The Ascension

Craig Schwarze had an interesting post on the Incarnation and the death of Christ. (The link wasn’t working when I checked, but you can go to his main page and scroll down to the July 14 post “Did God Die on the Cross?”. It got me thinking about other Christian essentials that do not receive much treatment. In my experience I do not think I ever heard a sermon devoted to the Ascension of Christ.

We read in Luke’s gospel:

⁵⁰ And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. ⁵¹ While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. ⁵² And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, ⁵³ and were continually in the temple praising God. (Luke 24:50-53, NASB)

And in the book of Acts:

⁹ And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. ¹⁰ And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. ¹¹ They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11, NASB)

Why didn’t Christ just vanish? Why the spectacular exit? In the passage from Acts we learn that Jesus will come (back) in the same way that he was seen to leave: in a cloud. So part of the reason for the “grandness” of the exit might be to give focus on His return in glory-- His parousia.

Or, or perhaps additionally, His grand exit from earth may have been a grand entrance into heaven as part of His coronation ceremony. He now assumes his position at the right hand of the Father and His role of King of Kings and supreme judge of all mankind. From there He also sent forth the Spirit in His role as comforter to the believers on earth.

I think that sometimes we think that Christ “just returned” to heaven and resumed heaven ly business as usual. But, having successfully completed His work, Christ returned to heaven with a new mandate and new authority to judge the nations. And yet he also intercedes for us in His additional duty of High Priest. Our final judge, from whose judgment there will be no appeal, is also our defense lawyer. Not a bad deal. It is indeed far better for us that He returned rather than remained on earth.

The Ascension should not be overlooked. It is a critical event in redemptive history, to be surpassed in majesty only by Christ’s return.

Ascended from Whence?

One scriptural reference to the Ascension may be the source of a dispute among Christians:

⁸ Therefore it says,
"WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH,
HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES,
AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."
⁹ (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? (Eph. 4:8-9, NASB)

Those who believe Jesus descended into hell offer the phrase of “the lower parts of earth” as supporting scripture. This belief (for which I have some sympathy) made it into the Apostle’s creed.

---

Simply Irresistible

The Gospel call goes out to many, yet few respond. From a Reformed perspective we would say:

• Everyone who assents to the Gospel call was supposed to do so.
  
  
• Everyone who is supposed to assent to the Gospel call, does so.
  

The first of these bullets says that only the elect will respond positively to the Gospel call. In mathematical terms, the set of believers is identical, ultimately, to the set of the elect. This means the verses that talk about believing (as if to suggest a person can will himself to believe) as the condition for salvation, are not at odds with the idea of predestination.

The only caveat (and it is relevant to this discussion) is that there is a time lag before the two sets equilibrate: the elect are always elect, but they must be brought into a state of believing. And they will, inevitably. That is the second bullet. If you are of the elect then God wills that you believe and, believe me, you will believe. That is Irresistible Grace. A person who is of the elect may, for a while, resist the Gospel call, but ultimately his will is broken.

Although many hear the Gospel call, only for the elect is the call efficacious (effectual). Why is that? Are the elect genetically hardwired to respond positively? No, the difference is the Holy Spirit gets involved; He gives the elect a special inward call. Without he help of the Spirit, no person can come to saving faith on his own. A person might toy with the idea; he might even come forward during an alter call. He might attend church for years. He might even become a pastor. And most frightfully, he might actually be surprised in the next life when he hears our Lord pronounce the terrible words “I never knew you”.

We cannot look into the hearts of men, but we all have seen people in our churches that we suspect of being in this horrible state. They never seem to grow in their walk. They are minimalists or maybe legalists. And perhaps most tellingly, they do not seem to enjoy God.

Anyway, that’s off the subject. The issue here is whether a person can indefinitely resist an effectual call. (Put that way, it’s a silly question, isn’t it?) The answer is no: to do so you would have to be stronger than God for it is the Holy Spirit dragging you, perhaps kicking and screaming, to the place where you’re supposed to be.

¹ And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, ² in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. (Eph 2:1-2, NASB)

The Westminster Confession says this about Irresistible Grace:

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,by His Word and Spirit,out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

This work of grace with the elect is, among other things, enabling. Your eyes and ears are open. You see things differently; you hear and understand and believe things that used to seem foolish to you. You have been regenerated. In the words of the confession you are enlightened. The inexorable process of salvation has begun. You already possess eternal life and it will never, under any circumstances, be revoked.

¹² Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, ¹³ which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. ¹⁴ But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Cor.2:12-14, NASB)

Yet in a real sense you do choose to come to Christ of your own free will. That sounds paradoxical, but it is not. As I blogged about before, you are not a robot, but your vaunted free will is really a slave to your own desires: you choose what you want, in fact you must choose exactly what you most want. Before regeneration, no man truly wants God, so no man chooses God. After your rebirth, your desires change. You now want God. And you choose Him. But you are able to do so only because He first chose you.

This rebirth and reforming of our desires so that we want to be imitators of Christ, so that we then freely choose to believe, is the greatest gift imaginable and one that should bring us to our unworthy knees in gratitude.

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (2 Th. 2:13, NASB)

This internal change is the result of the effectual call of the Holy Spirit which (thankfully) does not require our cooperation. It happens in spite of us, not because of anything we do. If God has chosen you, can you even seriously entertain the possibility that you can thwart His will? It will never happen. Be very, very grateful that it will never happen.

And all the people said: Amen.

---

By Imputation or Infusion?

The great mystery of salvation is justification. How are we made acceptable to a Holy and perfect God who demands an unattainable perfect compliance with His law? Clearly we can never, on our own, meet such a demand.

The problem is not that our sins are not forgiven. The problem is that the price of admission to heaven is an unblemished record. And once one has sinned, the record can never be expunged. Christ said “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:13). The (mythical) righteous man has no need of justification.

Justification is like being acquitted of a crime, though not because the accused is innocent, but because an innocent third party (Christ) has made a satisfactory restitution to the offended (God). We get off on some clever legal maneuvering.

So exactly how does this happen? Here again is an area where there is a substantive difference between the Roman Catholic view and the Reformed view.

As always, when I talk about the Roman Catholic position I do so with great humility and welcome any corrections.

More than a quibble over the word “alone”

The difference between the Roman Catholic view of Justification is sometimes cast as the “mere” addition of the word alone:

• RCC: Justification is by faith.
  
  
• Reformers: Justification is by faith alone.
  

There has been much unpleasant discussion in blogdom over just how important this difference is, and who meant what back in the 16th century, and who was or was not cursed at Trent, and historical context, and many other details.

However, there is another big question here, above and beyond the nontrivial insistence on the word alone. To wit, how does justification happen? And here we find another substantive difference between the RCC and the Reformers. It is not “just” the “aloneness” of justification, but also that way it happens.

The question is whether we can actually become righteousness (and are therefore acceptable to God) or whether God treats us as if we were righteous. The former is the view of the RCC, the latter of the Reformers.

Neither side holds the position that any sort of justification can occur apart from Grace (that is the heresy of Pelagianism). Both the RCC and Reformed position is that grace is necessary for justification. There is a difference as to whether it is sufficient.

The Reformed View

Calvin wrote:

Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Calvin also writes that the justified is “deemed righteous” and “regarded not as a sinner.”

This makes it clear that the Reformed view is that man himself does not have inherent righteousness even after justification. The righteousness with which we present ourselves to a Holy God is by imputation; it is not inherent or infused into us. It is symmetric with the view that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross and he was punished as if they were His own even though they were not.

The Roman Catholic View

Contrast Calvin’s view with what Rome declared at the Council of Trent:

… the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.

We see here a very different view from Calvin’s. The RCC view is that we are justified not by an imputation but by an infusion. We acquire inherent righteousness, initially from the instrumental cause: baptism. Justification also requires cooperation. Furthermore, the state of being justified can be lost through the commission of sin and must be restored by another sacrament: penance. This is turns leads to the idea of congruous merit that is so alien to the reformed view and that Luther so despised.

The RCC disputes the Reformed view of Justification and holds that if we must be righteous before God then we must have a true, internal righteousness which, though accomplished through grace, is nevertheless “ours”.

Conclusion

The RCC and the Reformed views on justification are very different-- different enough to be the primary cause of the Reformation. It is very important to appreciate that these differences are not superficial (some have said that the only difference is the Reformers and the RCC interchange the meanings of Justification and Sanctification). There are additional ramifications when it comes to other doctrines such as predesitination, perseverance, the atonement, original sin, types of merit, purgatory, and virtually all other salvation related topics. Whether or not these differences are substantive enough in our eyes to warrant the greatest schism in the history of Christianity, they were without question considered very important to both the Reformers and Rome.

---

What is a Cult?

I have been meaning to blog about cults. However, before zeroing in on any specific cult, it is important to take on the difficult task of defining exactly what is a “cult”. There is necessarily a certain amount subjectivity involved. Furthermore, political correctness often rears its ugly head. You probably have read editorials excoriating some Christian who dared to call Mormonism a cult. Would a Mormon who called the Southern Baptists a cult get into the same amount of trouble? Probably not.

In addition to the Internet, I have two books I will use as references. One is Lawson’s New Book of the Cults. The other is Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults.

Here are some things are not part of the definition:

• A cult does not always practice sexual immorality. Some do, while others are more like monasteries.
  
  
• A cult does not always have members that are “outside” of society. Nor are they necessarily, in any sense, “disreputable”. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are prime examples of cults whose acolytes are typically well-respected members of society and the workforce.
  

Lawson identifies four traits shared by most cults.

1. A centralized authority that keeps tight reigns on both philosophy and lifestyle.
   
   
2. A “we” versus “them” attitude that emphasizes the battle between the superior insights of the group and the unenlightened philosophy of the outsiders.
   
   
3. A commitment of the members to proselytize vigorously.
   
   
4. An entrenched isolationism that divorces the devotee from the realities of the world at large.
   

Again, he (Lawson) writes that these are traits shared by most cults; this does not constitute a definition per se.

I think the last trait, in particular, should be de-emphasized. Some cults are motivated by perceived ills in society and are highly aware of the world and deeply engaged in political activity. And as already mentioned, some cult members are highly respected “normal” people. Mormons, for example, hold high-ranking positions in the military, the government, and business. They are hardly divorced from the world at large.

The problem with just using the first three traits is that it opens up the definition of a cult to be uncomfortably large, possibly large enough to include some mainstream Christian organizations.

I think we can solve this problem by including deviation from orthodox Christianity (apostasy) as another possible trait of a cult. This, of course, makes it even less politically correct, but that should not concern us. Personally I could not possibly care less whether Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or anyone else considers me to be a member of an intolerant, Christian cult, so I am not going to worry much about giving offense.

So I would add a fifth trait to Lawson’s list:

(5) A substantive deviation from Christian orthodoxy such that, judged solely on theological grounds, the views of the organization would be deemed apostate.

This trait would be ignored for organizations that do not even “pretend” to be Christian or have nothing whatsoever to say about Christ. However, it would strengthen the charge of cultism against groups like the Mormons who claim to be, in some sense, Christian.

Still Unsatisfactory

So my present working definition of a cult is a group that has “most” of these five traits; this is hardly precise. So I appeal to readers to help me out—if you have any way to improve or even replace this definition please let me know.

In particular, should another trait be related to undue psychological pressure on the members to conform, or is that already implied in the other traits?

Cults from Within

Could a truly Christian group be a cult? I think it depends on what you mean by “truly Christian.” I think there could be a cult that teaches an accurate gospel message. However, there could not be a cult that teaches (and tries to follow) the entire Bible. The Bible has safeguards against Christian cultism in its teachings about church government and the checks and balances in place to correct and ultimately remove false teachers. If the Bible’s teachings on church government are ignored and a church is taken over by a forceful charismatic leader with complete unchallengeable authority, then I think this could be considered a cult, even if the gospel message is sound.

---

Not Your Normal Sunday

I was sitting in church yesterday, in between Sunday School and the service, when a woman came running in to tell my wife and me that my son Samuel had taken a terrible fall in the parking lot. The kids go there during the break to play soccer. He was in some sore of collision and fell down hard-- hitting his head along the way on a bench that sits off the parking lot at the church entrance. When I got to him he was on the ground moaning. Someone called an ambulance, but after they arrived and some consultation we decided to take him to the emergency room ourselves.

He appears to be fine with no signs of a concussion. He did have to go all day on a clear liquid diet, and was a real trooper about it (I would have been whining nonstop).

The church was wonderful in their concern. Even though this was a minor emergency it reminded us that we have no family nearby—without the church we would be completely alone.

In the afternoon I took him to the bookstore and CompUSA, his favorite two places. We bought a switch/firewall/Nat and when we got home we hooked it up with our cable modem so that now we have two computers connected to the Internet. Then we played chess over the web (at Chess.net) which drove my wife nuts: she just couldn’t see the fun of sending signals over thousands of miles of wires when we were just four feet apart and could have used an actual chess board. Women just don’t get it! What to expect from a sex that cannot grasp the comic genius of The Three Stooges?

For Baseball Historians Only

My son is fascinated with sports history and has always been intrigued by the 1986 World Series, even though it occurred more than four years before his birth. As such, he always uses Bill Buckner as his user name. So when I registered on Chess.net to play him, I naturally chose Mookie Wilson (he hit the infamous grounder) as my name. So if you ever see a match between Bill Buckner and Mookie Wilson on Chess.net, you’ll know who it is.

---

We Need A Playoff!

Why it is truly scandalous! Ranking systems giving different results! What are we to believe? In the table below I give the top 25 Christian blogs from the well known Chairon Leaderboard compared with the top 25 (there is a tie for 25) from the upstart He Lives rankings. (He Lives actually does much better in the Chairon rankings than in its own, where it drops precipitously. Go figure.)

The Chairon ranking system, while highly respected, is shrouded in more secrecy than an Enron board meeting. (It is rumored to involve Hostess HoHos and the Sydney Opera House.) The He Lives ranking system believes that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and publicly describes its system:

• Martin Roth’s page is downloaded and parsed to get all the blogs from his definitive blogroll.
  
• Links to each “target” blog are searched for on the main page of all the other blogs.
  
• If a link of any type (back to the target) is found (not necessarily a blogroll link), then the target blog is credited with another unique “site”.
  
• The total number of links is also counted, but the ranking below is based on the number of unique sites. ( If you rank by total number of links, then MartinRoth stays on top but In Between Naps jumps to number 2, indicating that Amy Welborn gets a lot of reference links).
  

So whether you have a site that puts He Lives on your blogroll or you have a post in which you write Look what that knuckle-head at He Lives has written this time! (or both) I would credit He Lives with a "site".

Again, no matter how many links there are back to the target blog on a particular site, the target blog gets credit for just 1 site. The total links is also tallied, but not shown here.

Blog (Chairon Rank)	Links	Blog (He Lives Rank)	Sites
Sacra Doctrina	40	MartinRothOnline	60
MartinRothOnline.com	37	Sacra Doctrina	51
Fool's Folly	36	In Between Naps	49
In Between Naps	34	beautiful feet	41
ladydusk	34	ladydusk	40
beautiful feet	33	Catholic & Enjoying It	38
Catholic Blog for Lovers	30	jimhart3000	37
Andrew Sullivan	29	Fool's Folly	36
Relapsed Catholic	28	Presbytermark	35
jimhart3000	28	KataJohn	35
KataJohn	28	EveTushnet.com	34
Presbytermark	27	how now, brownpau?	34
Nota Bene	27	Relapsed Catholic	33
lollardy	25	barlow farms	32
Catholic and Enjoying It	25	Catholic Blog for Lovers	31
barlow farms	24	lollardy	30
Mark Byron	24	Andrew Sullivan	30
how now brownpau?	23	Mark Byron	29
EveTushnet.com	23	Minute Particulars	28
Catholic Light	22	Nota Bene	27
Minute Particulars	22	Annunciations	25
He Lives	22	Carrifex	25
WayneOlson.com	22	Barukatash	24
Kairos	21	bloggedy blog	24
Disputations	20	WayneOlson	24
---	---	Sursum Corda	24

---

The Steps of Salvation

There has been much talk on this and other blogs about regeneration and justification. It seems like a good idea to be explicit about the time-ordering of all the steps of salvation.

1. Regeneration. This is the instantaneous, resurrection or quickening of our spiritually dead hearts. This is the first step, and I believe there is nothing that a person can do to initiate it, given that prior to regeneration you are, in fact completely dead and in a state where you can do nothing pleasing to God.
   
   And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph. 2:1)
   
   
2. Faith. This is the ability to believe in Christ. Is it also a gift or is it your “own” faith? Well, I think that is a distinction without a difference. Given that faith and all the other steps in salvation require regeneration, and regeneration is absolutely a gift, then the whole chain of salvation must be viewed as a gift.
   
   For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
   (Eph. 2:8)
   
   
3. Justification. This is where we are made acceptable to a Holy God. Not by anything we have done, our self-righteousness is but filthy rags, but by the imputation of Christ’s abundant and perfect righteousness. This necessary step rests entirely on the finished work of Christ. Faith precedes Justification and this faith is the only thing we have (except our sins) to contribute. Thus we say Justification by faith alone and not by works. The “alone” refers to us; Christ has contributed mightily to our justification. What hasn’t contributed are any “counterfeit” works.
   
   because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20)
   
   
4. Sanctification. Throughout our post-justified earthy life we will, to differing degrees, become better and better imitators of Christ. This sanctification is the working of the Holy Spirit now indwelling us. We will begin to do good works for which there is associated merit, but not merit that is applied to our salvation—which by this point is already assured.
   
   according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. (1 Peter 1:2)
   
   
5. Glorification. This is our final destination, but we don’t get there as soon as we die. This step is complete with Christ’s second coming when we receive imperishable glorified bodies. (It will be especially interesting for physicists to see a place where there is no 2nd law of thermodynamics.)
   
   For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Cor. 15:53)
   

Notice the beauty in that each person of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Spirit, plays a necessary role in our salvation.

Regeneration is just the first step but, once it happens, the rest of the process is inexorable. There is no thwarting God’s perfect will. If you are regenerate, you will make it through the other steps to complete your salvation. The steps may be rapid (as they must have been for the thief on the cross) or they may take a lifetime, but you will definitely arrive at your (pre)destination.

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6)

---

More on Science and Christianity

Jeffrey Collins asked about my opinion of this Samizdata post.

In that post David Carr (whom I infer is not a believer, but this is the first post I ever read on Samizdata) says that he agrees with American creationists that “Christian doctrine most definitely is in head-on collision with modern science.” He contrasts this with the situation among Christians he knows in Europe where “[European Chrisitians] seem to believe that Christianity is about different things to science, and that you can be a completely Christian Christian, and a completely scientific scientist, without any intellectual conflict.”

He goes on about the how the theory of evolution is at odds with creation in Genesis. He concludes with:

You can't have it both ways. Only by completely overturning what Christianity has meant for the best part of two thousand years, as the Church of England seems now to be doing by turning Christianity from a religion into a political sect, can you possibly believe that there's no argument here.

So, if I understand what he is writing, he is saying that at least Creationists (for which I think it is safe to say he means American style Evangelicals) acknowledge the “obvious” problem of a difficult if not impossible reconciliation between Christianity and Science, while many European Christians treat science and Christianity as two different domains that don’t have to be consistent-- because they don’t overlap.

I will take a bold stand on this: I completely agree and I sort of, kind of, disagree.

Two Points in One

Carr is really making two points:

1. Science and Christian doctrine cannot be “separated”.
   
   
2. Science and Christian doctrine are colliding.
   

On the first item I completely agree and have even blogged about this before when I wrote about Francis Schaeffer and the Unity of the Bible. Allow me to reiterate some of the points I tried to make in that post.

Schaeffer attacked the duality David Carr attributes to European Christians as existential theology, which holds that the Bible is infallible only in spiritual matters, not when it comes to history or science.

In other words, Schaeffer would say, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Schaeffer also lamented creeping existential theology in the Evangelical community when he wrote: "Evangelism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take a full view of scripture and those who do not." And goes on to write that “[Evangelicals] must accept as infallible the creation and pre-Abrahamic history of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.”

I believe this is the same point Carr is trying to make in the Samizdata post, albeit from a different perspective. And I agree – it is an untenable philosophical position.

As to whether science and Christianity are colliding, I think the jury is still out. I see that there are three broad areas where there is at least the appearance of, if not actual, collision:

1. The age of the universe
   
   
2. Evolution
   
   
3. Quantum Mechanics
   

In looking at these three areas one must ask (a) how strong is the scientific evidence and (b) is the Bible definitely at odds with this or am I just making the Galilean mistake all over again?

It is only if the answer to (a) is very strong and the answer to (b) is a resounding yes is there necessarily a conflict.

Old Earth/Universe

The first of these I have written about here. To me the scientific evidence is irrefutable for an old universe. On the other hand, I don’t think the Genesis account must be interpreted to be at odds with the science, so I personally do not see a conflict here. Many do. They would say I am not interpreting the Bible faithfully, and I would say they are making the Galilean mistake.

Evolution

As for evolution, that is much more complicated and much obfuscation abounds. There is an enormous amount of fossil evidence for extinct species. There is a paucity (less than a handful) of strong candidates for “transitional” fossils. So few in fact that classic Darwinism had to be scrapped (although it is still taught, especially in high school). This also means the strawman of classic Darwinism that we (Christians) use to discredit evolution should also be scrapped: it does us no good to criticize a scientific view that is no longer held by scientists.

Mathematical models suggest there is not nearly (by a long shot) enough time for evolution to have occurred-- especially given that evidence also suggests that complex life burst forth suddenly (on geological time scales). This rapid emergence of complex species shortens the time available for a transition from simple organisms and further stresses the evolutionary explanation.

In some sense, I feel comfortable at the moment (which will probably carry me through the rest of my lifetime) with attributing the huge fossil record to the old earth alone, without invoking evolution. I am far from convinced that the fossil record supports it. I am not sure what I would do if I were convinced of evolution—would I become a theistic evolutionist? I don’t know. Fortunately I don’t have a conflict with evolution because I see the evidence for it, in contrast to the evidence for an old earth, to be weak.

Quantum Mechanics

Believe it or not, it is here where I see the greatest conflict. Quantum Mechanics is the explanation of how nature behaves in the microscopic realm. As a pure and applied science (e.g., lasers, micro-electronics), it has been an unqualified success. In a real sense the entire high tech sector of the world’s economy is based on the success of Quantum Mechanics.

Yet at its heart Quantum Mechanics says the world is probabilistic. Quantum mechanics can tell you the average time for a species of radioactive atom to decay—but cannot tell you when or even whether a specific atom will. One atom may “live” much longer than expected, while a different atom of the same type might decay faster than the average. The difference between the two? Quantum Mechanics says that there is none—just a random dice roll caused one to decay and the other to stay put.

That, my friends, is not so easy to reconcile with a sovereign God. Yet Quantum Mechanics is on much firmer ground than evolution (and that is an understatement).

Billions and Billions of Dollars to Earn

Gary Petersen is reading John MacArthur’s book The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible, which I haven’t read but sounds intriguing. In hist post, Gary discusses the hideous Carl Sagan and his atheistic view of the universe.

I would only suggest that we should not paint all scientists with the Sagan brush. First of all, Sagan was in business to sell books and promote his TV show and his lucrative lecture circuit. To feed his lusts for fame and money he had to make outrageous statements—careful statements don’t sell nearly as well. Second, scientists, especially hard scientists, are less atheistic than is generally assumed.

When scientists make claims of what happened billions of years ago are they actually violating the scientific method by studying something they cannot actually observe? I don’t think so for a number of reasons:

• They can ask what would be the effects, still directly observable today, of something that happened long ago. This is how the cosmic background radiation was discovered (after it was predicted).
  
  
• They can look far into space— which is really the same as looking back in time—to see objects as they were in the early universe.
  
  
• They can reproduce conditions (temperatures and densities) of the early universe in particle accelerators (something I am very familiar with).

I don’t think all scientists are the fools discussed in Rom. 1:20-22. I think that some, in revealing the obvious intelligent design of the universe, are helping to uncover more general revelation.

---

Correction: the author of the Samizdata post is Brian Micklethwait, not David Carr. Sorry about that.

---

The Geek Within

I wrote a small Java program ¹ that tells you not just how many blogs on Martin Roth's blog roll link to you, but which sites they are and how many links they have. It cannot tell the difference between a blog roll link and a “reference”, but the count gives an indication. I was going to put it on a website as an applet but that has been deprecated by hints on Martin Roth’s site that there is a secret society of geeks working on some exciting blog tracking tools.

Anyhow, the program is fun because it can identify new links, which sometimes (in my case, anyway) are scathing embedded references to one of my blogs (in someone else’s blog) that are questioning my intellect and breeding. Never want to miss one of those.

Anyway, just for fun I ran it on my good friend Jeffrey Collins, (I hope he doesn’t mind being a guinea pig) and here are the results:


For the blog Joyful Christian

MartinRothOnline.com [http://www.martinrothonline.com/] has 2 links
Xavier+ [http://www.xavier+.blogspot.com] has 1 links
Barrabas [http://www.barrabas.blogspot.com] has 2 links
He Lives [http://helives.blogspot.com] has 2 links
Mark Byron [http://markbyron.blogspot.com/] has 2 links
On the Web [http://www.otweb.com/blog] has 1 links
Joshua Claybourn [http://www.joshclaybourn.com] has 2 links
Journal [http://mcj.blogspot.com] has 1 links
Thought Crime [http://members.visi.net/~gbraden/gblogger.html] has 1 links
Country Keepers [http://gary.countrykeepers.com/] has 2 links
Spudlets [http://spudlets.blogspot.com] has 2 links


---

¹ Didn't know I was a geek huh? Well I am. In fact, I am even the 'H' in JDH Technologies, a surviving "dot com" currently accepting orders, if you are buying.

---

Infant Baptism

Baptism signifies many things: faith, redemption, resurrection, adoption, and sanctification. It is a sign of the New Covenant, so being covenantal it also signifies God’s promise to His church.

Baptism is a sacramental sign of (or ordinance signifying) regeneration ¹, not a cause. Faith alone, through grace and by the working of the Holy Spirit, regenerates.

The question that has received much debate is whether infants should be baptized (paedobaptism), or should baptism be reserved for those old enough (let us call them adults) to make a credible profession of their faith (believers baptism).

I cannot add anything to this debate. I certainly will not be persuasive one way or another. I intend only to point out the big picture reasons, from a reformed perspective, for supporting paedobaptism. Complicated, thought provoking, un-bloggish detailed discussions are but a Google search away.

This post concerns the debate between two camps that agree that baptism, however practiced, is a sign of the promise of salvation. The debate with those who think baptism is something more than this is an entirely different and more serious question, and is not addressed here.

Given that both camps agree that baptism is not cardinal, it is surprising (and sad) how vitriolic the debate can become. Countercharges of “Romanist” and “Judaist” used pejoratively are fairly common. Reasoned, gracious debate is not the norm.

Infant baptism is by far the more prevalent practice throughout the history of Christianity. Explicit references to infant baptism can be found in 2nd century literature, and debate about paedobaptism versus believer’s baptism is a fairly recent development. That says nothing about which side is right—it’s just history.

Oh If Only…

It would be nice if scripture were explicit about this. But nowhere in scripture does it explicitly say to baptize infants, and nowhere does it say to exclude infants.

I don’t agree with anyone from either side of the debate that claims the scriptural accounts of baptisms are sufficient proof of their position. Each side must make a case based on inferences.

About 25% of the accounts of baptism refer to families. Again, none of these is explicit as to whether or not infants were included.

Most of the baptisms described in the New Testament concern adults. This is understandable in that these were first generation Christians—it only makes sense that those coming forward would be adults who accepted Christ.

Believe and Be Baptized

It is important to remember that those churches that practice infant baptism, for example the Presbyterian (PCA) denomination, do not baptize just “anybody”. An adult cannot trundle into the church and demand to be baptized. An adult must be able to make a credible testimony attesting to his belief. The many scriptural accounts of adults who believed and were baptized may be an important plank in the argument for believer’s baptism, but the supporters of paedobaptism would agree that since they were adults a profession of faith was required. Thus these accounts, in and of themselves, do not preclude the baptism of infants as a covenantal sign.

The Circumcision Parallel

Much of the support for infant baptism comes from parallels with circumcision as a sign of the Old Covenant and baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. In some sense, your view depends in part on how much continuity you see between the old and new. Supporters of paedobaptism emphasize the continuity, those arguing against it don’t.

Circumcision was:

• A sign of a covenant.
  
• A sign of faith.
  
• Was applied to adults of faith (e.g., Abraham).
  
• Was applied to children prior to any profession of faith (e.g., Isaac).
  

If circumcision was applied to those prior to expression of their faith then, the argument goes, why not baptism?

And if the New Covenant is, by including Gentiles, more inclusive, why would the covenantal sign be less inclusive by excluding infants?

Now Batting less than 1.000

One thing is for sure, in either case (paedobaptism or believer’s baptism) some who never attain a saving faith are baptized, be they infants who never accept Christ or adults who have fallen prey to “easy-believism”.

On that cheerful thought, I am done.

---

¹ Baptismal Regeneration is not free of debate among scholars within the Reformed Community (See, for example, Joel Garver's article here). However, those discussions are well beyond the scope of this blog. Part of this "internal" debate is related to the changing definition of regeneration. And part of it is a defense of the Westminster Confession, which, it must always be remembered, might itself be in error. But there is real substance to this question that is glossed over in this blog.

---