Basic characteristics for a husband - Purposeful Procession towards Marriage pt. 3

The very basic, minimal requirements of a young man who is interested in showing his interest in or inquiring of courting a young woman are as follows:

1. He must be a Christian (2 Cor. 6:14)



2. He must be committed to biblical headship (Eph. 5:23ff)



3. He must welcome children (Ps. 127:3-5)



4. He must be a suitable priest (Josh. 24:15)



5. He must be a prophet (Eph. 6:4)



6. He must be a protector (Neh. 4:13-14)



7. He must be a provider (1 Tim. 5:18; Titus 2:5; 2 Thess. 3:10)

This list comes from Voddie Baucom in his book titled, "What he must be...if he wants to marry my daughter." I would assert that this is the bare minimum for a young man to attain if he wishes to seek out a young woman for a bride. you may look at the list and say, "Wow! You're asking for a lot there. You need to be more reasonable. You'll never find someone like that." Well, if you are ok with something less for your daughter gentlemen, then you will answer to God for not holding to a high standard of a man to entrust your daughter to. The life she leads will largely depend upon the father's evaluation of the young man who might seek her hand in marriage. We must be wise father's and sober minded in this area.

Now, let me say this: if we see a young man that has potential who may have inquired of us of our daughters, but has not quite attained these things, we should not totally dismiss him. By this, I mean that we should be those who graciously become mentors for them to help shape and mold them into mighty men of God that we will accept as son-in-laws. However, even in doing that, it must be made clear that they are not to pursue a relationship with our daughters unless we have given our permission. By pursuing a relationship, I mean that they are not to develop an emotional relationship whereby there is a seeking of a physical type relationship and showing of interest in a romantic way. Of course they may be friends, but that should be the extent of it. In my next post I will be linking to a short article on betrothal and find that it is more in line with how my mind set is. It's just that I have never actually had someone say this, so thought it would be something good for others to read.

I'll be going through these qualifications one by one over the next few posts. So stay tuned.

Beginning a Family - Purposeful Procession towards Marriage pt. 2

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen. 2:24

Before looking at the biblical presentation of how a family begins, I think it is important to look at authority structure. The Bible is very clear on how authority is to be understood. We read of a certain Centurion in the gospels who knew authority well, as he was both under authority and also in a place of authority. In Matthew 8 we read of this man,

8 The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed.
9 "For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, `Go,' and he goes; and to another, `Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, `Do this,' and he does it."

Authority, however, does not exist only in the military. It exists in every facet of life and the Bible speaks to each of those instances. It exists in government (Rom. 13:1-7), employer/employee(master/slave) relationships (Eph. 6:5-9), God and man (1 Cor. 11:3), man and woman (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22), parents and children (Eph. 6:1-3). If we fail to understand authority and how God has structured it both for His glory and our good, then we will inevitably be in error at many points of our theology and practice. I think the easiest understanding of the authority in regards to the family structure is to see how the "chain of command" is laid out in Scripture and I believe the simplest format that we see is found in 1 Corinthians 11. We read there in verse 3,

3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

The term "head" here is the Greek word kephale and it speak not to a physical head attached to the body but metaphorically of the one who has authority. Just as the head of the body controls the movements of the body and is in authority over it, the heads referred to in this text also are in authority over those under them. Notice the flow of authority: God is head of Christ, Christ is head of man, man is head of woman. There is a clear line of authority seen here. Ephesians then expresses the authority of the parents over the children as well, as children are commanded to obey their parents in the Lord.
From this basic structure it appears that men are either in authority or under authority, or both. Thus, we do not see that men are an authority unto themselves. This should be useful to us in understanding roles of fathers with both their sons and daughters in regards to marriage. Authority has to do with one who governs and rules, who sets the boundaries and enacts discipline and/or reward. With that authority structure in place, let's get to the issue of who is the determiner of when a young man becomes an authority for a family of his own, or to put it simply, who determines when the young man is ready to pursue marriage. Let's ask how a family starts. The answer is found in the first family of the human race that was brought about: Adam & Eve. In Genesis 2 we read,

21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He
took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
22 Then the rib
which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her
to the man.
23 And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my
flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."

So, God made a woman just for Adam, a suitable helper. Did you get that? God made a woman to be the perfect companion for Adam. The Hebrew word is explicit in this. The word for made is banah and literally it means "build". God built Eve especially for Adam to be his suitable helper. Now there is no doubt that both Adam and his wife were equals before God. They were both a part of mankind. They were obviously different in that one was a man and the other a woman, and yet they were both made for specific roles and were equipped physically for those roles. I won't get into all the details of the roles here, since that will be for another post, however, we know that physically the man is structured for work and endurance in order that he can provide and protect and the woman is built in such a way as to conceive, bare and nurture children. These things are simply obvious, and yet one is to be in authority and the other under that
authority. It is not a dictatorship that is to be ruled heavy handed and tyrannically, but rather men are commanded to "love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her(Eph. 5:25). So we notice that the first Father, God, was directly involved in the selection, even the building of the wife of the first Adam and that He brought her unto Adam. Luke even says that Adam was the son of God (3:37). Adam was God's son, not divinely, but because of creation. Therefore in the very first marriage we see the father intimately involved in the selection of the wife for his son.
Next we notice the statement, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." We see that a man leaves out from under the authority, protection and provision of the home of his parents and comes directly under the authority of Jesus Christ as a new home is formed with his wife. This is a complete break with the authority of the home of his parents, though as their child he is still to honor them.
So the question comes, "Can a man leave the home before he takes a wife?" Well, the Lord Jesus, in quoting this passage on the subject of divorce, says, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." What is the reason a man leaves his father and mother, and likewise a daughter her mother and father? The only reason stated is to be joined to his wife. We might immediately ask, "What about to join the military?" or "What about going to college?" or other such questions. Well the one thing that is specific is that they are to leave their mother and father to be joined to a wife. The woman does the same thing. She is passed from the authority, protection and provision of her father to the authority, protection and provision of her husband. Thus he becomes head of her under the headship of Christ.

This is an important point. For both the young man and the young woman, the father represented God to them and they were to honor and obey him, but now that they are in a new authority structure, the husband is now directly under the headship of Christ and the wife under the headship of her husband. She is to seek the instruction of her husband (1 Tim. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 14:34-35) and he is to wash her with the water of the word (Eph. 5:26). Once the son followed the voice of his father as he represented God to him and now he is to follow the voice of God as found in the Scriptures on his own.

With this in mind, I am to prepare my sons for leading in this manner. It requires diligently teaching our children when they are younger (Deut. 6:7) the commands of God and then as our sons grow older giving them more and more responsibility, trusting them to make more and more decisions on their own, the more we see them growing in accordance with the will of the father. Thus sons should exhibit these kinds of leadership abilities and qualities long before they leave the home and begin a family of their own. They must not simply be cast out into an authoritative headship directly under Jesus Christ without first experiencing something of it themselves, though it is under the authority of their father. This is why it is needful that our sons have boundaries and their freedoms limited until they begin to learn and do their father's will (to think as their fathers do, which should be in accordance with the will of God).

So, another question arises from this: Who determines when a son is ready for marriage? the son or the father? Obviously the father teaches and trains his son, but does the son set out on his own apart from the father to find a wife and then make all those decisions on his own? Well first remember how we saw God the Father intimately involved in the marriage of the first Adam. you might be inclined to say, "Well yeah, but that was because there was no one else around. It was the first family." I admit with a smile that is correct, but remember that God built Eve specifically to be Adam's helpmate. She was made for him and brought to him by the Father.

Now when the second Adam came, He came in search of a bride, did He not? The church is referred to as the bride of Christ. The apostle Paul speaks of the marriage of a husband and wife being a picture of Christ and His church and yet, did Christ go out seeking to do His own will in finding His bride? No. First he was commended to begin to do so by His Father. He was evaluated by the Father and declared to be well pleasing to the Father (Mark 1:11). It was then that He set out to do the Father's will and only the Father's will and that included pursuing those who would be His bride, whom the Father had chosen from all eternity (Eph. 1:3-6; Matt. 11:27; Jn. 5:30). So must a son seek his father's blessing, not only for the woman he marries, but also in determining his own readiness to pursue a bride and marriage, in the same respect that Jesus did nothing apart from the Father.

When a son is ready for marriage, his father should let him know and it will become more and more evident as the son has the desire and learned to do his father's will. However, according to the reason Jesus made, we might understand that single sons and daughters are to remain under the authority, provision and protection of the father until they are married.

Purposeful Procession towards marriage

I admit that I have several thoughts in regards to what should take place before a man and woman enter into a marriage. It seems that in my day that dating is the acceptable means of obtaining a mate, if indeed that is even the desire. In most cases, dating is preferable to marriage because it seems that many are happy to have the physical and emotional relationship that should only be reserved for marriage in dating without the covenant of marriage and the obligations that are intrinsic to it. However, having gone that way myself as someone who was not a believer, I am interested in how to guide my boys into marriage and how to prepare them as well as preparing my daughters and deal with possible suitors for them. So my aim here is to lay out thoughts and presuppositions and then see if they are biblical or not.

Before I begin, I want this to be clear: my aim is not to condemn people who are doing something different. If you feel intimidated or easily offended, then you may not want to read further. My aim is to simply lay out either what the Scripture says regarding this issue as the bull's eye, if you will. It is where we aim......the glory of God. If we don't have a target we can simply hit anything and then sort of move the bull's eye over where our arrow has struck and say, "it's ok". That is not what these posts will be about. I simply want to map out as clearly as I can what my role as a father is, my wife's role, and the boys and girls under our authorities roles are. So please keep this in mind, in the even that you might want to ask, "Well what if such and such?" and your question is pointed towards something that deviates from the specifics. I will try and deal with things that may arise from a failure to hit the mark.

With this said, I want for anyone to understand something, if my children turn out bad then that is simply on me. Let's put aside the notion that I am the authority and can do no wrong. We must keep in mind the issue of total depravity that works in men. My ego is not at stake here. The glory of God is, for our chief end is to glorify Him. Therefore, if my children turn out to honor Him and follow Him then it is all due to His grace and mercy. That doesn't mean it has nothing to do with our teaching, it just simply points to who is the potter and that is God.

Now, first I start with the sovereignty of God. I know that no man and woman come together apart from the eternal decree and providence of God. this is true whether they are believers or not. In marriage they are no less "one flesh" because of believing or not believing, and ultimately we can say they were brought together by Him. However, let's be clear: we are not to use the Providence of God to somehow justify our wrong actions. In other words, I don't say, "Well God brought me and my wife together and if i hadn't dated her the way we did then we would't be together and so we are thankful for God's providence" as though we simply throw our disobedience upon the providence of God and that makes everything ok. Of course God's providence is at work. Nothing happens that is not a part of that, but we are talking about using His providence as an excuse for our disobedience. I do not advocate that.

As believers we are called to, "do all for the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). This includes preparing for marriage and what type of mate one should be seeking and even how that process should be accomplished. So, while we have some idea of at least a framework of how marriage is spoken of in Scripture, we are very ignorant in how to prepare and lead the young men and women in our own homes in the process of joining themselves to a mate for life. I will attempt to use a phrase that will try and shy away from courting, though I believe this to be a more historic definition that I will seek to use. The phrase I will be using is "a purposeful procession towards marriage". This way much of what we will say will be bound up in the phrase itself. It is not dating, going out with whomever and attaching emotional feeling and touching and such out from under parental authority and it is not a myriad of courting opinions, but simply it is the process of being prepared for marriage and the logical and biblical progression from preparation to selection to marriage.

To begin with I have a few questions of my own to ask and hopefully in my study, by God's grace, I shall find the answers to these along the way. Here they are:

1. How do we prepare boys and girls minds to think biblically about marriage and the "purposeful procession toward marriage"? (orthodoxy-sound doctrine)


2. How do we prepare them practically? (orthopraxy-things pertaining to sound doctrine)


3. What is the role of the father in working with his son in preparing him for marriage and selecting a wife?


4. What is the role of the father in working with his daughter in preparing her for marriage and dealing with possible suitors?


5. What is the role of the mother in each?


6. Are arranged marriages biblical?


7. Is a son going out on his own to find a wife biblical?


8. Is a daughter going out on her own to find a husband biblical?


9. What should a yound man possess and know before making any interest in a young woman known? Likewise, a young woman?


10. Is a youjnd man's relationship with his mother an indication of how he will treat his wife? Likewise, a young woman with her father. Both with their parents and other siblings.


11. Is the young man's/woman's view of God, his doctrine and practice important? this may seem to be a given, but sadly doesn't always take precidence.


12. What is the testimony he/she bears both with his mouth and actions?


13. Do particular struggles that a young man or woman are currently having hinder them from being ready for marriage?


14. What is the young man's vision? Likewise the young woman?


15. Should a possible suitor be left alone with my daughter? Likewise, should my son be alone with a young woman of interest?


16. Are chaperones necessary if a young man and woman should go some place together? Are older siblings suitable chaperones?


17. How much time should be given to courting (limited interaction in company)? How much time should be given to engagement (the time of pledging to marry till the wedding day)?


18. Should a young man already have means of providing before making his interest know to a young woman?


19. Should a young man ask permission of her father before making his interest known?


20. Should physical contact be encouraged at all? during courtship? during engagement?


21. If the young lady doesn't have a father around, should the young man ask permission of the mother? If no parents are around, then what?


22. What should a young man desire in a wife? Likewise, a young woman in a husband?


23. Should they both know and understand their roles biblically?


24. Should they both have positive views of children and welcome them?

These are not all the questions by all means and i certainly may ask many more and hopefully answer them with God's wisdom which comes from His Word. Hopefully though, me being able to write these down I will be able to gain a more solid understanding both of my role as a father in this aspect and also a vision of where I want my children to be at when the time is right to leave the home and exactly how to get them there.

The Late Great Planet Church

Well I took the time the other week to sit down for about 2 hours and review the long awaited video from NiceneCouncil.com, The Late Great Planet Church (The Rise of Dispensationalism). First and foremost, congratulations to Jerry Johnson and his son Tyler on the production finally being completed. It is very well down both quality wise and in it's content.

This is the first volume in a two volume set that which will be released sometime later. This volume however is an introduction to what dispensationalism is and is not and also discusses the major proponents of dispensationalism such as Charles Ryrie, C. I. Schofield, and John Darby. These are some of the men who made dispensationalism so popular from the 19th and 20th century. Others of late note include such men as Hal Lindsey (where his book Late Great Planet Earth is punned by the title), and those who established Dallas Theological Seminary have turned out millions of people who believe in dispensationalism, though the Bible knows nothing of it. The primary focus of dispensationalism is to somehow divide the people of God into two categories, the geo-political structure of the nation Israel (or those as dispensationalism puts it, who are "physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and those of the New Testament Church. Rather than see the continuity of both the Old and New Testaments in the people of God and those who are really the children of God as one people, they seek to destroy what Christ has established according to Ephesians 2 where he makes from the 2, Jew and Gentile, one new man. There is to be no more distinctions physically. Rather the distinction is purely spiritual. Thus the true Jew, Paul tells us, is the one that has been circumcised not of the flesh, but of the heart.

So this video seeks to attempt to deal with the birth of the thinking of dispensationalism and also those who promoted it. It primarily is not a theology but an eschatology that has then been read back into the Scriptures and thus the doctrines gained do impact one's thinking. At no time in church history was dispensationalism known until the 1800's. So it is relatively new. This does not make it wrong, but one should be careful in believing something that the church has not held to since the creation. Along with the primary distinction of the Church and Israel, there are also other doctrines such as a secret rapture and a 7 year Tribulation somewhere in our future followed by a 1000 year rule of Christ from Jerusalem. There are also disturbing doctrines regarding what takes place in the millenium that I'm sure will be discussed in volume 2.

However for volume one sit back and listen at least to the birth of dispensationalism, the character of it's earliest proponents and at least see if it isn't valid to ask, whether we should not take a serious look at dispensationalism if for no other reason than the character of those who first popularized it, such as John Darby and C. I. Schofield. In the end it is what the Bible says and teaches in its context that determines the truth, but we should be on guard against those who seek to draw sheep after themselves as these men did and then shut off any other believers from them. On top of that some of the disturbing things that were in these men's lives also reflect a lack of godliness and qualification for one to teach the Word of God, much less add notes in a study Bible.

I highly recommend this first installment of "The Late Great Planet Church" for personal viewing, as well as, for groups. Now, if you are a dispensationalist, don't discount what I write here and not view the dvd. Get it and take in the information and then respond to it. I am one that use to be dispensationalist many years ago, but when I was forced to study through books of the Bible an do so in their contexts there is no way one would ever come to the conclusion of dispensationalism apart from someone teaching it to them, because the concepts are foreign to the text itself. With that I will end on the note of encouragement to arm yourself with the facts contained in the video. Jerry is an excellent researcher and makes sure his facts are straight before publishing them. As a former contributer to Watchman Fellowship, a counter cult ministry in Texas, he is widely known and is the president of NiceneCouncil.com and writer for the Amazing Grace, The History and Theology of Calvinism DVD. Click the link above to be taken to the web site where you can order this dvd.

Updated wish list

New and Improved Wish List of Vision Forum Items:



The Anti-Historical Revisionism Home School Kit #23507 $45

The Master’s Plan for Fathers # 43752 $35

Strength and Dignity for Daughters #86650 $10

Passionate Housewives Desperate for God # 84332 $16

The Wise Woman’s guide to Blessing Her Husbands Vision # 68221 $16

Strategic Siblings # 58785 $10

Building a Family That Will Stand # 10176 $30

The Adventures of Missionary Heroism # 74642 $24

Yankee vs. Rebels # 64111 $10

Providential Battles Vols. 1 & 2 # 35272 & # 352274 $50



Total: $ 246.

sponsored by,

Vision Forum & InAShoe

Vision Forum Wishlist:)

Vision Forum and Lifeinashoe are having a giveaway:) so we are posting a wishlist. go check out their sites.

Wish List of Vision Forum Items:



The Anti-Historical Revisionism Home School Kit #23507 $45

The Master’s Plan for Fathers # 43752 $35

Strength and Dignity for Daughters #86650 $10

Passionate Housewives Desperate for God # 84332 $16

The Wise Woman’s guide to Blessing Her Husbands Vision # 68221 $16

Strategic Siblings # 58785 $10

Family Driven Faith #37825 $18



Total $150

Book Review: Prowl

Well wow! It's been almost two years since I posted anything on the blog site and now I just discovered that I never posted a book review of my brother Gordan Runyan's Prowl. So Here it is from 8/27/2007. It is short and I can't give all the details since I don't want to give the story away, but suffice it to say we thoroughly enjoyed the book. Thanks so much Gordan:)

I wanted to take a moment and write a brief review of a good friend's novel, Prowl. Gordan sent me the book a few months back. I often read historical type novels with the kids during or after family worship at night. However, since my dear brother sent it to me and in anticipation of all of the excitment and suspense that I heard about, we put it immediately in line to read to the kids after our current book.

We began the book some weeks back, but because of having to be out of town due to an overload in the work we had, the book went very slow for us. However, it was all it was made out to be:) Gordan has a great style of writing and if you have ever talked with him, you can almost hear his voice in some of the humor of the book. If you've ever read his blog and enjoyed it, then you will enjoy this novel. Like I said there were times where I was completely cracking up, looked at my wife and kids and said, "This has Gordan Runyan written all over it".

You will enjoy the story. It has action, suspense, and edge of your seat drama. this reads almost like an episode of 24. The great thing about the novel is that it is not a pipe dream. It is based in reality. Real life stuff happens. Gordan gives you intimate details of the inner workings of a Navy submarine and he takes time to develop the ship and its crew for those who wouldn't know what a poopie suit is:)

The message of the gospel is realistic too. Gordan develops the characters in the story very well and the back and forth between scenes is what makes it so great. You are never stuck in just one scene, but are constantly being moved about with action, suspense and adventure as well as an easy to follow story line. Gordon, you should write many more books brother. Those who read will not find this the usual "Christian novel" simply because the main character is struggling to understand who he is in light of what he learns from God's Word. In the midst of things he isn't surrounded by a bunch of Christians who are encouraging him. Rather he finds himself trying to stay alive amidst a killer on the loose in his submarine. My hat's off to this book. My family enjoyed reading it together:) They even run around the house saying, "Mo betta"....and if you are wondering what that is......get the book:)

The erasure of American borders with Canada & Mexico??

Conservative Coalition Assembles To Warn Americans About Agenda For ‘Hush-Hush’ North American ‘Merge-Fest’ In Quebec.



Lancaster, PA/ August 17, 2007 - The Constitution Party, joins conservative groups and a growing number in Congress urging Americans to speak out against the formation of a North American Union (NAU).



A meeting, planned for Aug-20-21 in Quebec, will advance the well-developed plan despite a near blackout by U.S. media.

The summit, sponsored by The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, a vehicle by which the NAU is being advanced, will be led by President George Bush of the United States, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico to plan an EU-type merger joining all three countries.

Former Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Howard Phillips said: "This summit is being held away from the scrutiny of the American people. It was declared off limits to those who oppose it, and that speaks volumes. The SPP is part of a treacherous scheme to incrementally merge Canada, the United States, and Mexico in a manner similar to that, which brought the European Union into being over a span of 50 years. Lost liberties and a lower standard of living would be the inevitable result if our borders with Mexico and Canada were to be erased. Americans won't want to be part of that global nightmare." Phillips, founder of the fast-growing Constitution Party, one-time presidential candidate and the leader of the Conservative Caucus (www.conservativeusa.org) will be joined by a coalition of American and Canadian leaders assembled in Quebec to speak out against the proposed merger of the three countries at a press conference.

The press conference is scheduled for August 20th, 2007 at 10 am at the Ottawa Marriott Hotel, Ottawa, Canada.

“The NAU and the SPP are a virtual toxic alphabet soup being cooked up behind closed doors so Americans won’t have a clue they’re about to lose their rights and freedoms until it’s too late,” warned Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer. “Just ask the people in Europe who are now dealing with the disastrous effects of the E.U.”, Clymer further noted.

Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., New York Times best-selling author of the new book The Late, Great U.S.A.-The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada will be covering the SPP summit from Quebec. Corsi is an internationally known expert on the clandestine effort to force Americans into an unconstitutional fusion with other countries.

The Constitution Party joins opponents of the SPP/NAU and supports proposed legislation (HCR40) introduced by Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) which calls for an end to the merger that would result in a North American Union (NAU). In addition, the Constitution Party expresses appreciation to the 18 states introducing resolutions calling for a halt to work on the NAU.

Thomas More before those who condemned him

I ran across this quote in my study of Philemon. It comes from Sir Thomas More, who was the Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII. The quote is cited in Thomas More, by R. W. Chambers, pg. 342). Remember that this quotes comes after the very men he is addressing have condemned him to death.

“As the blessed apostle St. Paul…consented to the death of St. Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now both twain holy saints in Heaven, and shall continue there friends for ever, so I verily trust, and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though you Lordships have now here in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in Heaven merrily all meet together, to our everlasting salvation.”

May God grant us this kind of spirit in dealing with those who oppose us!

A quick update

Just a quick update. I know I haven't posted in a while, but wanted everyone to know that things are ok with us. Today we hope, in God's Providence, that this will be our last visit with DSS. It has been 8 months since this started. The other week RC was released from the specialist and was given a clean bill of health. So we are waiting now on the case worker's visit. We are praying for God's favor with them.

On a lighter note, the family and I were able to meet Nathan White and his wife and daughter the other week as he was up our way on business. We had a delightful time around the table and are thankful to call them brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope we are able to do it again sometime:)

Gordan, hehe, we are still trudging slowly along through Prowl. We are almos towards the end. We just finished the chapter where the Omaha torpedos the cruiser. That has been the most intense chapter! I loved the back and forth too. It really made it edge of your seat reading.

Hopefully, I will get back to posting some things soon.

Some of you may have seen this

I received this email the other week and thought I would share it with you. Though our government has the right to wage war on those who threaten it's citizens because they are ministers of God and hold the sword as a means against evil doers, we as individual believers should have a heart of compassion for these who have been deceived and we are obligated to love them and present to them the blessed gospel of Christ, which alone can save them. Here is the email.

These Pictures tell it all!

Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!

These are pictures not shown on American TV or in American Newspapers (as they might help Bush's war on terror), but were forwarded to me by a Canadian Friend who thought Americans ought to know!

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the streets of London during their recent

"Religion of Peace Demonstration."










Why would anyone think

that we should be at war

with such nice, peaceful Muslims?!

PS>Our war brothers is not with carnal weapons, but they are mighty spiritual weapons God has given us in the tearing down of strongholds.

Pics from Jamestown

I thought I might post a few pics from our trip to Jamestown. I don't do a lot of pic posting, but thought some might enjoy:) So here they are.

The John Smith Monument
The Susan Constant.


Teddy Roosevelt reenactment

Fifers at Jamestown

First Landing Reenactment.
Inside the first Jamestown church building

The Memorial Cross at Jamestown

Dakota showing that Jamestown is not only 17th century history, but also Civil War history

The Browns in front of the Jamestown settlement.

Hannah enjoying the delights of fruit..

Caleb becoming a young man and helping his mother by carrying the diaper bag.


OK, Mom & Dad got into trouble. Fortunately we weren't hung

Hailey enjoying a piggyback ride. Dad with a super short hair cut!
And people think boys are only interested in science fiction.....

A Reformed Baptist's kids with the idol of Pocohantus..
A very cute Brown girl beside the James River.



The family by the James River

The kids with Ms. Hawley & Ms. Regina, and yes RC is having a caniption fit:)

Tori and Tabitha with a new friend Emma

Hailey with new friend Jacille (not sure about spelling:)

The Brown kids on Duke of Gloucester St. in Colonial Williamsburg

DSS Update 7-1-2007

Well it has been 6 months since R.C. was released from the hospital. It has been about 5 since DSS claimed that our case was "indicated". I got a call this week from the social worker letting us know that at least for now, she will be coming once every other week, rather than every week. Praise God for that! He has certainly shown us mercy in this area:) He has continued to keep our rebelliousness at bay by His Spirit in the matter and for that we give Him glory. We don't know when there will be finality. The doctor wrote some things in a letter to the social worker that were clearly not true and the worker knew it from previous experience, so I will be confronting that with video recorder in hand on our next visit at the end of the month.

We covet your prayers for a demonstration of the power of God to continue to restrain our own sinful desires and to cause us to love those who are against us. Please pray for the social worker and doctor. I have shared our concerns and the gospel and am desirous that God might be pleased to use it for His glory in their lives. Finally, please continue to remember Denise as she is due in the first part of November. We are very, very tight in our finances, so please pray with us for the Lord's provision as the midwife now is another responsibility we have. May God continue to be glorified in all of this:)

Jamestown Quadracentennial 1607-2007

This week our family was given a very special gift. A very sweet lady and her daughter from San Antonio, TX purchased tickets for our family to attend the Jamestown Quadracentennial in Virginia. We were greatly humbled and appreciative as our children had been studying some of the beginnings of our nation. We arrived here on Wednesday and these dear ladies had lunch ready for us at the hotel where we registered for the celebration. Then later when we checked into our hotel we entered and these ladies had found out where we were staying and filled our room with all sorts of fruits and organic goodies:) Denise and I were speechless and in all honesty were moved to tears. They then proceeded to purchase for us hot air balloon tickets and a historical boat tour for all the members of our family.

These dear ladies attend a church in San Antonio and after speaking with several of the men in that church, this is not unusual for them to do. God has given them tremendous means and a wonderful gift of His Spirit. This church is greatly blessed to have such women in its midst. God has indeed been gracious to these ladies, their church, and to us as well. We bless Him for His goodness through the means of women like these in His body.

Now, we are here to learn about the Providential hand of God in our nation's founding. As we are instructed in Psalm 78 as fathers :

Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,3 Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.4 We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.5 For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children;6 That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children,7 That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments;8 And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.

One of the desires I have is to better understand history and the Providence of God, so when I get an opportunity to hear men speak of historical events and put it in the perspective of seeing the hand of God at work and the purposes He was accomplishing, I jump at it. This week has been pretty impressive so far. We missed the first two days, so of course we are hearing all about the wonderful tours and speakers. I was really encouraged on Wednesday evening by the fact that the dramatic presentation of the first colony settlement basically came down to a memorable quote:

There are no extraordinary men. God simply puts ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances to achieve extraordinary things for His purposes and glory.

SBC MONEY USED FOR CALVINISM ATTACK!

I just finished reading Nathan's blog, along with several other's including Tom Aschol and Timmy Brister concerning what the Florida Baptist Convention has done in distributing what they feel are "evils" coming into the church. First and foremost, it simply should have never been done. Whoever authorized it should not only apologize, but should have to foot the bill or lose his job. Many of you who know me, know I can be very gracious about a lot of things, but when it comes to someone outrightly attacking the doctrine of God's sovereign grace, well, I have no patience for that at all. If someone is not understanding the doctrines, fine, I have no problem with patience, but when men who should be able to read and articulate properly another's view and should have been trained to exposit Scripture and they openly misrepresent and mischaracterize and demonize those who hold to those doctrines that they are so foolishly balking at, then it is time to do what the apostle Paul says to do.

Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

This passage falls right in the midst of a section concerning elders. Many of those in the position of leadership in the SBC are in fact elders, though most want to use the title pastor. As such, we must remember that those in leadership in the SBC must be held accountable and that does not merely mean some "apology", but biblical repentance.

Just so that we understand, the SBC has been politicized for over a decade. While some of the men such as Dr. Jerry Vines, Dr. Adrian Rogers, and Dr. Paige Patterson were incredibly effective in bringing the SBC back from total liberalism, these men, along with others, are the ones keeping the convention from returning to truly conservative Christianity and a clear biblical gospel AND returning to the rich calvinistic heritage of their forefathers. As a matter of fact, many who founded the SBC would see these men as liberals. This must be kept in mind when confronting this situation.

Once the SBC had pushed the issue of inerrancy to the forefront, many thought that was all that needed to be done and as long as you hollered from the pulpit that you believed the Bible was inerrant made you one of the "good ole boys". Well, there are many great men of God who have been used of God in that. However, what eventually happened was that many of the liberals wanted to stay in the SBC and try to retake the convention. When this happened those who had battled their way to the top via standing upon the Word of God as the Word of God, sunk to political maneuvering and sought to rid the convention of the liberals through means of money. By using money as a ploy to maintain status in the SBC, those in power hoped to rid themselves of the liberals. Gentleman, you should have simply stood fast upon the Scriptures apart from the political tactics.

With that in mind, now calvinism (the true gospel), is under open and blatant attack. There is no reason for the ignorance of these men. They are PhD's for crying out loud, not some small town guy from South Carolina. There is simply no excuse for the blatant misrepresentations, dishonesty and yes outright lying concerning the doctrines of grace. These men evidently express such arrogance in their sermons that sometimes I simply think they are desirous of the applause of men when it comes to this issue and not good pleasure of God (that's my opinion). You can hear it in their tones.

As Dr. Nettles told me at the conference in October in Virginia, "the battle right now in the SBC is over recovering the true gospel." He is right. Basically we are seeing a similar battle raging in the SBC that took place 500 years ago. Many Southern Baptists don't know their own heritage and are WILLINGLY IGNORANT OF IT.

I recall receiving Bob Selph's little book titled, "What Southern Baptists believe about the doctrine of election" some years ago. He detailed a tremendous amount of history concerning our forefathers and the faith they held to. While I applaud the efforts of men like Dr. Aschol, Dr. Nettles, and others, I wonder if in the end many in the SBC should not simply pull out, let it implode and be separatists rather than puritans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have experienced the same thing in the local church and it seems that when a little leaven enters in it leavens the whole lump. Getting rid of it is next to impossible. You don't have to remind me that all things are possible with God. This I know. I'm just saying that even history bears out that there will more than likely be a clear break that will have to be made in the SBC between the Arminians and the Calvinists. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I can't see it any other way.

Hodge on Paedo Baptism

In light of the recent posts concerning paedo baptism, I thought this little excerpt from Charles Hodge might be enlightening to the conversation. I added some comments and questions at the end.

In either view we are said to be cleansed (whether from guilt or pollution) by baptism. What does this mean? How does baptism in either of these senses wash away sin? The Protestant and scriptural answer to this question is, that baptism cleanses from sin just as the word does. We are said to be saved by the truth, to be begotten by the truth, to be sanctified by the truth. This does not mean:
That there is any inherent, much less magic, power in the word of God as heard or read to produce these effects.
Nor that the word always and everywhere, when rightly presented, thus sanctifies and saves, so that all who hear are partakers of these benefits.
Nor does it mean that the Spirit of God is so tied to the word as never to operate savingly on the heart except in connection with it. For infants may be subjects of regeneration, though incapable of receiving the truth.
In like manner when the Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin (Acts 22:16); or as uniting to Christ (Gal. 3:27); or as making Christ's death our death (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12); or as saving us (1 Pet. 3:21); they do not teach:
That there is any inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce these effects; nor
That these effects always attend its right administration; nor
That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which he communicates the benefits of redemption, so that all unbaptized will perish.
These three propositions, all of which Romanism and Ritualism affirm, are contrary to the express declarations of Scripture and to universal experience. Multitudes of the baptized are unholy; many of the unbaptized are sanctified and saved.
How then is it true that baptism washes away sin, unites us to Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism; though baptism without faith is as of little effect as is the word of God to unbelievers.
The scriptural doctrine concerning baptism, according to the Reformed churches is:
That it is a divine institution.
That it is one of the conditions of salvation. "Whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). It has, however, the necessity of precept, not the necessity of a means sine qua non. It is in this respect analogous to confession. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10). And also to circumcision. God said, "The uncircumcised male child-should be cut off from his people" (Gen. 17:14) Yet children dying before the eighth day were surely not cut off from heaven. And the apostle teaches that if an uncircumcised man kept the law, "his uncircumcision was counted to him for circumcision" (Rom. 3:26).
Baptism is a means of grace, that is, a channel through which the Spirit confers grace; not always, not upon all recipients, nor is it the only channel, nor is it designed as the ordinary means of regeneration. Faith and repentance are the gifts of the Spirit and fruits of regeneration, and yet they are required as conditions of baptism. But if faith, to which all the benefits of redemption are promised, precedes baptism, how can those benefits be said to be conferred, in any case, through baptism? Just as a father may give an estate to his son, and afterwards convey it to him formally by a deed. Besides, the benefits of redemption, the remission of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and the merits of the Redeemer, are not conveyed to the soul once for all. They are reconveyed and reappropriated on every new act of faith, and on every new believing reception of the sacraments. The sinner coming to baptism in the exercise of repentance and faith, takes God the Father to be his Father; God the Son, to be his Saviour; and God the Holy Ghost to be his Sanctifier, and his word to be the rule of his faith and practice. The administrator then, in the name and by the authority of God, washes him with water as a sign of the cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ, and of sanctification by the Holy Spirit; and as a seal to God's promise to grant him those blessings on the condition of the repentance and faith thus publicly avowed. Whatever he may have experienced or enjoyed before, this is the public conveyance to him of the benefits of the covenant, and his inauguration into the number of the redeemed. If he is sincere in his part of the service, baptism really applies to him the blessings of which it is the symbol.
Infants are baptized on the faith of their parents. And their baptism secures to them all the benefits of the covenant of grace, provided they ratify that covenant by faith; just as circumcision secured the benefits of the theocracy, provided those circumcised by infancy kept the law. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is, the doctrine that inward spiritual renovation always attends baptism rightly administered to the unresisting, and that regeneration is never effected without it, is contrary to Scripture, subversive of evangelical religion, and opposed to universal experience. It is, moreover, utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Reformed churches. For that doctrine teaches that all the regenerated are saved. "Whom God calls them he also glorifies" (Rom. 8:30). It is, however, plain from Scripture, and in accordance with the faith of the universal church, that multitudes of the baptized perish. The baptized, therefore, as such, are not the regenerated.
The foregoing remarks are intended to show in what sense the Reformed understand this and similar declarations of Scripture. Christ purifies his church by baptism. That is the initiatory rite; which signifies, seals, and applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer's death. The apostle is speaking of the church, the body and bride of Christ, and of the effect of baptism on those who constitute that church, not of its effect on those who are not included in the covenant and are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.

This quote comes from Charles Hodge (1797 – 1878) in his commentary on Ephesians (pgs 320 and following). I am just wondering if it sounds as confusing to others as it does to me.

Let me ask some questions. For instance, where in the New Testament does it teach that “infants are baptized on the faith of their parents?” Where does the Scripture teach that the covenant is “ratified by faith”? How can it be said that baptism “secures to them [infants] all the benefits of the covenant of grace” and then add that there must be a ratifying in order for that to be “secure”?

Hodge goes on to state, “The baptized, therefore, as such, are not the regenerated.” So the question for me becomes, “Then why should we baptize those who are clearly unregenerate?” At least from the Baptistic standpoint we have a profession of faith by the individual, which we see all throughout Scripture, rather than by an individual’s parents on their behalf, which we never see in Scripture (Note: This statement concerns baptism, not circumcision).
Notice that he ends with this: “The foregoing remarks are intended to show in what sense the Reformed understand this and similar declarations of Scripture. Christ purifies his church by baptism. That is the initiatory rite; which signifies, seals, and applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer's death.” But can it be said of all who are baptized? Absolutely not, and he said that earlier. So it appears, at least to me, that Hodge really doesn’t show these “declarations from Scripture”, but rather follows after the Reformed “tradition” (yes, there are traditions in the Reformed community as well).

Finally, could someone tell me where in the Scripture baptism applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer’s death? I’m sorry, that sounds very Romanist to me, and I’m being gracious:)

Paedo-baptism 2

Continuing on with posts concerning paedo baptism, we will look at Romans 4:11. In the passage we find the apostle arguing against those who would seek a works righteousness. Specifically he argues against circumcision. His primary objective is to demonstrate that Abraham was given a righteousness that was not his own before he was circumcised. The text says,

9 ¶ Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

The blessedness spoken of in verse 9 refers to verses 7-8. There we see that the blessedness is the forgiveness of sins, those to whom God does not impute their sin. So Paul is going to make his point by using the “father of all those who believe”, Abraham. It is crystal clear that Abraham is indeed justified by faith apart from circumcision. Paul says as much in verse 10. He also makes a point in verse 11 concerning those who believe who are not circumcised. Paul’s point is that though there are those who are uncircumcised, they still might have righteousness imputed to them because they would have the same faith that Abraham possessed.

We also note in verse 12 that those who were circumcised found righteousness the same way those who were not circumcised found it: by faith.

So, with this said, am I saying that paedo-baptists don’t believe this? Absolutely not. But here is where the inconsistency comes in, IMHO. Circumcision simply was a sign given by God concerning the promises He made to Abraham and yet those promises were made to him and affirmed to him BEFORE he was circumcised. My paedo-baptist friends will point here and say there is a correlation between baptism and circumcision. At least in this passage I cannot even begin to see that correlation. By this I mean that I don't see the passage tying the two together. The only thing I can assume that is meant by that is this: Since Abraham then circumcised Ishmael and Isaac and since they in turn gave that sign to their children and so on and so on, then we should administer baptism in the same manner, as merely a sign.

However, as a previous commenter pointed out, many in church history put far more emphasis upon baptism than a mere sign. They actually said it had salvific efficacy. If baptism has salvific efficacy, then I might want to ask those who believe that, “Why did Christ die?” This will come out more clearly in Colossians 2.

Now, the paedo-baptists I know of do not declare that baptism has any power to save, though some of them in their language seem, at times to indicate that, apart from clarification. Those I have spoken to simply indicate that it is a sign, just as circumcision was a sign in the Old Covenant, and that it points to the doctrine of regeneration, which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. However, they will then go on to say that this brings children of believers into the covenant community of the church. This I do have a problem with. Does it bring them into the covenant community in the same way that an adult believer who has professed Christ and actually been regenerated come into the “covenant community”? I don’t think so.

From the Baptist perspective, we don’t deny the picture of regeneration in baptism. We actually go further than that. We recognize that the Scriptures teach death in baptism as well.

Ro 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Only true believers are really identified in Christ’s death and thus ONLY true believers are identified in His resurrection. Therefore, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, only those who have been identified with Christ in His death AS WELL AS His resurrection should submit themselves unto baptism. The clear reading of the text seems to indicate that. I simply can’t understand, apart from assuming a silent mindset, which we are told that the Jews would have had about circumcision, that we should be baptizing infants.

Why would I say that this is “clear” concerning believers? Notice Romans. Paul uses the term “we” and identifies that we were buried with Christ and that “we” should walk in newness of life. In Colossians he uses the term “you” and indicates that the Colossian believers were raised with Christ. So it seems that baptism is simply the outward sign of the reality that one has both died and risen with Christ, not a hoped for event in the future.

I will next deal with the Colossians 2 passage.

Quick Update Pt. 2

I received word from our attorney yesterday that our appeal was denied. Now pay close attention, lest you come into an encounter with Social Services. You would think an appeal would mean that you would actually be heard and that a basis would be heard concerning this matter. Not in Social Services (notice anything familiar about the initials of said organization? hint:Gestapo). Nope, we are not in a judicial matter hear, it is purely administrative. So our appeal was heard by a judge? NOpe. An outside party? uh uh. Anyone who could objectively look at evidence and hear testimony. Nada. It was looked at by the same organization that has accused us of neglecting our son, who by the way is crawling, chattering, eating well, and has tremendous strength in his legs!

All in all, we are at the mercy of DSS. They will determine when and IF we go to court. Please remember to pray for us that our conduct may be that which glorifies Christ and His gospel and that God may grant us grace in this matter. As soon as a court date has been set I will post that, but getting that will be diffcult for getting anyone from DSS to return a call is like pulling teeth.

A Quick Update

We are still in Limbo concening our appeal. Our attorney has advised us to be patient that DSS is notorious for drawing things out over a long period of time. The woman in charge of the appeal will not contact me though I call and request it of her every week. We must continue to allow them in our home until the appeal takes place and then we will see whether it goes to a family court. More than likely it will, unless the Lord brings us into favor with the judge. He can do it, just as He brought Daniel into favor with those who were in authority over him and so we petition Him for this. Many wonderful brothers and sisters have encouraged us with letters and even some financial support. We are tremendously humbled by their love and if you read this and have even offered prayers for us, let me say on behalf of my family, "Thank you so much."

Indeed God is sovereign and we have learned much about ourselves (both good and bad) and experienced the loving hand of the Father working in our midst. Also, we have recently found out that the Lord has added to our number. We are now 10 B's in a hive. Yes, Denise discovered last week that she is pregnant again. We rejoice, though we realize that people probably think we are crazy (we didn't have to have 8 children to determine that:).

Please remember us before the throne if the Lord brings us to mind, especially Denise. The added stress is not good for the adults, much less the baby that grows in her womb.

By the way, I am toying with the idea of actually recording a few thoughts rather than typing them and offering them sort of like a podcast. There is lots of "free" time in my van, but it is so noisy, so this week my boss is looking to replace my van with a new quiet one or possibly.......could it be?.........a new truck (please please please). If so and the road noise is significantly minimized, then I will probably record thoughts each day entitled, "One for the road".

That's a quick update, I post more as soon as things change.

Understanding Paedo-Baptism

A couple of weeks ago our family was invited to spend the weekend (a much needed vacation) with a dear brother in the Lord, Jerry Johnson. Many will recall Jerry as the author of the Apologetics Group’s wonderful DVD “Amazing Grace – The History and Theology of Calvinism”. Jerry has been a great friend in the last few years. He has housed us on several occasions for the Apologetics Group’s Conferences and we have had many wonderful discussions of theology and books, as well as, shared in some business together.

During our past stay with Jerry we were able to relax on a beautiful mountain in Draper, VA right on the Blue Ridge Parkway. We drank lots of coffee, took it easy, watched a few movies, and discussed numerous theological matters. One of these topics was the subject of infant baptism (paedo baptism). This subject sometimes becomes lost in understanding the connection and also the disconnection of the covenants of the Bible. Let me make clear that my comments are not in anger, nor are they saying that those who baptize their infant children non-Christians. I do not believe that at all. However, I have not come to the conclusion that they are correct either. With that said, I wanted to be able to question Jerry regarding the reasoning behind coming to this conclusion. Jerry was more than willing, since he understood I was not trying to argue with him, but to understand his position. Therefore, I will try to lay out the position as I understand it. Note: I said, as I understand it, this way I will be able to be open for correction from any paedo Baptists who might read this entry. Please do not take this in any way as me trying to be inflammatory towards paedo Baptists, but I truly want to understand the position because should I be found in error, then I want to repent. As of this moment, I cannot turn into the path of paedo baptism.

First, I understand the paedo Baptist position to be consistent up to a certain point, that is from their perspective of how the covenant works. They see a continuity of the covenants, as do I. We both see one over-arching covenant and that is the covenant of grace. Historically, as you read many paedo Baptist authors their language does seem to imply baptismal regeneration, though, thankfully, at least orthodox writers do make the point of stating they do not believe in such a thing. Nevertheless, I have run across numerous statements that even in their context, seem to suggest that. I will provide some of those in a future installment.

We must keep in mind that while there is one over-arching covenant and that being the covenant of grace, there were numerous covenants throughout history between God and man. The covenant of grace is a covenant between God the Father and God the Son, with men being the beneficiaries. The other covenants include the Adamic covenant, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Old covenant, and the New covenant. In the New Covenant is the fullest expression of the covenant of grace. In it is the fulfillment of all of the promises that He has made because in this covenant comes the promise that He made and that is in the person and work of Jesus Christ. However, the issue we are concerned with requires that we understand the difference between the Abrahamic covenant and the Old covenant and the difference of these from the New covenant.

First there is a difference between the covenant God made with Abraham and the covenant God made with the nation of Israel at Sinai (the Old covenant). The major difference is two-fold.

The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, while the covenant made at Sinai was conditional. God made promises to Abraham that were not dependent upon Abraham, but upon God. However, at Sinai, that covenant was accepted by the people and was dependent upon their obedience. Consequently, this is why this covenant has passed away
The Abrahamic Covenant is most clearly extended in the New Covenant, while the Old Covenant is made obsolete and ready to vanish away.

Here is where our dispensational friends get tripped up. They intermingle the two as though they are the same covenant and as Dr. John MacArthur showed in his recent attack against a straw man he called a-millenialism. Now paedo-baptists recognize the difference here between these two covenants well. But it appears to me that there is a melding of some of the thoughts behind the “covenant community” of Old Testament Israel and the “covenant community” of the New Testament. This is where I see a glaring inconsistency.

First, we will note that in the Abrahamic covenant we see that this covenant is completely dependent upon God. Abraham is simply the recipient of the promise of God. We find in Genesis 15,

12 ¶ Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.
13 Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.
14 "And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.
15 "Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.
16 "But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
17 ¶ And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.
18 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—
19 "the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites,
20 "the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
21 "the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

They covenant was completely dependent upon God’s own word. We find in Genesis 17 that Abraham believed the promise of God and as it was counted unto him for righteousness, there was also given to him a “sign” of this covenant, circumcision. Abraham, his son Ishmael and all the males in his house were circumcised. Later we discover in the Old covenant that all the males of the nation Israel would take up this sign of the covenant on the eighth day.

Now if one was not circumcised he was to be cut off from his people (Gen. 17:14). In the New Covenant, the paedo-baptist sees continuity between the covenants concerning this sign. That continuity is that the new sign of baptism, which identifies one with the Lord of the New Covenant, is simply a replacement for circumcision. They will reference such passages as Romans 4:11 and possibly their strongest argument comes from Colossians 2:11. We will take a look at these passages in the next post.

They believe, and their argument is really an argument from silence, that the mind of the first century New Covenant Jew would be that since baptism replaced circumcision that it would be natural for believers to baptize their children into the covenant community. I remind us, this “mindset” is argued from silence in the Scripture. I will attempt to show that the covenant community of the New Covenant is not the same as the covenant community of the Old Covenant. For in the New Covenant there are only believers, not unbelievers. All in the New Covenant community are the elect or the true Israel of God.

Now, much like our dispensational friends who want to go back to separating believers based upon ethnicity and end up promoting some fleshly appeal to the Jew for the future, I believe the paedo-baptist does something similar. They have carried the idea of the Old Covenant community into the New Covenant and therefore, they baptize their children based upon flesh (ie. They are their offspring). However, if they are to be consistent with the Scripture it would seem that they would baptize only the children of Abraham. And who might the children of Abraham be? The apostle Paul identifies them for us in Galatians 3,

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The children of Abraham should receive the New Covenant sign of baptism because they are of the same faith as Abraham and because they are Christ’s, not because they have believing parents.