It's not that I have
writer's block. It's more along the lines of biting off more than I can chew. The topic (the Abrahamic covenant and how it relates to infant baptism) is too big, more fundamental than I can treat in a "dash off a quick essay" burst of inspiration. Rest assured that I have been meditating on this a lot. I am sure that Abraham would have been more than a little put out had Isaac said, "You know dad, that circumcision bit was alright for you to apply to your child, but for me and my house, I think I'll pass". That's where I am. It's more than grandfather's rights. It is God's idea, not mine.
The funny thing is that I have been going backwards - from infant baptism to the Abrahamic covenant. Now I propose to go backwards again. I am proposing to back up out of necessity. The need came up because twice in this discussion I was asked to produce a scripture proof of infant baptism. I was subjected to the clever red-herring "That's what we have so often treasured in the reformers, their insistence that the word is pre-eminent. There must be a scripture to prove your point. Give me a single scripture that says that we should baptize infants."
I think that argument is a misuse of sola scriptura. The sola scriptura principle was the reformer's weapon that combatted the Roman Catholic insistence that the church was authoritative over scripture, claiming that the church and especially its leaders who maintain apostolic succession from the first (i.e. Peter) were the authors of scripture.
I mentioned that I am lousy at theological ping-pong. That red-herring slam won a point for my opponent. But I am here to assert that inspite of the absence of a single scripture that says "you must baptize your infant children", it is nevertheless God's will for his church. That point, however, I am not going to push any further right at the moment. Rather, I want to address the principle that a single clear scripture must exist in the Bible before we as believers can accept a doctrine.
It's not at all hard really. What follows is a list (an incomplete list) of doctrines or in a few cases, practices, that orthodox Christians hold to without there being a single verse that backs up the belief.
1) The Trinity. Without a single verse to back this belief up, the church has unequivocally stated that unless you hold to the trinity, you are not a Christian. Ask yourself how we get away with this.
2) A second, like unto the first, - Jesus is God. Of course, many verses come close to explicitly stating this but we're not playing horseshoes.
3) Orthodoxy has stated for centuries that Jesus, in the flesh, was a single person with two natures. Not two persons with two natures, or a single person with one nature, etc. You may think that this distinction is not important, but I would counter that knowing Jesus includes knowing about Jesus.
4) Two wills of God. One will which relates to his moral demands of humans, and his sovereign will that controls every event that transpires inside and outside time and space. (See number 3)
5) Any eschatology system that you care to bring up. Especially those systems that appear to counter actual verses brought out by those pre-mil/dispensational types. A-mil types defend their position with what must seem to the pre-mil guys as having no visible means of support.
6) Just for fun, on what scriptural basis do we allow women to a) partake of communion - since, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code notwithstanding, only men were present at the initial supper b) preach from a pulpit c) be an elder or deacon.
7) On what scriptural basis do we take the liberty to change scripture where it suits us - i.e. gender inclusivity issues.
What's the point? The point is more than just demonstrating that the demand for a single scripture to prove the doctrine of infant baptism fails. The point goes beyond a mere 'heads up' that handling this issue will take a little work i.e. you won't get your wish that a nice little verse, heretofore un-noticed, will pop up and solve the dilemma or that the lack of that single verse proves the opposite. The point really is two questions, 1) what is the Bible, 2) how do you read it?
There, I did it again. I bit off more than I can chew. But I am quite sure that to get to the bottom of infant baptism, to get to the bottom of the Abrahamic Covenant, you have to get to the bottom of your philosophy or presuppositions of what the Bible is and how you read it?
I am talking about more than just recommending that you read Gordon Fee's Read the Bible for All its Worth. Although that wouldn't be a bad idea.
I am amassing a pile of unfinished business. This wouldn't happen if I was more disciplined.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
I'm thinking, I'm thinking!
But in the mean time, here is a contest: a signed print of any photo from our collection to the first person who can identify what this piece of code (which I wrote and run daily at home) does. (Second prize is two photos)
d=Dir.new(".")
flac_fns = Array.new
wav_fns = Array.new
d.each {|x|
if x =~ /\.flac/
flac_fns.push(x)
elsif x=~ /\.wav/
wav_fns.push(x)
end
}
high_num = flac_fns.length
wav_fns.each {|i|
high_num = high_num + 1
`move \"#{i}\" \"#{i.sub(/\d+/,high_num.to_s)}\"`
}
To be eligible for this contest, you have to be someone other than a male whose last name is Settergren or someone younger than 25 or older than 36.
You don't have to be baptized as an infant to be eligible.
BTW I am seriously considering finding a different (better) free blog service. This thing can't even handle leading spaces - which makes the code even harder to read. Any suggestions for a better blog service?
But in the mean time, here is a contest: a signed print of any photo from our collection to the first person who can identify what this piece of code (which I wrote and run daily at home) does. (Second prize is two photos)
d=Dir.new(".")
flac_fns = Array.new
wav_fns = Array.new
d.each {|x|
if x =~ /\.flac/
flac_fns.push(x)
elsif x=~ /\.wav/
wav_fns.push(x)
end
}
high_num = flac_fns.length
wav_fns.each {|i|
high_num = high_num + 1
`move \"#{i}\" \"#{i.sub(/\d+/,high_num.to_s)}\"`
}
To be eligible for this contest, you have to be someone other than a male whose last name is Settergren or someone younger than 25 or older than 36.
You don't have to be baptized as an infant to be eligible.
BTW I am seriously considering finding a different (better) free blog service. This thing can't even handle leading spaces - which makes the code even harder to read. Any suggestions for a better blog service?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Well,
we have had two good reminders both of which serve to provide a bit of a wake-up. First, we are saved by grace, therefore baptism, which is a work, couldn't save. Second, the comment that Christ is to be found in the AbCo is telling. As for grace saving us, you have to admit that the infant does no work at all during his baptism, so technically, (and considering 1st Peter 3:21 which says that baptism saves us) the door is still open. However, I doubt that we will wind up there.
Second, I really appreciate the reminder to find Christ in the AbCo. This, I believe, is what covenant theology is all about: seeing Christ in the covenants. I think it is especially important to do so in the case of the AbCo.
I believe this: the church has been very lax in its teaching about the covenants. What with the focus on church growth, the importance of providing an exciting quality church experience, personal relationship and more at the expense of doctrine (which as you know means teaching) I myself can say proudly that, inspite of 2 score of years in church, I know next to nothing about covenant in any depth and next to nothing regarding teaching on baptism (among many other fundamentals).
In addition to that, I am beginning to learn the importance of not just learning about the covenant, but the importance of living the covenant; of discovering how the covenant can make sense of your life and also (as one of the elect) of life itself.
I also believe this: the way to build up faith is not by encouraging devotion, pietism, relationship for its own sake, but to teach Christ with the view to magnifying him.
I am naive if I think I can all of a sudden become an expert on covenant theology. The little reading I have done, however, has made a good start on firming up my conviction that infant baptism is fine and dandy. (My sister's reference to infant baptism as covenantal baptism is astute).
we have had two good reminders both of which serve to provide a bit of a wake-up. First, we are saved by grace, therefore baptism, which is a work, couldn't save. Second, the comment that Christ is to be found in the AbCo is telling. As for grace saving us, you have to admit that the infant does no work at all during his baptism, so technically, (and considering 1st Peter 3:21 which says that baptism saves us) the door is still open. However, I doubt that we will wind up there.
Second, I really appreciate the reminder to find Christ in the AbCo. This, I believe, is what covenant theology is all about: seeing Christ in the covenants. I think it is especially important to do so in the case of the AbCo.
I believe this: the church has been very lax in its teaching about the covenants. What with the focus on church growth, the importance of providing an exciting quality church experience, personal relationship and more at the expense of doctrine (which as you know means teaching) I myself can say proudly that, inspite of 2 score of years in church, I know next to nothing about covenant in any depth and next to nothing regarding teaching on baptism (among many other fundamentals).
In addition to that, I am beginning to learn the importance of not just learning about the covenant, but the importance of living the covenant; of discovering how the covenant can make sense of your life and also (as one of the elect) of life itself.
I also believe this: the way to build up faith is not by encouraging devotion, pietism, relationship for its own sake, but to teach Christ with the view to magnifying him.
I am naive if I think I can all of a sudden become an expert on covenant theology. The little reading I have done, however, has made a good start on firming up my conviction that infant baptism is fine and dandy. (My sister's reference to infant baptism as covenantal baptism is astute).
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
The AbCo was/is a promise made by God
and guaranteed by Him by the passing of his person through the gauntlet of multiple animal halves strewn in a line on the ground. The promise consisted of three parts. 1) Land, 2) Inumerable posterity 3) Blessing to all the inhabitants of the earth via that posterity.
We always should remind ourselves that if God pulls out of that promise, then we are certainly doomed, since we see the promise ultimately consumated in the new heaven and the new earth.
Being a bit tired right now, I will let that sit. Anybody disagree with that outline?
and guaranteed by Him by the passing of his person through the gauntlet of multiple animal halves strewn in a line on the ground. The promise consisted of three parts. 1) Land, 2) Inumerable posterity 3) Blessing to all the inhabitants of the earth via that posterity.
We always should remind ourselves that if God pulls out of that promise, then we are certainly doomed, since we see the promise ultimately consumated in the new heaven and the new earth.
Being a bit tired right now, I will let that sit. Anybody disagree with that outline?
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Making little headway,
I am, on the overall topic, but questions are frequently as good as answers. A fundamental question is the issue of implied continuity. The classic scenario is Jewish parents listening to Peter's sermon which told them "this promise is for you and your children . . . ." didn't they recognize the Ab. covenant promise in those words. The Ab. covenant would need to have its mechanics rescinded somewhere along the line. Without an explicit command to cease and desist from giving the sign to your children, it should continue, no?
Anyway, many see it this way today but I suspect many drop the "if you don't apply the sign, their soul will be cut off. . ." part. Why is implied continuity gladly employed as a defense of the idea that baptism is NT circumcision but the warning is conveniently forgotten. Shouldn't implied continuity apply there as well?
A second question is what is suggested by this warning. I offer the following: the sign and that which it signifies are more intimately tied together than those who say its only a sign and nothing more will be comfortable admitting. Doesn't this warning imply that baptism (of infants, don't forget - Baptists can check out on this since they don't buy any connection at all between circumcision and baptism. I guess it is clear that as soon as you admit a connection - equivalence- between circumcision and baptism exists, the you must allow that infant baptism is not just scriptural but commanded) does something. Apparently withholding it has a profound affect on the child. I am not sure it is sufficient to say "you don't have to be baptized to be saved" unless you fully address this warning verse.
Maybe this is all obvious to everyone but me. If so, and if time permits, these questions and others will get answered.
For me, gone are the days when I could just say that I know I am saved so these details are irrelevant. My faith is not strong enough to make it from day-to-day without hearing and engaging the word. (If that sounds pietistic, I assure you I have no piety - just ask my wife - it's more like I am a shark, constantly on the move looking for more food). The result is that I become a pain in the neck for not a few people.
I am, on the overall topic, but questions are frequently as good as answers. A fundamental question is the issue of implied continuity. The classic scenario is Jewish parents listening to Peter's sermon which told them "this promise is for you and your children . . . ." didn't they recognize the Ab. covenant promise in those words. The Ab. covenant would need to have its mechanics rescinded somewhere along the line. Without an explicit command to cease and desist from giving the sign to your children, it should continue, no?
Anyway, many see it this way today but I suspect many drop the "if you don't apply the sign, their soul will be cut off. . ." part. Why is implied continuity gladly employed as a defense of the idea that baptism is NT circumcision but the warning is conveniently forgotten. Shouldn't implied continuity apply there as well?
A second question is what is suggested by this warning. I offer the following: the sign and that which it signifies are more intimately tied together than those who say its only a sign and nothing more will be comfortable admitting. Doesn't this warning imply that baptism (of infants, don't forget - Baptists can check out on this since they don't buy any connection at all between circumcision and baptism. I guess it is clear that as soon as you admit a connection - equivalence- between circumcision and baptism exists, the you must allow that infant baptism is not just scriptural but commanded) does something. Apparently withholding it has a profound affect on the child. I am not sure it is sufficient to say "you don't have to be baptized to be saved" unless you fully address this warning verse.
Maybe this is all obvious to everyone but me. If so, and if time permits, these questions and others will get answered.
For me, gone are the days when I could just say that I know I am saved so these details are irrelevant. My faith is not strong enough to make it from day-to-day without hearing and engaging the word. (If that sounds pietistic, I assure you I have no piety - just ask my wife - it's more like I am a shark, constantly on the move looking for more food). The result is that I become a pain in the neck for not a few people.
Monday, December 12, 2005
I am not going to
dive into this very far except to ask some questions whose answers will help later on.
If you are going to claim that NT baptism is the sign of the Ab. covenant, then you must be conversant on the Ab. Cov.
1) What is the Abrahamic covenant?
2) What was its sign and what did it signify?
3) Did the sign convey or apply any spiritual blessing, result, change or effect?
4) Was there any significance to the sign in the sense that it typified anything that was fulfilled in the NT?
5) Do you believe that there is anything significant about the mechanics of this covenant.
a) Should its sign always be something that can be given to your offspring, i.e. applied externally, as circumcision was?
b) Should the thing signified by the sign stay the same forever.
c) Or is it possible for it to signify one thing in the OT economy and something different later?
d) Same question for the sign itself.
e) If the sign conveyed or applied any spiritual blessing, result etc. , should its NT counterpart do exactly the same or can it change to a different applied result or no result at all?
That's quite a lot right there. The first one is the toughest by far.
Won't get to any answers tonight.
Lest you think I am the guy with answers, I am not. I just know that this is where the action is.
dive into this very far except to ask some questions whose answers will help later on.
If you are going to claim that NT baptism is the sign of the Ab. covenant, then you must be conversant on the Ab. Cov.
1) What is the Abrahamic covenant?
2) What was its sign and what did it signify?
3) Did the sign convey or apply any spiritual blessing, result, change or effect?
4) Was there any significance to the sign in the sense that it typified anything that was fulfilled in the NT?
5) Do you believe that there is anything significant about the mechanics of this covenant.
a) Should its sign always be something that can be given to your offspring, i.e. applied externally, as circumcision was?
b) Should the thing signified by the sign stay the same forever.
c) Or is it possible for it to signify one thing in the OT economy and something different later?
d) Same question for the sign itself.
e) If the sign conveyed or applied any spiritual blessing, result etc. , should its NT counterpart do exactly the same or can it change to a different applied result or no result at all?
That's quite a lot right there. The first one is the toughest by far.
Won't get to any answers tonight.
Lest you think I am the guy with answers, I am not. I just know that this is where the action is.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
I lied,
a little. I have the time now to write more. But not much tonight. I want to tackle infant baptism again. The reason is that I have some grandchildren (half of them, to be exact) who haven't been given the sign of the covenant, and I need to know if I should be bothered by it.
This verse bothers me: Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." You can go read the whole Gen 17 passage at length.
I have had two discussions on this topic with guys neither of whom believe that infant baptism is a scriptural practice. Neither discussion went well. It turns out that I am really lousy at theological ping-pong.
It's way too late to get into it but brace yourself for the questions and issues.
a little. I have the time now to write more. But not much tonight. I want to tackle infant baptism again. The reason is that I have some grandchildren (half of them, to be exact) who haven't been given the sign of the covenant, and I need to know if I should be bothered by it.
This verse bothers me: Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." You can go read the whole Gen 17 passage at length.
I have had two discussions on this topic with guys neither of whom believe that infant baptism is a scriptural practice. Neither discussion went well. It turns out that I am really lousy at theological ping-pong.
It's way too late to get into it but brace yourself for the questions and issues.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
The word on the street is
that I will resume blogging next week. Term paper is nearly done, so maybe I can get back to work. In the meantime here are what I will most likely blow $100 on this week:
St. Louis on the road to cover 3 pts against Houston.
Chargers to cover 3 pts on the road vs. the Skins
Raiders to cover 7 pts at home vs. the Dolphins.
that I will resume blogging next week. Term paper is nearly done, so maybe I can get back to work. In the meantime here are what I will most likely blow $100 on this week:
St. Louis on the road to cover 3 pts against Houston.
Chargers to cover 3 pts on the road vs. the Skins
Raiders to cover 7 pts at home vs. the Dolphins.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Just in time
to lose another $100.
Houston to cover 6.5 at home vs. the Chiefs
Pitt to cover 3.5 as road favorites vs. the putrid Ravens.
And for you Ohio folks, Cleveland to cover 2.5 over Miami at home to atone for their being laughed at by all the Steelers on national TV last week.
As for normal blogging, I am getting close. Right now I am writing my term paper for the Ministry of the Word class. I hope to finish it by Thanksgiving. Then I have one book to read and studying for the final. Then I will be cut loose.
to lose another $100.
Houston to cover 6.5 at home vs. the Chiefs
Pitt to cover 3.5 as road favorites vs. the putrid Ravens.
And for you Ohio folks, Cleveland to cover 2.5 over Miami at home to atone for their being laughed at by all the Steelers on national TV last week.
As for normal blogging, I am getting close. Right now I am writing my term paper for the Ministry of the Word class. I hope to finish it by Thanksgiving. Then I have one book to read and studying for the final. Then I will be cut loose.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
My life has not been
reduced to football betting. My big problem right how is that my laptop is dying. It can't stay operative for more the 1 minute so I can't do much with it. That will have to be fixed soon since I have to write a paper on it and I want it done within two weeks. I actually could be writing a lot since the time for the Reformed Worship articles is now. As well as a little more in depth report on my mid-term, which I got back yesterday. I got a hefty B+ on it.
In the meantime, here are my football bets:
Skins over Tampa on the road in a pickem' (no spread) game.
KC over Buffalo on the road to cover 2.5 pts.
Dallas to cover 3 pts on the road against Philly.
reduced to football betting. My big problem right how is that my laptop is dying. It can't stay operative for more the 1 minute so I can't do much with it. That will have to be fixed soon since I have to write a paper on it and I want it done within two weeks. I actually could be writing a lot since the time for the Reformed Worship articles is now. As well as a little more in depth report on my mid-term, which I got back yesterday. I got a hefty B+ on it.
In the meantime, here are my football bets:
Skins over Tampa on the road in a pickem' (no spread) game.
KC over Buffalo on the road to cover 2.5 pts.
Dallas to cover 3 pts on the road against Philly.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Back again to get back
on the winning streak. I am going to abandon my theory of picking the winner of games where the spread is closest to zero. At least in one game. The other operative theory is pick against teams that nobody can believe they are as bad as they are. That would be the Baltimore Ravens. Another theory is pick for teams that nobody can believe they are as good as they are. So I have one of each of these approaches this week:
Pitt to cover 8.5 pts favored over the Ravens
Denver to cover 3 pts favored over the Eagles
Cleveland to win straight up in an even game against the Houston Texans.
My blogging should pick up a bit for a while since I have finished my mid-term. The test was very tough but, of course, very fair. It was tough because we were accountable for a lot of material and that required a lot of studying on my part. Basically I had to go back into each book assigned and hunt for specific sections, assimilate them, summarize them and memorize them. Then the hard part was actually writing essays on the test. Rather than just shoot a brain dump, I tried to actually compose structured prose. So the problem turned out to be that I ran out of time on the test. I also had to leave one question pretty much unanswered because it was on one of the books I hadn't read - I didn't discover I had to read it until two nights before the exam.
However, I have learned that exams and preparing for them is where a large part of the learning is done.
on the winning streak. I am going to abandon my theory of picking the winner of games where the spread is closest to zero. At least in one game. The other operative theory is pick against teams that nobody can believe they are as bad as they are. That would be the Baltimore Ravens. Another theory is pick for teams that nobody can believe they are as good as they are. So I have one of each of these approaches this week:
Pitt to cover 8.5 pts favored over the Ravens
Denver to cover 3 pts favored over the Eagles
Cleveland to win straight up in an even game against the Houston Texans.
My blogging should pick up a bit for a while since I have finished my mid-term. The test was very tough but, of course, very fair. It was tough because we were accountable for a lot of material and that required a lot of studying on my part. Basically I had to go back into each book assigned and hunt for specific sections, assimilate them, summarize them and memorize them. Then the hard part was actually writing essays on the test. Rather than just shoot a brain dump, I tried to actually compose structured prose. So the problem turned out to be that I ran out of time on the test. I also had to leave one question pretty much unanswered because it was on one of the books I hadn't read - I didn't discover I had to read it until two nights before the exam.
However, I have learned that exams and preparing for them is where a large part of the learning is done.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
I am just plain rolling in
the green stuff. Being up $800 now, I am herewith betting $200 on this three teamer:
1) Packers to cover 1.5 as favs against the morally bankrupt Vikes.
2) Bears to cover 1 point as favs against the Ravens.
3) Denver to cover 2 points as road underdogs against the Giants.
Also, this week will prove to be a challenge. I have a Sem. midterm this Friday with a brother and sister-in-law visiting SD. If I succeed in memorizing the Bible by Friday, I should be OK.
the green stuff. Being up $800 now, I am herewith betting $200 on this three teamer:
1) Packers to cover 1.5 as favs against the morally bankrupt Vikes.
2) Bears to cover 1 point as favs against the Ravens.
3) Denver to cover 2 points as road underdogs against the Giants.
Also, this week will prove to be a challenge. I have a Sem. midterm this Friday with a brother and sister-in-law visiting SD. If I succeed in memorizing the Bible by Friday, I should be OK.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Friday, October 14, 2005
Friday
is class day and today's class was good like all the others. It does get a bit sleepy-ish at 2:30 pm (especially since today was in the high 90's and maybe even 100 in Escondido) but what I am learning is exactly what I was hoping for back in August when I decided to sign up.
I will probably write about that stuff some time down the road.
One thing you should know is that I read (or started reading) the book on Reformed Worship, from which I was going to provide a summary of each chapter, about 10 weeks early. That was due to technical problems with the syllabus, which if I had had it I would have known to read it just about last in the course. So, you will have to check back later for the resumption of that topic.
And for those breathlessly waiting for another installment on sanctification, you'll have to wait for that too. I am too busy.
I am now pretending to be a database administrator at work. I am the technical expert on a database IRAD at work now, and I have to, pretty quickly, produce some smoke and mirrors, dogs and ponies, and whatever else it may take, if I want to keep my job. So, I now have a split personality.
When I am at work I am all hopped up for things computer/technical. When I am at Sem. or when reading some of these great books about preaching, I am all hopped up for figuring out a way to whip up a call so I can some day mount a pulpit and be a gospel proclaimer, explicator, and applier.
By the way, I forgot earlier when listing my motives for getting involved at the Sem. that a big one was that I wanted to be an influence over my family, or what's left of it. By that, I mean maybe there is the leave-and-cleave clause that says I have no more influence over my kids. But I am not going to assume that. I want to do what I can to guide them down good paths. If you want to read into that motive the idea that I may be holding the opinion that I did a poor job of that early on, then you would be reading rightly. You also may secretly hold the opinion yourself that I am dreaming if I think I can influence my kids any more. Chances are good that I can't really influence anybody and it is only the holy spirit that can do it. FWIW, I also view my grandchildren as covenant people over whom I may have some influence.
Also, big sis', you might be interested to learn that one of the books used for an upcoming Practical Theology class is 'The Call' by Os Guiness. I took a look at it a bit today at lunch and it looks like it is an early version of 'The Purpose Driven Life' since it is all about finding your purpose. It looked interesting to me, nevertheless, and I plan to check it out of the library sometime around Christmas.
is class day and today's class was good like all the others. It does get a bit sleepy-ish at 2:30 pm (especially since today was in the high 90's and maybe even 100 in Escondido) but what I am learning is exactly what I was hoping for back in August when I decided to sign up.
I will probably write about that stuff some time down the road.
One thing you should know is that I read (or started reading) the book on Reformed Worship, from which I was going to provide a summary of each chapter, about 10 weeks early. That was due to technical problems with the syllabus, which if I had had it I would have known to read it just about last in the course. So, you will have to check back later for the resumption of that topic.
And for those breathlessly waiting for another installment on sanctification, you'll have to wait for that too. I am too busy.
I am now pretending to be a database administrator at work. I am the technical expert on a database IRAD at work now, and I have to, pretty quickly, produce some smoke and mirrors, dogs and ponies, and whatever else it may take, if I want to keep my job. So, I now have a split personality.
When I am at work I am all hopped up for things computer/technical. When I am at Sem. or when reading some of these great books about preaching, I am all hopped up for figuring out a way to whip up a call so I can some day mount a pulpit and be a gospel proclaimer, explicator, and applier.
By the way, I forgot earlier when listing my motives for getting involved at the Sem. that a big one was that I wanted to be an influence over my family, or what's left of it. By that, I mean maybe there is the leave-and-cleave clause that says I have no more influence over my kids. But I am not going to assume that. I want to do what I can to guide them down good paths. If you want to read into that motive the idea that I may be holding the opinion that I did a poor job of that early on, then you would be reading rightly. You also may secretly hold the opinion yourself that I am dreaming if I think I can influence my kids any more. Chances are good that I can't really influence anybody and it is only the holy spirit that can do it. FWIW, I also view my grandchildren as covenant people over whom I may have some influence.
Also, big sis', you might be interested to learn that one of the books used for an upcoming Practical Theology class is 'The Call' by Os Guiness. I took a look at it a bit today at lunch and it looks like it is an early version of 'The Purpose Driven Life' since it is all about finding your purpose. It looked interesting to me, nevertheless, and I plan to check it out of the library sometime around Christmas.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Let me quickly explain
the business of the previous post (as well as commenting on some of the comments) before I get back to reading. First, the form is not designed to weed anyone out. The seminary is a serious place where everyone there (except myself) belongs there. The form is simply a way for the director of field education to be in direct contact with the sems WRT their internships. If there is any step taken to do any weeding, it is the teaching about how the reformed church views the inward call. It exposes some interesting things.
My rambling on the subject is this: First, if you haven't got one (an inward call), then talking to someone about one is impossible in the sense that I (not having one) wouldn't have anything to say about something which I haven't experienced. It's just like faith. For someone who has no faith to complain about or in any way deride a person who has faith is plain stupid. Without faith it is impossible to discuss it, since merely reading in a dictionary a definition for faith is not enough to enable or entitle you to carry on about it. Same with the call. Those that have it can talk about it; describe it; preach it; say you must have it. That's fine. Maybe I'm the only honest one around. I am not going to say I have a call.
Second, the inward call is confirmed by the church by the extending of an external call. They recognize by your gifts that you have an inward call. Every inward call is accompanied by a gifting that God gives you. Well, unfortunately for me, I think it works or has worked bass-ackwardly.(I put that in there just so I could imagine my sister saying the word 'bass-ackwardly'). I know I have a skill (and this was my thought) that if I studied for it, worked on it, put all my energy into it I would be a very beneficial tool in - yes, say it, brother- God's hands. But no. I need the burning of the bosom - and why not call it that, since it is internal, why can't it take that form. Axiom #1 "If you have the call, it is wrong not to pursue it". Axiom #2 "With only skill and no call, it is wrong to pursue it".
Thirdly, my motivation is highly questionable. Actually, it's worse than that. My motivation originally was a backlash at the non-denominational evangelical approach for ordination which was that the guy who already has the paper gets to pass it on to whomever he wants to pass it on to. This hand-off is based on, guess what, and to be fair, in most cases recognizing an inward call which is confirmed by an outward call. Only the difference is, any rigorous training under a denominational institution is not required. In fact it would be a deterrent. I wanted to prove/show the way of truth. Many of my friends didn't even know what a seminary was. Some thought it was a monastery. Some, college. Some thought it meant I was turning Roman Catholic.
Further, my original motivation was polemical with respect to Biblical understanding. I am slowly getting that out of my system. (Not that I still don't think I am right on everything).
But the real issue is faith. How can someone who has come to see most of his religious belief as a nice theory constructed in my very imaginative mind be qualified to, on the one hand, believe in an inward call, or on the other, be entrusted to a body of innocent believers? There is the future, however. In ten years, things may have changed.
Son1 asked if simply having a 'passion for the word' didn't constitute a call. I don't know. I don't have a passion for the word. Sounds good, though. The truth is I don't have a clue about the 'Word'. I am getting off to a late start on it - getting a clue, that is. The honest motivation for delving into the word is that it is a good distraction. It keeps my mind from wandering too far into areas I want to avoid. (Although, in the end, the word pushes me there anyway).There are lots of ways to distract yourself. This is just the one that works best for me.
I'll close with the last line in 'Candide': "Any questions?"
the business of the previous post (as well as commenting on some of the comments) before I get back to reading. First, the form is not designed to weed anyone out. The seminary is a serious place where everyone there (except myself) belongs there. The form is simply a way for the director of field education to be in direct contact with the sems WRT their internships. If there is any step taken to do any weeding, it is the teaching about how the reformed church views the inward call. It exposes some interesting things.
My rambling on the subject is this: First, if you haven't got one (an inward call), then talking to someone about one is impossible in the sense that I (not having one) wouldn't have anything to say about something which I haven't experienced. It's just like faith. For someone who has no faith to complain about or in any way deride a person who has faith is plain stupid. Without faith it is impossible to discuss it, since merely reading in a dictionary a definition for faith is not enough to enable or entitle you to carry on about it. Same with the call. Those that have it can talk about it; describe it; preach it; say you must have it. That's fine. Maybe I'm the only honest one around. I am not going to say I have a call.
Second, the inward call is confirmed by the church by the extending of an external call. They recognize by your gifts that you have an inward call. Every inward call is accompanied by a gifting that God gives you. Well, unfortunately for me, I think it works or has worked bass-ackwardly.(I put that in there just so I could imagine my sister saying the word 'bass-ackwardly'). I know I have a skill (and this was my thought) that if I studied for it, worked on it, put all my energy into it I would be a very beneficial tool in - yes, say it, brother- God's hands. But no. I need the burning of the bosom - and why not call it that, since it is internal, why can't it take that form. Axiom #1 "If you have the call, it is wrong not to pursue it". Axiom #2 "With only skill and no call, it is wrong to pursue it".
Thirdly, my motivation is highly questionable. Actually, it's worse than that. My motivation originally was a backlash at the non-denominational evangelical approach for ordination which was that the guy who already has the paper gets to pass it on to whomever he wants to pass it on to. This hand-off is based on, guess what, and to be fair, in most cases recognizing an inward call which is confirmed by an outward call. Only the difference is, any rigorous training under a denominational institution is not required. In fact it would be a deterrent. I wanted to prove/show the way of truth. Many of my friends didn't even know what a seminary was. Some thought it was a monastery. Some, college. Some thought it meant I was turning Roman Catholic.
Further, my original motivation was polemical with respect to Biblical understanding. I am slowly getting that out of my system. (Not that I still don't think I am right on everything).
But the real issue is faith. How can someone who has come to see most of his religious belief as a nice theory constructed in my very imaginative mind be qualified to, on the one hand, believe in an inward call, or on the other, be entrusted to a body of innocent believers? There is the future, however. In ten years, things may have changed.
Son1 asked if simply having a 'passion for the word' didn't constitute a call. I don't know. I don't have a passion for the word. Sounds good, though. The truth is I don't have a clue about the 'Word'. I am getting off to a late start on it - getting a clue, that is. The honest motivation for delving into the word is that it is a good distraction. It keeps my mind from wandering too far into areas I want to avoid. (Although, in the end, the word pushes me there anyway).There are lots of ways to distract yourself. This is just the one that works best for me.
I'll close with the last line in 'Candide': "Any questions?"
Sunday, October 09, 2005
So,
take note everyone: I just won $600 putting me ahead by $200 for the season.
I will now come out of the closet and give you a quick update on seminary. My class is "Ministry of the Word". This class is in the 'Practical Theology' dept. So, the gist of this class is the meeting of the rubber to the road. Here, then, is the problem. It is pointed to the actual working of a person as a preacher/pastor. A big aspect of this (very big, actually) is the calling. I have no calling. Without the inward calling, you don't belong in the role of pastor/preacher. So I am out until I get such a calling.
What brings this reality into sharp focus is this form I have to fill out for review by the head of field education at the seminary. He is the one in charge of monitoring your work as an intern at some church.
This is the form:
Expected year of graduation:______
Your denominational affiliation:_______
Name of your home church:___________ (Most guys are here from out of town)
Yes/No are you under care of a Presbytery or formal supervision of an ecclesiastical body?
Yes/No do you plan to be ordained in your present denom?
If 'no' please explain.
Yes/No Do you have a copy of your denom's requirements for licensure/ordination?
Name of the local church you are presently attending:________
What are you expectations of the field education program?_________
Currently, what is your ministry objective: Pastor, missionary, teacher, other:_______
Name three persons who have been most influential in your Christian development and the quality each one possesses:_____________
Please describe one experience in your life that brought deep satisfaction and why:________
Church in which you expect to do your field education:___________
Name of the pastor or other person who will be supervising your work:_________
Denominational affiliation of the church or pastor:____________
This form then is reviewed in an interview with the head guy. Not having a calling combined with the contents of what I write on this form is going yield an interesting interview.
take note everyone: I just won $600 putting me ahead by $200 for the season.
I will now come out of the closet and give you a quick update on seminary. My class is "Ministry of the Word". This class is in the 'Practical Theology' dept. So, the gist of this class is the meeting of the rubber to the road. Here, then, is the problem. It is pointed to the actual working of a person as a preacher/pastor. A big aspect of this (very big, actually) is the calling. I have no calling. Without the inward calling, you don't belong in the role of pastor/preacher. So I am out until I get such a calling.
What brings this reality into sharp focus is this form I have to fill out for review by the head of field education at the seminary. He is the one in charge of monitoring your work as an intern at some church.
This is the form:
Expected year of graduation:______
Your denominational affiliation:_______
Name of your home church:___________ (Most guys are here from out of town)
Yes/No are you under care of a Presbytery or formal supervision of an ecclesiastical body?
Yes/No do you plan to be ordained in your present denom?
If 'no' please explain.
Yes/No Do you have a copy of your denom's requirements for licensure/ordination?
Name of the local church you are presently attending:________
What are you expectations of the field education program?_________
Currently, what is your ministry objective: Pastor, missionary, teacher, other:_______
Name three persons who have been most influential in your Christian development and the quality each one possesses:_____________
Please describe one experience in your life that brought deep satisfaction and why:________
Church in which you expect to do your field education:___________
Name of the pastor or other person who will be supervising your work:_________
Denominational affiliation of the church or pastor:____________
This form then is reviewed in an interview with the head guy. Not having a calling combined with the contents of what I write on this form is going yield an interesting interview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)