My short credo or something like it

I don’t…

…think baptism is just a sign
…think New Testament writers thought and wrote in our 21st century Evangelical, American categories
…think non-Protestant churches are apostate and hell-bound
…think the church was apostate from AD 100 until the 1500s
…think appealing to tradition is bad
…think the Westminster Confession of Faith was inspired
…think God can be described as precisely, exactly, accurately, or wholly as I wish
…think being non-Confessional is equal to heresy

I do…

…think we should take Jesus seriously when he said his spirit would lead the Church into all truth
…think Protestants can learn much from other Christian traditions
…think apostolic succession is darn cool
…think tradition (“the faith once delivered unto the saints”) is very important
…think theology progresses and “grows-up” in expression, though remains the same in essence
…think the three ecumenical creeds are important and authoritative
…think something cool and mysterious happens at the Eucharist
…think charging someone with heresy is extremely serious
…think all of us hold to at least some bit of wrong thinking about God
…think the bounds of orthodoxy should be generous
…think “In essentials unity, in doubtful things liberty, but in all things charity”
…think the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church still exists today, but is not under one single ecclesiastical authority

Some thoughts on baptism

I’ve been thinking a lot recently on baptism. I’m rather convinced of Covenantal infant baptism, so I’m going to give a short explanation of the rationale behind Covenantal infant baptism. I’m doing this to get feedback from both paedobaptists and credobaptists. Help me stay honest in my thinking by pointing out flaws!

1. God has, from eternity past, had a chosen group of people whom he has decided to save. They are the True Church.
2. He accomplishes salvation through a visible collection of people, which we call the Visible Church.
3. Being a member of that Visible Church does not necessarily mean that one is a member of the True Church; however, in most cases, being a member of the Invisible Church means that one is a member of the Visible Church.
4. In the Old Covenant, God’s Visible Church was Israel. The sign of membership in the Visible Church, i.e., Israel, was circumcision.
5. In the New Covenant, God’s Visible Church has become the institution of the church. The sign of membership in the Visible Church, i.e., the institutional church, is baptism.
6. All those born into the Old Covenant were given the sign of covenantal membership, i.e., circumcision.
7. We have no reason to change this practice; so all those born into the New Covenant are also given the sign of covenantal membership, i.e., baptism.

Now some thoughts for just the paedobaptists, unless some credobaptists want to pretend to be cool paedobapists for a few minutes.   My understanding of the Reformed view of baptismal efficacy is still a little shaky. Let me know if this is right: baptism is the normal means of saving grace for God’s elect, but God can and does also give saving grace in the absence of baptism or at a different time than baptism. Does that sound about right? Anyone have any great thoughts on presumptive regeneration? It seems unavoidable to me, but…

Next order of business, I have a $50 Amazon giftcard burning a hole in my pocket. I’m thinking of getting the following books:

• What St. Paul Really Said by N. T. Wright
• Given For You by Keith A. Mathison
• ”Reformed” Is Not Enough by Douglas Wilson
• Paul: In Fresh Perspective by N. T. Wright

I may yet drop one of the N. T. Wright books for John Williamson Nevin’s The Mystical Presence. Other than the typical warnings about N. T. Wright (and to some, Douglas Wilson), any comments about those books?

Last but not least, a quote and some other good articles I’ve found. From ReformedCatholicism…

“Theology is the study of God and his ways. For all we know, dung beetles may study us and our ways and call it humanology. If so, we would probably be more touched and amused than irritated. One hopes that God feels likewise.” – Frederich Buechner

Freedom from Quiet Time Guilt

Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy: Both the FV (Federal Vision) and the NPP (New Perspective on Paul)
This is the only article I’ve found where the proponents of the Federal Vision actually agree with how the author describes what the FV teaches.

Dr. StrangeLiturgy

Toward a Catholic Calvinism

The Closing of the Calvinistic Mind
A little whiny in a few places, but the article as a whole is good.