Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Some Updates

  • I am back home from my travels, but not for long. This Friday I leave for Pittsburgh (just for the weekend.) Later in the month I will be going to Virginia. Then in August it’s Alabama and probably San Diego. And somewhere in that mess I also need to get to Washington D.C.

  • Blogging, then, will be intermittent all summer. When fall rolls around, there will be a new Sunday School to teach which will result in fairly regular substantive blogging. I am looking for topics—any suggestions? So far I am considering either (a) The history of the church or (b) Heresies (expounding upon, not advocating) or (c) The Reformation or (d) The book of Romans.

  • Speaking of Sunday school, I never posted my last few classes on Amillennialism. I just became sick of end-times talk. However, if anyone is interested, just drop me a line and I’ll send the Microsoft Word file of my notes for the entire class. They are unedited with lots of typos, but all the material and references are there.

  • I have rewritten a great deal of my novel—I now like the beginning, which was the part I really disliked. Instead of looking for an agent, I am now trying a few small publishers that accept manuscript submissions. We’ll see how it goes. I have an idea for a next novel, something completely different, but I don’t want to start until “something happens” with the first one.

  • I’ll leave you with a little theological content, a quote from B. B. Warfield:
    The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.
    I agree but do not find the argument compelling. It is an argument based on what is not in scripture, namely an instruction that children (infants) are no longer covenant members, rather on what is in scripture. In that sense it is the same quality of argument as the one made by proponents of believer’s baptism, i.e., the absence in scripture of an explicit infant baptism proves that it is not proper.

No comments:

Post a Comment