A Note on the Baptism Posts

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea.

Recently I have posted here on baptism, and left comments on various blogs about baptism. In those comments I have tried to make it clear I consider Baptists my brothers and sisters in the Lord. As far as I can tell we do not teach a different gospel, nor do we worship a different Christ.

What my main concern has been is how we interact with each other in terms of fellowship. This then affects how we view and practice the Lord's Supper and church membership in addition to other areas of Christian life. From my perspective I understand why a Baptist holds to their beliefs and practices. But I see inconsistencies in that. If we are all brothers & sisters--why the barriers?

From their point of view I hold to inconsistencies, and some have pointed out to me we have a "two tiered membership." (For example-elders in a PCA church must hold to Presbyterian distinctives such as paedobaptism, but members do not need to-they only need a credible confession of faith.)

I have explained before that they are adding conditions not found in the Bible, by not admitting all believers into membership. Also a "two tiered membership" is Biblical as the Bible gives extra conditions and accountability to elders. (See
1 Tim 3:1-7 (& verses 8-13 speak of deacons);Titus 1:5-9; and James 3:1

James 3:1, while it doesn't mention elders, does speak about teachers-and in 1 Tim 3:2 elders are to be able to teach. The elders are responsible for the teaching in the church. (Although others may teach in some settings, the elders are still overseers of that teaching.) So when James writes, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" he is showing that those who teach have a higher level of accountability.

I am under no delusion that my posts will be turning all Baptists to my views, nor am I condemning them for holding those views. What I am saying is this: Even though we have some disagreements on important issues, we do agree on the essentials. That is we agree on what is needed for salvation. So let's act like that more often.

Unsaved Family (A Repost from September 19, 2005)

This is a tough one. We can spend so much time proclaiming, defending, and even living the truth, but when our families-whether parents, siblings, children, or extended-don't believe it can be heart breaking.
They're often the people it's hardest to witness to. They see us at our worst, and most of them knew us when we were unsaved.

I must confess a sense of jealousy for those who grew up in Christian homes. This is not a complaint against my parents. They did well. It's not a complaint against God. I've seen reasons why I did not grow up in that setting.

But I see the closeness Christian families have on a level non-Christians can never experience. I see the blessings. And so I desire to create that sort of environment for the future.

I pray for my unsaved family. I pray I will model God's grace for them, they do know I've changed, but it's not always easy. Sometimes believing the Gospel creates conflict--as Christ said it would. (Matthew 10:33-35)
In my extended family there is more acceptance now than when I first believed, but there can still be tension. There still can be conflict.

Part of the reason I post this is asking for advice or comments, from anybody who can relate to it. Part of the reason is to hopefully encourage those who can relate to it.

Thanks.

(I did receive comments on this when it was first posted, and thanks to those who left them.)

One True Church?

Pope Benedict seems "paper happy" these days. I saw a couple of newspaper articles about this one today:
"Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." (This is a link to the Vatican website.)

Here are a couple of links to news stories about the paper.
Vatican re-asserts belief Catholicism one true church
Catholic Church only true church, Vatican says

One of the articles I read in the paper spoke about how this would rile Protestants. (I couldn't find any links to those articles.) And I saw similar contents on a Catholic discussion board.

Personally, I'm not riled. Why should I be? I do disagree with Benedict, but he is the pope, after all. Why would anybody be surprised by this? If anything this statement helps to clarify a line of demarcation between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. There are signifcant and essential differences between Catholic & many Protestant doctrines of salvation and the church, as well as issues of authority. I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church (as an organization) is a true church.

Too many people seem to forget that we can disagree without anger. But I'm not surprised some people don't like this, especially those who think all roads lead to God (or a god or gods.) There are also those who seek an outward unity at the expense of the truth.

I might expand upon this in future posts.

"The Church includes all of us."?

I caught part of the news tonight and saw a story on the Anglican Church in Canada discussing whether to "bless" same-sex marraiges. There's a story about it here.

On the news report they spoke with a man in a "Committed homosexual relationship."
He said he wanted to see if the Anglican Church would conclude that, "The Church includes all of us."

I wonder if that man realizes that his statement is actually an oxymoron. The word "Church" is often used in the New Testament to translate "ekklesia" or "the called out ones" or "assembly of called out ones."

If the Church includes us all, then who exactly is called out? And what are they called out from?

(I realize some people disagree with the use of "Church" for "ekklesia", but the principle is the same.)

An Answer to a Question I was Once Asked About Prayer

Back when I was recovering from my medical emergency and posted several times about it, I was asked how I feel about Roman Catholics praying for me. I meant to address this question here, but never did. In fact I know Roman Catholics were praying for me, as I was born and raised in it, and most of my extended family would still claim some level of allegiance to it. Some are quite devout, some are more nominal.

Basically I would not support the idea of prayer to Mary or any saint. But I did tend to focus on the concern and love that was shown by people taking time out of their day to pray for me. I know God's will would be done, and it would not be thwarted or changed by people praying in a way I believe is incorrect at best. So my hope and trust was in God all along, but I also was encouraged that people would take time to pray for me. So while I would discount some of the prayers said for me, I would never discount the person who did the praying. Some who said they prayed for me would not call themselves Christians of any sort. They prayed to an impersonal god or force of some sort. I would definitely discount that prayer, but again not discount the person.

I think it's important to make that distinction. No matter what disagreements you have with another person--they are still a human being, and deserve to be treated as one. So if you prayed for my health, to any god, being, person or whatever--I may strongly disagree with you and your prayer, but I do appreciate the time you took and concern and love that shows. (If you prayed for me not to be a Christian/Protestant/Presbyterian/Reformed believer, etc--well, I would disagree with that as well.)

For more on this, with a different reason behind it, see this post on the Beggars All blog.

Why Romans 6:18? (A post re-run)

(Since I've been at this since September 2005, and readers have come and gone, some may have missed the earlier posts if they haven't checked the archives--feel free to check them, I know some readers do. So, as I've seen other blogs do, from time to time I will rerun posts from the past. Here's my third ever post.)

Why did I name this blog after Romans 6:18?

The Bible is a book that bears repeat reading. On one such reading Romans 6:18 jumped right out at me. -"...and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (NASB)

Wow. I checked out the context.
Romans 6

Here we have Paul asking the Romans why they act as if they are still slaves to sin. They (and all Christians) have been freed from bondage to sin, why go back willingly?

Instead we are slaves of Righteousness-Christ's righteousness. So let's act that way.
It is not an oppressive slavery, but one of freedom in Christ. This theme reverberates throughout Romans 6 and elsewhere-such as Romans 7:6 and John 8:32. Martin Luther understood this and declared himself captive to God and His Word.

Yet, when we sin, we place ourselves back under sin's bondage. Yes, God forgives His people, and we rejoice in that. We are not to presume upon God though, we are to act in accordance with what we profess to believe. Before we believed we were slaves to sin, but we are freed.

Why do I repeat myself in this? It is very important for Christians to keep this in mind.
It was not our own power that freed us from sin, and it is not our own righteousness we are to be slaves to. It is the work of the Triune God-Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Why go back to what was?

Who or what is your Master? Whose slave are you?

A Silly Story about Roman Catholicism

I call this a silly story, because if you're not a Roman Catholic it shouldn't bother you. It shouldn't bother you because you probably don't believe the premise to start with, so the story doesn't matter. If you are Roman Catholic you may or may not put stock in the premise. If you don't, again it doesn't matter. Only Roman Catholics who take the premise seriously need worry--and I'd think most of those would be likely to believe the offical version of it from the Vatican. Maybe it was a slow news day. Maybe, like me, they found it oddly amusing.

Vatican denies hiding the full truth about the end of the world

As I am not a Roman Catholic anymore, and I don't believe Mary really appeared to the three children and she didn't give them any visions I don't believe in the "Secrets of Fatima." Subsequently, even if the Vatican is hiding details, it doesn't matter. But still, for some reason, I do find this oddly amusing.

Holy Bottled Drinking Water

Since Purgatorio's not around to share this- An article in the local paper today mentioned both a US and a Canadian company who are selling Bottled Holy Water--not for use in Roman Catholic rites, but for drinking.

The US version is based in--where else--California. You can read more about it here. The Label on it warns-

If you are a sinner or evil in nature, this product may cause burning, intense heat, sweating, skin irritations, rashes, itchiness, vomiting, bloodshot and watery eyes, pale skin color and oral irritations.

So I guess that includes all of us. I don't think this sort of thing was covered under the atonement.

The Canadian Version is based in Alberta--not BC, like I thought. It's actually a non denominational church that prays over the water.

Or you can go here and see how silly it gets. (Or is this page a spoof?--it's hard to tell--but the other ones are apparently for real.)

Now really--what is up with this? Is it crass marketing? Is it disrespect for God? Whatever the true motives of the people behind these ventures, it's hard not to laugh, and it's hard not to mourn the way God is taken so lightly.

Raised from the Dead

Have you ever heard the question asked about the people raised from the dead in the Bible? You know, the one that goes along these lines, "What was their reaction to being brought back to this world from the presence of God?"

Usually the person asking this is pointing out how that person could be a little ticked off they were no longer with the Lord.

I was thinking about that the other day, and while I can't be dogmatic about this I did realize that every one of the people raised from the dead in the Bible was raised for SOMEBODY else's benefit, not their own. The question is perhaps a bit self-centred, although probably not intentionally. The reason they were raised for somebody else's benefit. That puts it in a whole new light for me. Those raised were in some way serving God by returning.

Of course I can say dogmatically that at least one person raised from the dead in the Bible was raised for the benfit of others. That person was Jesus. He was raised for the benefit of His people.

"God hates me because of something I didn't do"???--Huh?

A little while back I encountered the quote above on a blog.

The quote is not my belief, nor was it the blogger's. It was his representation of Calvinism, which he called, "Diabolism." The rest of the post was just as bad. It was one of worst and most willful misrepresentations of Calvinism I have ever seen.

I call it a "willful misrepresentation" because he admitted others have brought forth the same objections I did in the comments section. He has been told that is not what Calvinism teaches or is about, yet he doesn't care. The comments went back and forth for a bit, but as he has comment moderation enabled he didn't post my last one.

So how could somebody define Calvinism as the quote above? Simply misrepresent Total Depravity--which is the teaching that we can not and will not choose God on our own. He expanded that to teach that Calvinism teaches there is no good in Matter--meaning it was Manicheanism. Manicheanism is an ancient heresy that taught a separation of matter and spirit. Matter is evil and spirit good, so it is a form of dualism. This is perhaps an oversimplification, but that was the approach he took.

Anyway, while I posted comments on what Calvinists did and didn't believe, he mostly ignored the main points and made light of the minor ones. My last comment explained why I was no longer going to comment, and I rebuked him for the misrepresentation. I understood he had no desire to become a Calvinist, and he could have posted something explaining why he disagreed with what Calvinism really teaches. I'm sure he does disagree with that as well. That comment never appeared on his blog.

Why do people feel they need to misrepresent something they disagree with? I try to be fair to views I disagree with. I shake my head at some of the shameful material put out by professing Christians against various cults and other religions. They don't stick to the straight forward facts, but engage in fanciful interpretations and manufactered theories to shoot down the other group's unbiblical beliefs & practices. They could stick to the truth and still make their case, but they go overboard and wreck it. It happens on our side, it happens on others. This other blogger, (who I won't identify--at least for now, the more unknown he is the better.), did point out a way he felt misrepresnted by my comments--so I took that into consideration, asked him questions, and proceeded from there. Most of my questions were not really answered, but for the ones he did answer I thanked him.

So what is this allabout?
It's two things, actually.
1-Letting you know about an odd misrepresentation of Calvinism; and
2-A roundabout way to say please don't misrepresent those you disagree with, and if I do that to you, please let me know.

So where was I?

Was I back in the hospital?
Thankfully, no, I did not need to return.
I haven't posted here, but have still commented on a few other blogs.

I'm still in recovery, and some of the activities involved in that have taken up a lot of time. I've also started a gradual return to work, for which I am very grateful. My time aside from work and recovery has involved getting back into the swing of things at church, resting, and spending time with my family.

When I've had time to post, I've either been too tired to actually post anything, or I wound up doing other things that took less brain power.

I'm not making any promises on how much I'll post, but I've now done two posts to basically say--I'm back.

I'm back, they're not

Actually I used that as a title just over a year ago.
It was referring to an absence of myself from blogging, and also an end to 2 favorite blogs of mine--which in my latest absence from blogging have called it quits again--since they left their blogs up--I'm leaving the links to them at this time. If you haven't checked them out before--please do so...

Here's the post from over a year ago, so you can see what I'm talking about...

I've never kept a regular blog schedule, and I respect those who do.
I also respect the decison of those who put much time in their blogs to step back, take a break or even stop.
That doesn't mean I won't miss the blogs though--or the writers.

I've seen this all over the blogoshere, but wanted to say a more formal farewell here.

The Calvinist Gadfly is calling it quits, and according to the first post it will be left up until Jan 16.
So if you've never checked it out before--do it now.
Alan Kurschner wrote a thought provoking, entertaining, and insightful blog.
It will be missed. But he has been called to other work. He has indicated he may blog from time to time here.
Thanks for what you've given us Alan.

Then Purgatorio contained an announcement from its creator, Marc Heinrich. He had already announced he would slowing down, but now has posted he's stopping, although he's leaving the blog up. He may be back later, he may not.
Marc provided laughs, poignant commentary, and provoked thought.
And the comments on his announcement thread show he will be missed as well.
Marc is also listed as a contributor to Doxoblogy, another fine blog out there.

Well Alan and Marc--thanks. And may God bless your endeavours as He leads you elsewhere.

Again--I thank them for what they've done.
Marc is not a contributor for Doxoblogy anymore, but it's still a good blog.
Both Purgatorio & Calvinist Gadfly returned after theis, but have shut down again--at least Mark's last post is called "Hiatus", so there is hope.

Me, I'm back.

Taking the Lord's Name in Vague

No, that's not a typo in the title. It's something I once said as a child.

I didn't know the gospel-but I did know of the Ten Commandments, and once I chastised someone for breaking the third commandment by telling them not to take the Lord's name in vague. I had either misheard or mis remembered what the commandment was.

Still, while it isn't a direct violation of the third commandment--we may be guilty of "taking the Lord's name in vague."

We may lack boldness or clarity. While God can still use this, it shouldn't be the way we normally use His name. How many songs, books, sermons, etc are guilty of this? We speak or sing of God with such vagueness that who are we really referring to? So much of it seems like fluff.

I also have a concern that there are people who think they are Christians because they heard a vague message about God--but they didn't hear the gospel and don't know Christ.

I'm not saying everybody has to be a great theologian and know all there is to know about God. What I am saying is we should be careful about how we refer to God. We should avoid shallow, vague messages and teaching. We should be clear.

Now Jesus did use parables, sometimes to hide the meaning from some listeners--but His parables were never vague. Those who were meant to understand did, even if they needed some help. Those with ears to hear did hear.

This is also not speaking against speaking simply so those who are seeking or learning can understand. To take them into consideration is speaking clearly. SOmetimes it is our Christian jargon that makes things vague. But it may be uncertainty, fear, timidity or something else. We need to be prayerful about how we speak of God, Christ, and the Gospel, let us do it according to those we are speaking to and the context, but let us not be vague.

I've Been There How Long?

I was thinking about some things lately, and realized how long I had been a member of the congreagtion where I worship. I realized that it was the group I had the longest association with outside of my family. In my time there I have held 3 jobs (the first for only a few months, before I quit to take a better one.) I had met the woman I married, but we barely knew each other at that time. I had a lot less grey hair.

I realized the current pastor has been here almost as long as I attended under the previous pastor. (We were pastor-less for about a year, during that time elders filled in.)

There must be a reason for it.

If you've read previous posts you'll have seen me express appreciation and thanks for the congregation. That is one of the reasons I'm still around. So is the teaching.

Still I was surpised when I realized how long I've been around.

May God bless us all with groups we are part of that are helpful, and may those associations be long ones, unless the Lord takes us elsewhere.

Children Taken Into Custody After Drug Busts

Children taken into custody after drug busts
I don't know how long this site leaves the stories up, but go take a look. It's a brief summary, but check if the video link still works.

Police have been cracking down on grow ops, and the common things to look out for are well known-"How to spot a grow op". So the criminals are using families to camouflage the grow op homes. This means children are being exposed to the chemicals and fumes found in grow ops, as well as having access to the drugs. They are also in danger of electrocution (Or electric shocks), as grow op homes usually have the electric meter bypassed, resulting in exposed wires. In at least one of the cases in the link above, exposed wires ran through a child's bedroom.

These are cases of child endangerment and abuse. It shows how greed will cause people to put their own children at risk.

Some may say that if marijuana was legalized these sort of things wouldn't happen. Somehow I doubt it. Those children would have been at risk in some other way. We are all sinful, and the greed that caused these parents to disregard their children's safety would pop up some other way.

May we all realize though, that as sinful humans, we would all be capable of such neglect. May we thank God that He provided His Son to deal with the sin of His people.

Links & Such

Just a quick note.
It seems odd that there are others linking to some of my posts, and in some cases recommending others go and read them, but I get very few comments. That's okay if you don't want to comment, but sometimes people will comment on my blog on the other blog, but not mine. Oh well, at least people are stopping by and reading.
Thanks to all who link to this blog.

Reflecting on Original Sin

While I was in the Intensive Care Unit recently I had a lot of time to think. I had visitors, which was great, but I also had a lot of time to just lay in bed. I wasn't able to read much. Some of my thoughts drifted around, but sometimes I could focus. And I found my mind kept coming back to original sin and the effects of the fall.

I was there in ICU because of original sin. I don't mean my condition was a direct punishment for a particular sin of my own. I don't know that. But I do know that illness, suffering, injuries, and all other negative things are the result of the fall of Adam and Eve.

They disobeyed God and ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As a result the earth was cursed. As a result we have health issues, among other consequences. There is pain and suffering because of sin.

I can not blame Adam or Eve for what I went through. If I had been in their place I too would have sinned. I may have sinned sooner. In that sense we are in this together. Anyone of us would have sinned as Adam and Eve did.

Yet there is hope. In eternity future I will have a perfect body, as will all God's people. If we are His we will not suffer. Shortly after their sin God promised a redeemer in Genesis 3:15-

"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

God also promised to redeem not only His people, but all His creation. One day there will be a new heaven and a new earth. (Rev 21)

While things may seem messed up now, and we suffer, one day it will end for God's people. I knew all of this before, but now I know and understand it more deeply because of what I've been through. Many have been through worse, I hope they understand this even more deeply. And in that understanding may they have a greater hope in a merciful, sovereign, holy God.

"I'm here to take your blood"

Oh how many times I've heard that over the last two weeks!
Still there are some who hear it way more than I have.

There is something, however, about being awakened by someone saying this in an eastern European accent. It may have been enhanced by being half asleep, but I wanted to make sure they took my blood with a needle, and they didn't take it from my neck. That sentence and accent made for an odd mixture.

What Happened??

I have sometimes taken a bit of time between posts, but this latest gap was interrupted by a hospital stay. I'm not planning on going into a lot of detail on it though.

I'm trying not to be the patient that keeps going on & on about their problems or procedures or whatever. I'm trying not to be the type of person that acts like everybody else is going to have the same thing happen, and so they tell you how to live based on their life. I also don't want to exalt myself. I wound up in the hospital because of poor lifestyle choices (including ones I no longer make), genetics, and because sometimes that's how things work out. I know people who have higher risk factors than mine, yet they haven't been through what I went through. That's how things work out.

This experience did make me think about a lot of things, and some of that will end up on the blog. Hopefully it will be encouraging, amusing, or helpful in some way.

I still tire easily so I may not post as much as I'd like, but I am recovering well.

Credit where credit is due...

This post of mine from almost back to the start of my blogging experience-
A mystery of life solved--sort of
is not the result of my wisdom, but actually is the from the knowledge and wisdom of someone I will refer to as "Mrs Pilgrim" for now. Although she wasn't "Mrs Pilgrim" at the time...

And now it's set straight.