reformers. 2Actually, we have two, the 1644 and the 1677/1689 confessions. The reason we focus on the second is not an abandonment of the first but that the second fleshes out the theology in the first. Therefore, I would be remiss if I ignored the Confession in this discussion so I’m going spend some time in this post looking at the confession and highlighting some of the hermeneutical principles found there. There isn’t a chapter specifically on hermeneutics so I’m going to have to do some reading between the lines to try to detect the principle used.

This is but a humble blog entry and the Confession covers a lot of territory so I’m going to focus on two chapters that I know well and that should illustrate our hermeneutic approach: Chapter 7 ‘Of God’s Covenant’ and Chapter 22 ‘Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day.’ I think these two chapters will serve us best in trying to address this subject in small scope of a blog post. Chapter 22 should highlight the Reformed aspect of our hermeneutic and chapter 7 the Baptist portion.

Chapter 22 addresses more than the Sabbath but I’m going to confine my comments to only the Sabbath portions. That isn’t to say that there aren’t some interesting things in the other portions of that chapter but I had to pick one. So let’s start with the first part of paragraph 7:

As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God’s appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him…

Notice that the Sabbath is spoken of as being part of “the law of nature”. What are the hermeneutics behind this conception of the Sabbath? 3I’m fighting the impulse to allow this to turn into a defense of the idea of a Christian Sunday Sabbath. There are Reformed Baptist explanations elsewhere (20kb PDF). Richard Barcellos has an interesting series on the subject as well. I’m trying to stick to the hermeneutic that includes that principle. The Sabbath is what is called a “creation ordinance”, that is, a rule or principle that was established in and at creation. Since it is rooted in creation, it transcends any of the specific covenants just as marriage or work do. That isn’t to say that the covenants don’t add to things it, simply that the principle transcends them. So in the Mosaic Covenant, God appends rules to the covenant that pass away with that covenant, but the Sabbath itself abides. Time set aside from work to be used to worship God in is a creation ordinance and is called a Sabbath in scripture.

This is the Reformed understanding of how the covenants relate. Hermeneutically, we presume continunity from one covenant era to the next. We needn’t see God reestablish his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Mosaic Covenant to know that that covenant is in effect in the Mosaic. The continuity is presumed and, in the case I mentioned, it is affirmed in Scripture also (Ex 33:1).

Next we’ll consider chapter 7 on the covenants. This is where we will differ from our other Reformed brothers. The part I want to focus on is in paragraph 3:

This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament

What is unique and Baptist here may not be obvious at first glance but it is important. Our confession handles redemptive history in a more inclusive fashion than our paedobaptist brothers’ confession does. See if you can spot the difference. Here is a similar paragraph from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances (WFC 7.5)

Did you catch it? What about the time from Adam to Abraham? In the Westminster it is unintentionally excluded whereas in the Baptist Confession it is gathered into the consideration. Though I don’t want this to turn into a criticism of paedobaptism, I need to highlight this point. From Adam to Abraham there was not an external, objective sign of the covenant. People were brought into the Covenant of Grace only by faith (see Hebrews 11 on Abel, Enoch and Noah.) As we Baptists consider the nature of God’s covenants, we incorporate this time period and acknowledge that for a significant portion of redemptive history children of covenant members were not automatically covenant members. That the sign of the covenant was not automatically applied to them.

The hermeneutic principle I detect here is that we will incorporate all periods of redemptive history when considering the relationship between the covenants. Because there was a long period of time when the covenant was not made with those without faith we must admit that it is possible in the New Covenant that this situation could apply once more. When we consider the nature of the New Covenant, the blessings of the New Covenant and the example of our Apostle’s in propagating the New Covenant, we see that it is not beyond what God has done in the past to establish his covenant only with those whom he has given the gift of faith. Our formulation of the New Covenant comes not from only the New Testament (the Dispensationalist error) and not from only redemptive history since Abraham (the paedobaptist error). Instead we consider all of the eras of God’s work in redeeming a people unto himself.

↩1 Added 3/18/2020: I agree with the theology of Reformed Baptists but I don’t consider myself part of their tribe. I am an evangelical with Reformed theology and a baptistic approach to the sacraments. So when I say “we” I mean those who hold to that theology.
↩2 Actually, we have two, the 1644 and the 1677/1689 confessions. The reason we focus on the second is not an abandonment of the first but that the second fleshes out the theology in the first.
↩3 I’m fighting the impulse to allow this to turn into a defense of the idea of a Christian Sunday Sabbath. There are Reformed Baptist explanations elsewhere (20kb PDF). Richard Barcellos has an interesting series on the subject as well. I’m trying to stick to the hermeneutic that includes that principle.

Friday Photo

Yes, I did it. I started using my Flickr account and appear to have entered the “Friday Photo” clan. Not sure if I’ll be able to do this every Friday but it might be worth a try.

The thistle plant wasn’t so good looking, but this blossom begged for a picture. There is some dispute between Gillian and I as to who took the picture. I’m pretty sure it was me but she says she did.