baby, church, doctrine, and more

I have a baby girl! She is the most precious thing. She is cute, sweet, adorable, and angelic. Yes, she is angel-like. Thanks to everyone for praying.

We joined a church. It took over a year of looking and praying, but God led us to one. Fellowship Baptist in Thonotosassa, FL. It is a little ways driving, but it is where we believe God wants us. We spent 2.5 hours talking with the pastor and his wife two Mondays ago. It went well from my perspective. Of course, my wife and sister told me that I was not very responsive, so we don't know what the pastor and his wife thought.

I'm not a very responsive individual. People at my job tell me that. People at home tell me that. I just don't respond to things. I sit and listen without a response, and without changing my facial expressions (for the most part). Sometimes, I am in complete agreement, and sometimes I am arguing vehemently on the inside. But you couldn't tell the difference from my countenance. Of course, if you know me and what I believe you would be able to know from the conversation how I was feeling. Anyway, overall I am happy with this aspect of me. I do not see a need to change it. I'm sure that there will be times where the outcome is negative because of it, but that is the same with almost everything, and it fits me better to remain quiet.

Ignorance. I am ignorant of quite a bit. It drives me insane.

Side note: You know why Socrates was killed (according to Plato's apology)? He claimed to be wiser than all other men. Yet, his wisdom was not in that he knew more, but in that he recognized his ignorance. They thought they knew, and he knew he didn't know. I'm not saying others don't know, but I am acutely aware that I do not know.

Back on track. Acts 19:1-6. Disciples, saved or not? I have generally held strong opinions on stuff like this because I am a black and white law person. But, then I start reading on what it means to be a dispensationalist, and I realize that I was probably wrong on my opinion of that passage. This is another instance of pointing out something that I am going to be wrong about. Obviously we aren't all going to be right about everything. I think we all would admit this, and yet, I also think that we act the other way about it. We know we can't be right about everything, and then we argue tooth and nail for something small where there is every possibility that we could be wrong. /sarcasm-on I have never done that...ever. /sarcasm-off

Another interesting thing that I recently found/figured out was the inconsistency in the Reformed/Covenant position.

Slight Digression: To be reformed almost certainly means 5-point Calvinist and maybe hyper Calvinist. I only say "almost certainly" on the off chance that someone tries to be Reformed and not Calvinist, but that doesn't happen. On the other hand, you can most assuredly be Calvinist, and NOT be reformed. So, Reformed includes Calvinist. Calvinist does not include Reformed. They are not equivalent terms. Often however, it is not entirely inaccurate to equate the terms Covenant and Reformed. Covenant is a system of theology that is held by almost all reformed denominations. Again, the almost all is in case there is a rare case out there. Lastly, even after some searching, the general stance of a Reformed Baptist is a hard one for me to pin down. Does it mean they are covenant and yet believe in immersion? The combining of those two is humanly irreconcilable, like the hypostatic union. But, assuming they believe it is what the Bible teaches, then they would practice it on faith and not worry about the logic. Or (back to the previous "does it mean" sentence) does it mean, rather erroneously, that they are Calvinistic Baptists? I don't know, and I don't have the time to try to find a consensus on it right now.

So, what was this inconsistency I stumbled upon? Well, since reformed are Calvinist, often many see the logical outworking of Calvinism in Scripture as double-predestination, that is, the predestination of the elect to Salvation and the predestination of the lost to damnation. Since this is the case of belief for many, it fights strongly with the Covenant system whose grounding principle, indeed the one they brag about, is that everything throughout all eternity is leading to the glory of God as evidenced in the Salvation of the elect. However, damnation is the opposite of salvation and fits the argument of the dispensationalist much better. (not the predeterminate counsel to damn, but rather the act itself) The dispensationalist argues that the end and beginning of all eternity is God's glory. Not just manifested in Salvation, which, though it is a large part, is not all God has done, nor is doing. God created angels and there is no plan of Salvation for them, and yet God receives glory from them. The basic premise that everything works for God's glory is simple and will not be argued even by many Covenant theologians. However, they do argue the means by which this glory is accomplished and they believe the center to all history is solely salvation, diminishing all God has done apart from that.

Note: Do not misunderstand the Dispensationalists view upon the matter of Salvation. We hold salvation to be by God, for God's glory, and we hold it to be one of the major ways in which God demonstrates His glory. However, it is not the only way, and we believe that God is working history for the end of his glory, not for the conclusion of his salvation plan.

The oddity here, amongst all the reviews and overviews of belief is that the Calvinist is the one who believes God is active in damning, while at the same time holding the position that God's working in history is primarily for the accomplishing of Salvation. Many dispensationalists will argue (wrongly) that man has the ability, apart from the electing grace of God, to determine to get saved, and yet argue that God's goal in history is his own glory, and this end is furthered by his just damnation of the wicked. Interesting stuff.

Thoughts on systematics. Generally, there are different types of ways of studying the Bible. Biblical theology is basically Bible study. It attempts to use the context, and what is going on in the text to determine what is happening in that text. It used the previous texts to look at what has happened and then looks forward to the coming texts. Using "Biblical Theology" we have different methods of interpretation. We have literal, that is the historical grammatical, interpretation. That is what Dispensationalists try to use consistently. Covenant theologians also use this type of hermeneutic, yet they abandon it for allegorical interpretation when in contrasts their system. The allegorical interpretation is when they begin to interpret a text, often prophecy using allegory instead of the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic.

Still with me? Hopefully some of the was familiar. Ok, then from the "Biblical Theology" we also have "Systematic Theology." I have heard negative things said about systematics, but there are reasons for them. Anyway, a systematic deals not with a passage, but with a topic. So, the systematics often deal with things like Theology Proper, Christology, Neumotology, Ecclesiology, etc. So a system may analyze a topic throughout the entire Bible. We use a system on Christ to study him in depth, rather than look at individual passages. The benefits would seem to be immediately obvious. An in depth study on any particular topic is necessary in order to have greater understanding. Instead of seeing God as just a jealous God, and an consuming fire in one passage, we also see God as gracious, merciful, and love. It causes us to see God in a more complete picture than any single passage would do.

Systems impact everything. The general covenant theologian does not put stock in infant baptism because of the life giving power of the water. However, their system says that to enter the covenant community of God, the children of the community need a sign/symbol/ordinance to enter -- thus baptism. As the OT had circumcision, so the NT has baptism. Therefore, it requires far more than just proving baptism is for the saved, or the elect, or the children of God, because they argue that the children of saved parents enter the covenant via their parents and their parents faith in baptizing them.

Systems can be good and bad. Systems lead to details and intricacies that often are not seen with just Bible theology. Acts 19 for example, is not clear in and of itself on whether the disciples were saved or not. However, looking at the way God has worked across dispensations, and will allow us to examine what some may say was an exception, and yet, exceptions do take place.

I fear I am lacking clarity as I continue. We all know we need to compare Scripture with Scripture. A system allows us to work through Scriptures in a logical order, in accordance with what we find in the Bible. A system allows us to logically approach a passage in biblical study. A system leads us to an understanding of some of the deeper issues. Christ's death was a substitutionary atonement, a vicarious sacrifice, a propitiaion, etc. The full range of implications of each of these is not derived from a single verse or passage.

However, systems are dangerous too. Turretin's system allowed him to state with authority that The Fall happened in Autumn. Last night I read how someone calculated the beginning of the Earth at 4004BC, Oct. 23, 9am. At some point, these men were mistaken in their systems. A system involves both theological facts, and the logic used to reach the next fact. So, their facts are off on something actually bigger, or their logic is off. And when you read someone who is generally really good and you are in agreement and then you hit something like the above two instances, you need to stop and wonder. Is he (and if you are in agreement, you) off on a fact of theology? Or is it the logic involved in getting there?

FYI, I like Turretin, and though he is strongly Covenant, and allegorizes, he is worth reading. That brings up another fact: even people who are wrong about stuff, often say good things. It does not mean you endorse the person wholeheartedly, but it does mean you can recommend what he has written or done.

Note: While reading a popular Covenant book, I began to realize that his beginning chapters of defining terms and expressions were actually very dangerous to agree with. If I had lent assent to his beginning definitions, I feel as if his logic would have been accurate to lead to his ending system. It was the definitions that were off in this case.

So, to sum up a bit. Covenant theologians put themselves into a large dilemma using two of the systems they are most known for. It is admitted on all sides that Dispensational theology is derived from consistent application of the literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Systems are extremely helpful in interpreting Scripture. We must be careful when using them that we do not allow either poor logic or an inaccurate theological fact to drive our system somewhere the Bible does not go. Even people with wrong systems are correct in parts of their systems. Therefore when a theological fact is accepted on all sides, it is the logic that must be analyzed in order to avoid encountering the same errors.

I think that is all for today...sorry I don't blog enough. I want to write a newsletter or something...but I think that many people would sign-up, perhaps out of courtesy, but few would read it. That is not what I want. I want a few people who would read, and want to read. I have a desire to learn, and I want to appeal to that desire in others, though I don't even know if it is really there. And then again, who am I to try to impart anything? Thoughts for anther blog perhaps.

Oh, by the way, my dad built a welder, and an arc-welder because he wanted to and he could...he just built them...how awesome is that? Pretty awesome.