Infant Baptism

Today I'm going to offer a conversational and brief explanation on why our family practices infant baptism. My husband and I both come from a background of credo or believer's baptism so infant baptism is something new for us.

It starts with the presupposition that God deals with his people by way of covenants. He is a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. Most Christians will agree that God made a covenant with Adam, a covenant with Noah and a covenant with Abraham.  Sometimes when God makes a covenant, He also makes a sign to signify the event. The rainbow serves as a sign of God's covenant with Noah and circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with Abraham. God frequently states that his covenant promises are "to you, and to your children" or "to you and to your generations." When God makes a covenant with a single person, it doesn't mean that only the one person is under the covenant. In the case of God's covenant with Abraham, God specified that all of the males born into Abraham's family were to receive the sign of the covenant in their flesh.

I don't know of any Christians who believe that everyone who received the sign of circumcision was necessarily a believer, elect, or saved. The sign isn't a proof of God's love, but it does signify who is to treated as part of the visible covenant community. God said that those men who did not have the sign of the covenant were to be cut off from their people.

Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. In Colossians 2:11-12a we read

In whom also you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism...

The sign is given to all those who profess Christ and to all in the household of a believing man, including children, servants, relatives, etc. just as circumcision was done to all males of the house under the Old Covenant.

To recap: God deals with His people through covenants. God commands us to remember these covenants by way of signs. God made a New Covenant in the blood of Christ and the sign of that covenant is baptism. The sign of the covenant is given to all professing believers and to those under their household authority.

Our duty to our children is found in the great commission. Preach the gospel, baptize them and make disciples, teaching them to obey all that Christ commands. 

The Power to Quicken The Dead - Who Has It?

Aging should bring more than grey hair. Hopefully, wisdom increases with age if I apply my heart to it. I don't know if I'm necessarily wiser, but I have realized two important facts lately. The first is that there is so much that I don't know. I mean so, SO, SO, much that I don't know! I am finally starting to see that I am barely touching the tip of the iceberg in terms of knowledge. Why are young people convinced they are on the cusp of discovering all things and old people are humbly ashamed at what they don't yet know?  I guess it's because the young don't know what they don't know, and the old are starting to get an inkling of what they don't know. I don't know.

The second important thing I'm learning is the utter and complete powerlessness of the dead. I guess I've always known the dead are weak, but the blinders have really been thrown off lately and I can almost sense with my being how impossible it is for the dead to do anything. My understanding of this has been evolving and growing, and honestly, if I have to go much further into this, my brain may collapse from awe. The good thing is, when I read the Scripture now and see the word "dead", the meaning of the passage is practically exploding in my face. I can't miss it. When God says someone is dead, He doesn't mean that he is weak, or only capable of a little work. Dead means dead. Not alive. Not even a little bit.

By now, you are probably wondering where I'm going with this. Well, on Sunday, while the pastor was butchering Ephesians 4, I decided to read Ephesians from the beginning to try to understand the overall point of the book. Naturally, I started in Chapter 1. Paul starts out by telling us that God planned and predestined those who would be in Christ. God also caused them to believe and gave them the Holy Spirit as an earnest of their inheritance in Him. All of this happened by a work of God and God alone. Those whom He chose didn't have to do a thing. which is good, because until He gave them life, they were dead and incapable of believing or doing any other thing. If they had to DO something in order for God to save them, they would never be saved because of their deadness and inability to act.

After God does all that, He opens the eyes of their understanding so that they can know what He did. (verses 17 and 18) And even that is done for His glory. But then we see in verse 19 a new revelation about how God accomplished this feat. This was the stunning moment for me. God used the same power to save us that He used to raise Christ from the dead! Look at this:

And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead...   (vs. 19 and 20a)

When I think of the power required to raise someone from the dead, I think it must be large in both quantity and quality. It was one of God's greatest works, right? To raise Christ from the dead? And yet, it took this EXACT SAME power that God had to exercise to save me. Paul calls it "his mighty power." In the past, I have thought it a small thing for God to save me. But now I see that it was a huge thing. And not just me, but the entire Church, which Paul says "is his body." 

And all of this brings me back to Arminians. How could anyone think that he possesses ANY of the mighty power necessary to make himself believe? It is impossible for someone who is dead in his trespasses and sin to exercise faith. He doesn't even HAVE faith until God has already done a saving work in his life and given that man the gift of faith. (Ephesians 2:8-9)  After God opens your eyes to your sinfulness and his forgiveness, don't make the mistake of thinking that YOU realized it and chose to repent and believe. That is the very opposite of how God describes it in Ephesians 1. God chose you. God saved you. God quickened you and opened the eyes of your understanding.

Praise Him.

Dead Men Do Not Act

How dead is dead? Can the spiritually dead commit spiritual acts that result in them being quickened?

Calvinism answers that with a resounding, "No!"

R.C. Sproul, Jr. on Arminianism

Women in Combat vs. Women in the Police Force

Thanks to Dalrock for pointing out the inconsistency of complementarian John Piper who says that it is cowardly for a man to permit a woman to defend his life in combat, but perfectly ok for her to do so in his own home in her role as police officer.

What Does the Bible Primarily Teach?

I love the catechism. I love the wisdom of my forefathers in the faith who knew concepts can be better grasped when reduced to clear statements. I pity modern evangelicals who believe they are too pure to resort to such man-made documents and believe they only need read the Bible and all will be made clear. To them I ask, "What is God?" If they can answer that by using the Bible alone, I will agree that they have no use for the catechism or any of the accumulated wisdom of the elders.

I stumbled onto the catechism quite by accident. One day while attending an event at my local Christian radio station I was given the opportunity to choose a book for myself from a table. The station was giving the books away and listeners who attended the event were given first choice. Upon seeing the title "Training Hearts Teaching Minds" by Starr Meade, I was intrigued. Most of the other books were devotional in nature and did not appeal to me, so this title was my choice, sort of by default. The subtitle of the book is "Family Devotions Based on the Shorter Catechism." At that time, I was under the impression that only the Roman church used a catechism, so I took the book prepared to be critical.

Let's just say that after reading the first question and answer, I was curious.  I had heard my pastor recite this question and answer during a sermon, but I had no idea it was from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. By the time I got to question number 4, my mind was, as they say, blown. I won't spoil it for you if you haven't read it yet. It's free on the internet, go read it.

Question number 3 (In modern  English) says this:

What does the Bible primarily teach?

Simple question, right? And the answer is not exactly amazing, except that it sums up what could be a dissertation into one sentence. Here is the answer:

The Bible primarily teaches what man must believe about God and what God requires of man.

After learning this answer, it changed the way I understood the Scripture. Now, while reading, I am continually asking myself if what I am reading is telling something about God, or is it telling me something that God is requiring of me? Life changing, really. 

I thought of this today when I read this quote from Vaughn Olhman at Let Them Marry

But the point of coming to Scripture is to be changed by it   (From the post "Why Aren't you Married?")

Exactly.

Saved in Childbearing

“To censorious men it might appear absurd, for an Apostle of Christ not only to exhort women to give attention to the birth of offspring, but to press this work as religious and holy to such an extent as to represent it in the light of the means of procuring salvation…whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God. To this must be added, that no consolation could be more appropriate or more efficacious than to shew that the very means (so to speak) of procuring salvation are found in the punishment itself.”
John Calvin’s Commentary

This is John Calvin commenting on the following verse:
  

 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety
1 Timothy 2:15

What, if anything, do modern evangelicals have to say about this verse? Does it mean anything at all, since they would protest that it can't possibly mean what it says?

Is An "Age of Accountability" Found In The Bible?

I was having a conversation with someone (O.k., it was my father-in-law) and he suggested that babies who die are saved because they have not yet reached the age of accountability. He was unable to define what that age was and he seemed really flummoxed by my next question which was, "Are you suggesting that there is more than one way to be saved?"

My reason in asking that question is that I believe there is but one way, and one way only, to be saved, and that is to be born again. Paul describes it like this in Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

In other words, God gives the gift of faith. That faith enables us to believe. We don't work up faith, it is given to the elect.  In fact, it is given at a time when we are

dead in trespasses and sins

Ephesians 2:1

Dead people don't believe anything. They have to be made alive first. And it can happen to babies. Even babies in the womb.  If it can't happen to babies in the womb, then how can they be saved?  If babies can't be born again, and the Bible doesn't describe any other way of being saved, then babies can't be saved and they go to hell if they die. 

This is Mark Dewey's explanation of the subject.

Sophie's Choice - Why Can't She Choose Her Own Husband?

I have been doing some more reading over at truelovedoesntwait.com. In this post, a young woman by the name of Sophie is arguing in the comments that she should not be prohibited from choosing her own husband. She claims that she isn't insisting on doing the choosing, but rather should simply have the veto if her father wants her to marry a man that she doesn't "like." In other words, as long as her father picks a man that she chooses, she will obey her father and marry him. That reminds me of a woman who obeys her husband in everything, as long as she agrees with him.

The heart of her issue, which she herself doesn't even realize, is that she is as solipsistic as the typical woman. She is the measure of all things. Absolutely no one, no man and not even God, are going to put any limits on her. They are not going to limit her sexuality, for sure. This is the essence of  feminism. A woman can do anything she pleases without limitation and without guidance and it is the duty of others, including her God-given authorities to embrace her choices and to finance them. I'm sure that Sophie would deny being a feminist, but she is believing and practicing the core principles of feminism, therefore she is a feminist, even if she would protest.

No one should miss this post over at Vox Day's Alpha Game Blog. It sums up the solipsism of women very concisely.  And why should women read this and understand it? Because if we don't understand the evil residing in our nature, we are bound to either excuse and dismiss it or outright embrace it. Don't be put off by the strong language. It won't hurt you.

What follows is my response to Sophie and the other commentors over at True Love Doesn't Wait. I wanted to save it here for future reference, you know, for that book I'm going to write someday. It deals with the arguments which say that betrothal is not a command or that any way of getting a wife is ok. On the contrary, I believe that betrothal or an outright purchase are the only ways of getting a wife that conform to what is taught about marriage in the Scriptures. I also wanted to point out that while I agree with much of  what Vaughn Ohlman (the writer/owner of True Love Doesn't Wait) says about betrothal, I also have very serious differences of opinion with him. I do not accept his definitions of either betrothal or marriage, for example, which are pretty big differences.  Ok, my comment follows:

I don't think that Sophie really does have (or that she should have) choices. I think the Bible shows us that a woman does not have the authority over her own sexuality. Her father is the guardian of it until she marries, and he decides to whom and when she will be given in marriage. Once she is married the authority and control over her sexuality passes to her husband.

While there is no single passage of Scripture where this is explained and set forth, it is revealed all throughout the Scriptures. Obviously Vaughn has already written two books on the subject, and even in those he wasn't able to cover every verse where these principles are either mentioned or implied. When we say "show me the verse....!" we are demanding something we don't demand of other principles. For example, where is the verse in the law of God which commands parents to feed and clothe their children? What? There is no such command? But we see parents doing it. Is that just cultural?

In the case of betrothal, we not only see that it is implied as the natural and normal way of doing things, we also see that God, in his law, gives remedies to fathers and husbands when other men, or even the daughter/wife herself decide to exercise their sexuality outside their authority. We see a law wherein a man who suspects his wife of being adulterous can have the priest test her for it. If she is guilty, either by admission or by failing the test, she ends up dead. There is no such test for husbands. A husband's sexuality is not under the control or authority of his wife. He has a duty to her sexually, but it is not exclusive to her. God calls this "just". Is that cultural?

But the real convincer for me came after I became reformed. When I came to understand that the grace of God is irresistible to me. The father chose me for Christ and neither Christ nor I have any choice in the matter. God, Himself, uses betrothal for His Son. And then He created the institution of marriage as a picture of the marriage of Christ and His bride. Every aspect of the marriage, including the betrothal is pictured in how men take wives. The way we do this speaks the gospel. When we ignore betrothal we lie. We are hiding the gospel. When Christians let women choose or not choose their husbands we are using a picture of marriage that lies about the gospel.

There is nothing about marriage from its institution in the Garden until today that is cultural. It was created for the purpose of illustrating the gospel. Not the other way around. God didn't look around the earth and try to find some earthly thing that would help him explain what He is doing, instead, He invented marriage and gave us marriage as an aid to our understanding. When we accept the analogy as created we see that election is from the beginning, we see that betrothal is from the beginning. It is a vital part of the message of the gospel and therefore should not be excluded from the manner in which God's people express marriage.

Perhaps Sophie believes that she chose Christ? Or that she at least had the option to reject Him if she didn't like him? The Scriptures don't teach this. We are to love the God who first loved us, not just say "no" if He doesn't get our motor running. In the same way, we are to love our husbands and if we don't, the older women can teach us how. We don't "marry the one we love", we "love the one we marry". Huge difference. We have no business loving men who are not our husbands.

Southern Baptists Are NOT Calvinists

I read something today that I found to be rather amusing. One lady wrote, "Southern Baptists are Calvinists". To which another lady responded, "Southern Baptists can be both Calvinists and Arminian."

I just want to set the record straight by saying that the Southern Baptist Convention's 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is undeniably NOT Calvinist. It stands in direct disagreement with  Calvinism on at least 3, if not 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism.

A reminder of the 5 points:
T - Total Inability (or Total Depravity)
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

 Here is part of what the Southern Baptist Convention says about "Salvation":

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

We can contrast that with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is arguably Calvinist, and what it says about Effectual Calling:

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

The Southern Baptist Convention does not entirely line up with Arminianism, either. Especially with the last point, "Falling from grace", as the Southern Baptist position could be described more as "once saved, always saved."  Here is a review of the 5 points of Arminianism:



1. Free Will or Human Ability
2. Conditional Election
3. Universal Redemption or General Atonement
4. The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted
5. Falling From Grace

While there are some people who call themselves "baptist" AND "reformed" or "Calvinists", this is definitely opposed to the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention.  This includes such notables as John Piper. I believe a reformed baptist is a Calvinist who ascribes to baptism after profession of faith rather than infant baptism. Infant baptism is the traditional Calvinist teaching. Correct me if I'm wrong, please?
 

Longish Quote from C. S. Lewis

If what you want is an argument against Christianity (and I well remember how eagerly I looked for such arguments when I began to be afraid it was true) you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say, 'So there's your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.' But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people's souls -- of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him. You cannot put Him off with speculations about your next door neighbours or memories of what you have read in books. What will all that chatter and hearsay count (will you even be able to remember it?) when the anaesthetic fog which we call 'nature' or 'the real world' fades away and the Presence in which you have always stood becomes palpable, immediate, and unavoidable?

Mere Christianity, Bk IV, ch. 11

He makes a great point concerning the futility of arguing against God by using the poor examples of individual Christians. He misses it, of course,  when he claims that ones fate is placed within ones own hands, as it would be as nonsensical for God to leave election within the control of humans as it would have been for Him to have left the job of creation with man. More nonsensical, even, as our election is vastly more important than the molecules that make up our universe. God doesn't even leave us to choose what type of weather we shall enjoy today, He knows we could never choose Him apart from His election of us.

Reason will never lead us to Christ, although it may convince us that we have, in fact, been apprehended of Him.

On Election and Sheep

In John 10 Jesus paints a beautiful picture of the sheep fold. He identifies his followers as sheep and himself as both the door and the shepherd. See what Jesus says in verses 14-16:

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I  the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

I recently heard a man say this about the above passage, "See, this is a verse about evangelism. There are other sheep out there that need to come into the fold and we need to bring them in."

*pulls out hair in frustration*

No, no, no. The job of the undershepherds is to feed the sheep, not to make them a part of the fold. Jesus does that himself.  Jesus brings them, they hear HIS voice. When they get there, just feed them. You are making this much harder than it has to be.

More Thoughts on Betrothal - Who has a Say-So?

Here are some more thoughts I posted on betrothal over on an internet discussion forum for Christian women:

I do not believe that the Bible requires, recommends or commands that either the groom or the bride approve of the marriage. I believe that it is completely moral and scripturally acceptable for fathers to arrange a marriage. While I don't have any particular verses to back this up, since it is not possible to prove a negative, I do have some principles gleaned from the betrothal of Christ and the Church that leads me to that belief.

What I see in Scripture is that we have no say in whether or not we are chosen. We are chosen both by Christ and by the Father, according to what Jesus and Paul tell us. Because Jesus and the Father are one, it is sometimes difficult to translate directly their roles into earthly situations. Sometimes God is behaving as a Father, sometimes as a Son, sometimes as a brother, sometimes as a friend, etc. He uses all of those roles to teach us things about Himself and they can't always be cut out and separated so that we can see exactly how WE should behave as a father, son, brother, friend, etc.

So, God the Father, acting in the role as our Father, betrothed us to His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ paid the price for the bride and has therefore entered into a covenant to marry her. Christ and the Church are not yet married, but have entered into an unbreakable betrothal covenant, and when He marries His bride, the covenant will be fulfilled. She cannot remove herself from the betrothal, nor did she have any say in being placed into the betrothal.

Because earthly marriage is supposed to be a picture of the marriage of Christ and the Church, the process by which those marriages come about should also be a picture, or rather that process is a part of the complete picture of what God is doing in regards to finding a bride for his Son and building a Kingdom. To ignore the process is to miss much of the purpose for God giving us the picture in order for us to understand Him better and to know Him more. Every thing that God has done in history so far IS the process! The marriage hasn't happened yet, only the betrothal, and even that isn't complete as more are being added to the bride. (And it seems that more will continue to be added right up to the moment that Jesus comes for the bride)

I realize that many (I think most) of the ladies here do not embrace reformed theology that teaches that God alone is responsible for saving us and that we have no part in it and no choice. Since that is what I believe, it forms very heavily my beliefs about earthly marriage.

Scripture gives some examples, but no direct commands. In the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah, we see that Isaac had no say at all in who was chosen for him. And Rebekah also did not have a choice. The deal was made by her relatives.

Genesis 24:51
1Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the LORD hath spoken

I will also address the "Well, that's just cultural" argument before it arises. :D

This practice (of marriages being arranged or the very least approved by the fathers) has existed in every culture, ancient and modern, up until perhaps 200 years ago or less. The change in western cultures to women choosing their own husbands was based on a turning away from the biblical teaching on authority, not on any new discovery of some sort of God-given right to do what you please. God not only endorses and embraces the betrothal system for His own family, He established it before the foundation of the world. If it was good enough for his only begotten son, it's good enough for my sons and daughters.

From a purely pragmatic view (which wouldn't matter a hill of beans if it contradicted Scripture, but is worth noting nonetheless) the modern, western method of finding a spouse has been nothing short of disastrous for families and for women in particular. To quote a non-Christian who occasionally stumbles onto some truth, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, "I don't support arranged marriage. But concerning most of the women who call my show; their parents couldn't possibly have picked worse husbands for these ladies than whom they chose for themselves!"

As a side note, in our household, we will allow a veto from a daughter. While we don't believe it is required, we don't want to add any more difficulties to her sinful mind when the tough times come. As in, we don't want satan handing her the argument (lie) that she doesn't have to obey this husband because she didn't even want to marry him in the first place.

What is Betrothal?

Below is the response I gave on an internet discussion forum to the question, "What is the difference between courtship and betrothal?"

Betrothal is not a "process" so much as it is an event and statement of the status of relationship between two people.

So if I ask how are you related to that man over there, you might answer, He IS my father, or he IS my brother, or he IS my husband, or, in the case of betrothal, he IS my espoused husband. Betrothal creates a relationship between two people. It begins with a covenant, historically and biblically between the groom/husband and the father of the bride. The covenant is fulfilled when the husband returns and takes the bride to wife.

There is no reference in Scripture of which I'm aware where the marriage is a covenant. The marriage is the fulfillment of the Betrothal covenant.

Betrothal has nothing to do with a couple getting to know each other and that is not a necessary element of it. In many cultures and in the accounts in the Bible, there is no "relating" going on between betrothed people. They "get to know each other" AFTER the marriage.

It was not uncommon for the bride price to include jewels, so we see betrothed women having been adorned with rings and bracelets. These would have served to let others know that a woman was taken. In ancient cultures a single woman would never adorn herself with jewels (unless she was a harlot). It served much the same purpose as our culture's engagement ring. Once a maiden was betrothed, her "status" was different, even though she would continue to live in her father's house and function pretty much the same as other single women until her husband came for her. There was no dating or courtship.

Both courtship and dating are terms that refer to how a couple get to know one another before marriage. Some families practice them, some don't. Some cultures practice them, some don't. Neither term or practice seems to have any biblical endorsement or prohibition.

It is interesting to me that there is no requirement that the woman/bride be involved in the betrothal. This also contributes to the difference between reformed and non-reformed theology in the sense that the reformed believe that God chooses the bride for his Son and the bride does NOT choose the Son. She is "chosen", whether she wants to be, or not.

Presuppositions

It is best to read the Bible without any preconceived notions about what it should be saying. I like how Doug Phillips says it in his Publisher's Introduction to How God Wants Us to Worship Him by Joe Moorecraft, III:

"Suppose you lived on a desert island, had never had contact with modern culture, and the only thing to guide you in your decision making or in formulating your worldview was the Bible. How would you live?"

In other words, lay aside everything you've been taught, disassemble the incorrect framework you've built on which you hang Bible teachings and just let the Bible speak for itself. Or, more correctly, let the Bible speak for God.

I agree with this. But I also believe that it isn't possible to entirely jettison doctrine, once it is acquired, and that proper doctrine can be an aid to understanding the Bible.

In terms of culture, Christian lingo, popular movements, yes, discard them all and start from scratch. But when it comes to doctrine, hold fast to the truth. Which brings me to my point. Reading the Psalms is so much more enjoyable, not to mention edifying, when read with proper understanding of the Kingdom. Not just the Psalms, of course, but that is what I was reading this morning when I had my "ah-ha" moment.

Before I embraced Reformed theology, before I was a Calvinist, back when I was a rabid dispensationalist, I could never get a grasp on the Psalms. As a matter of fact, so many things I read did not fit into my dispensations, as I had been taught to understand them. Some things in the Bible seem to transcend the dispensations, and this was very confusing for me. But now, I see that God has been at work since the beginning of time, building a Kingdom, choosing his people, preparing a bride. Of course! Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever!

The 5 Points of Calvinism

Sometimes the acronym "TULIP" is used as an aid in remembering the 5 points of Calvinism.

T - Total Inability (or Total Depravity)
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints


For more information and a comparison to Arminianism see:

The Reformed Faith

The 5 Points of Arminianism

The 5 Points of Arminianism

1. Free Will or Human Ability

2. Conditional Election

3. Universal Redemption or General Atonement

4. The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted

5. Falling From Grace

For an explanation of the above and a contrast with Calvinism see this:

The Reformed Faith

The Pro Choice Christians

What is wrong with the Church? Why is it that the children of the chosen go the way of the world nearly as frequently as the children of those not chosen? I would assert that it is because dispensationalists are Pro-Choice.

By "dispensationalist" I am referring to those whose theology is not reformed. Those who are not Calvinists. Primarily these folks believe that God saved his Old Testament people in one way, and his New Testament people in a different way. They believe that the Old Testament is useful, but not really authoritative in terms of God's justice or God's commands and that the New Testament somehow supersedes the Old. It's as if God suddenly did something completely different, disregarding everything He had said previously. The term itself comes from the idea that God has acted differently during different "dispensations" of time. I know and love the dispensationalists, for I, myself, was one of them. Thank God He delivered me from dispensationalism.

But my beef with dispensationalists is not so much their nonsensical beliefs about time but with their wrong-headed insistence that man chooses Christ rather than Christ choosing man. When it comes to salvation, they believe man is Pro-Choice.

I don't have the time or the theological training to launch into a full-blown defense of Calvinism here. If you are truly interested there are plenty of websites and books available on the subject. What I want to point out is one of the practical consequences of being Pro-Choice which is that their children leave the Church in droves. According to Barna Research Group, somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of teens who claim to be born again will not be practicing Christianity by their twenties.

What I can't find, is a statistic that compares the teens of evangelical reformed families versus those of evangelical non-reformed families. But from what I've seen personally, I'm pretty sure it's the non-reformed that are responsible for most of the 80% who fall away. The reason is simple, reformed families teach their children that they are chosen by God and have no choice about whether or not they want to follow Christ. Only God gets to choose and His choice is binding on the rest of us. The non-reformed, on the other hand, are hoping their children will see the benefits of being a Christian and choose to be saved, and then, hopefully, choose to obey God in order to get all the goodies that go to the obedient. Since when does a teen or young adult choose what is best for himself? Mostly they choose whatever is fun right now. These parents would never be so lax with the running of their households as they teach that God is about running His Kingdom! "Ok now Susie, it might be dangerous for you to be out all night, plus you'll feel so much better after a good night's sleep, but you just choose for yourself." I don't think so. And yet these same people believe and teach their children that God would REALLY, REALLY appreciate it if they would choose to serve Him, but if not, hey, that's their choice?

What kind of a God builds a Kingdom only with those having nothing better to do? The sovereign God of the universe chooses each one to add to the bride for His Son, He doesn't limit Himself to those who want to come. And once a person is chosen, obedience is required, it isn't an option. To disobey is to be chastened, as we know the Bible says that God chastens those whom He loves.

Let's teach this truth to our children and see if they don't fare better when we stop telling them they have a choice and instead start teaching them the commands of God. Stop telling them that Jesus is softly and gently begging them to come to Him. Stop telling them that God will be so grateful if they would grace the Kingdom with their souls. Stop telling them that they can choose to reject God now and change their minds at any time, God will never reject them. Nonsense!

Be like the parents who brought their children to Jesus so He could bless them. They didn't ask the children if they wanted to go to Jesus, they just took them. You say, "Here is the King. Love Him. Obey Him. Serve Him."