Ad Honorem: Logan Almy

In the next four hours, I will be flying to St. Louis where I will reconvene with friends and family to celebrate the ordination of my brother, Logan Almy. Ordination is a serious time in which men of sound doctrine and character are called to "rightly handle the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15)." I could not think of a man for which this verse more aptly describes than Logan. In light of this milestone in his life, I would like to offer a brief tribute to this godly man.

I have repeated this several times, but it is worth being said again: Logan is a friend to me before he is a brother. By this I mean that he has gone above and beyond mere filial obligations by rebuking, encouraging, and edifying me. He has hidden Proverbs 28:23 in his heart and sought to incarnate it in his actions. Through daybreak and noon, times of laughter and times of weeping, Logan has demonstrated true friendship through his loyalty. A man could give him no higher praise than to say that he proves his love for God by his love for his brother (cf.1 John 4:20-21).

This Sunday Logan will be preaching during the AM sermon at Sutter Presbyterian Church. The title of his message will be: "The Supreme Joy of the Justified Sinner" taken from Phil. 3:1-11. I eagerly look forward to another God-saturated, Spirit-filled sermon. Logan's commitment to expository preaching and bold proclamation of the truth is unmatched by anyone I have met and I pray the Lord would continue to increase his resolve. Soli deo gloria!

What is Baptism?

When we consider the sacred rite of baptism, it is necessary to understand both its significance and its application. First, the significance of baptism.

As a result of the emergence of a man-centered view of redemption, there has been a corresponding rise in a man-centered view of the sacrament of baptism. This should really come as no surprise since baptism is the initiatory rite of being ushered into the visible people of God. If the church's view of redemption is man-centered, then baptism which points to redemption will be seen in a man-centered way. In other words, baptism is seen in many evangelical circles as pointing to the individual's personal faith and repentance. This is exactly the opposite of what baptism, or any other covenant sign in Scripture, is meant to do. Signs are markers which serve to remind (however anthropromorphic it may sound) the suzerain God of his objective promise. It is not a sign of some inward change. This was the case in every covenant in the OT and continues to be so with baptism. Let us look at some examples:

8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 “I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 “It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 “When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” -Genesis 9:8-17

Notice, the purpose of the sign of the covenant is so that God "will remember" his covenant (v.15. The sign of the covenant (i.e. the rainbow) is not pointing to some subjective, inward disposition within Noah. It is not a sign of Noah's personal faith in the promise of the covenant. It is a sign to remind God of God's promise. To put another way, it is outward and objective rather than inward and subjective. Here is another one:

9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 “A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” -Genesis 17:9-14

The sign of the Abrahamic covenant is the bloody rite of circumcision. Was circumcision a sign of the inward, subjective disposition of the recipient? Verses 12-13 clearly demonstrate it was not, because every male in Israel was circumcised even those who would later demonstrate unbelief. What exactly does circumcision then signify? Paul, who also calls the Abrahamic covenant the gospel in Galatians 3:8, says this regarding what circumcision signifies:

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. -Colossians 2:11-12

While many credobaptists may want to object and say that Paul does not say that baptism replaces circumcision in this text, that is not the point. The point is that what Paul does state is that both circumcision and baptism convey the same spiritual reality, that is, the objective work of Christ in dying and purging us of the sinfulness of the flesh. Circumcision is the bloody rite which looks forward to this event while baptism is the bloodless rite which looks back. Neither, however, are necessarily intended to signify something about the individual recipient.

In regards to the application of the sign of baptism, I will propose this. When we correctly understand the significance of baptism, then the application of baptism flows from it. What I mean by this is that a God-centered view of baptism's significance results in a corporate-oriented view of baptism's application. If the significance of baptism is really meant to point to the outward, objective work of God in Christ and as a reminder to God and His people of that work, then the administration of baptism is not dependent upon knowing the internal disposition of the recipients. To clarify, no one who supports covenant baptism would advocate baptizing someone who is demonstrating unbelief and hatred towards the gospel. Such an idea is monstrous! With the case of infants, we do not know if they possess saving faith or not. Fortunately, this is not the criterion upon which we must determine whether or not to baptize an individual. The criterion is based upon God's objective promise through the gospel to believing households! This enables us then to take Peter's promise seriously in Acts 2:39 that the promise of the New Covenant is to believers and their children. Soli deo gloria!

Peace Between God and Man

"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!'" (Luke 2:13-14; emphasis mine)

In the middle of the Advent narrative in Luke's gospel, we find this marvelous promise of peace. Yet while the angels sung of peace to the onlooking shepherds, Herod was in Jerusalem plotting to kill the promised Messiah. And the threat of death did not end while Jesus was in the cradle but continued until he faced the cross. Such tumult hardly conjures up thoughts of tranquility!

Even today, we find ourselves in a state of instability. As Americans, we face instability of all kinds. We face the instability of economic uncertainty. We face the instability of political unrest. We face the instability of terrorism. In light of these facts, the question emerges: did Christ fail in his attempt to bring peace?

Before we can answer this question, we must define peace. The peace that the Scriptures claim that Christ brings is not peace among men. It is an objective peace. It is not a subjective, inward feeling. The peace that the Bible speaks of is one between God and man. When Christ came, he came as the God-man, fully God and fully man. He represented the two parties which were at war. This is something that we need to remember in the church today: God was the enemy of man and man was the enemy of God. Reconciliation presupposes that both parties are adversarial to one another. Christ brought reconciliation when he faced the gauntlet of God's wrath at the cross. Thus, peace was accomplished once and for all by Christ on behalf of his people (cf. Matthew 1:21). Keeping this in mind, let us briefly consider three characteristics of this peace Christ brings.

1. This peace is effectual.

The peace that Christ brings through the gospel is not an ineffectual offer that has no capacity to save anyone. The peace that Christ brings was accomplished at Calvary. Divine satisfaction was made at the death of the Son of God. Tetelestai means that Christ's work needs of no addition. As we read in Luke 2:13-14, Christ came to bring peace. Either he succeeded this or he did not. To say that Christ brings the potential of peace for all but he does not actually accomplish it for anyone is to dishonor our Lord and Savior.

2. This peace is enduring.

Romans 5:1 says, "Having been justified by faith, we now have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. " Notice that the apostle says we "have peace with God." It is present tense. Peace for all those who are in union with Christ cannot be removed. Every sphere of salvation occurs in Christ. We are justified in the justified one: Jesus Christ. Just as Christ will always be justified, so also will those who are united to him also will always be justified. And to be justified before God means to be at peace with him.

3. This peace is for our enjoyment.

Justification and reconciliation are not ultimate. Justification and reconciliation are means to an end. The good news of being declared righteous before God and the good news of having peace with God is that we get God. The gospel is God! Justification and reconciliation would not be good news if it were not for the fact that the purpose and design in justification and reconciliation is to remove every barrier that hinders us from enjoying God for eternity. You cannot enjoy God if he is your enemy. You cannot enjoy God if you are not at peace with him. The aim of peace then is to bring us into an uninhibited delight of God!

Rejoice this Christmas that Christ has brought us peace. Soli deo gloria!

For Further Reading: The God Who Justifies, by James White

Honest Inquiry or Avoiding the Question?

It has been a couple of days since I have responded to the rantings of Matthew O'Donnell, a man whose views change with the passing of each day. While he has proceeded to hop from one issue to the next, I have consistently pressed home the question of how he can account for the laws of logic. Perhaps the most honest answer I received from him was when he admitted he didn't have a clue.

Like most opponents of the faith, when asked a direct and specific question like the one mentioned above, his worldview could not bear such serious scrutiny. Instead, he quickly began promoting a negative position, offering his reasons why the Bible cannot be authoritative. Much to his disliking, I do not have the time to extinguish flaming strawmen after flaming strawmen. While before he challenged the very notion of God's existence, now he is targeting Reformed soteriology and by his arguments you would think that he is now conceding theism! The irony of the whole situation is he attempts to use the Bible to refute Reformed theology when he himself is presuppositionally opposed to the Bible!

As time permits, I will respond to some of the comments he has made on this blog. However, I will not waste my time hosing down an endless amount of fiery strawmen. Soli deo gloria!

Is Calvinism Significant to the Gospel?

In light of my ongoing series examining the doctrines of grace and evangelism, I thought it would be pertinent to write a brief entry considering the general question this whole series has been probing: how important is Calvinism to the gospel? I am still constantly bewildered by the response of those (especially those who bear the moniker "Reformed") who would challenge the necessity of contending for these precious truths. Most would rather sit back and talk about harmony and unity within the body than defend orthodoxy. After all, in the wake of this postmodern culture, who is to determine what orthodoxy is? What this amounts to is the syncreticism of two divurgent belief systems in an oxymoronic fashion. Movements like Fed Vision or "Reformed Catholicism" as one blogger calls it are prime examples of this. But can we who know or love the truth settle for such integrationalism? Consider the famous quote by C.H. Spurgeon:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. - C.H. Spurgeon in "A Defense of Calvinism"

Opponents of this would say, "Well there is more to the gospel than Calvinism." Sure, Calvinism is not exhaustive of the gospel or co-extensive with the gospel. There are other equally precious and valuable doctrines that make up the gospel such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, etc. But as Spurgeon said, the pure, unadulterated gospel cannot be preached without the doctrines of grace. Why is that? The main reason is because the absence of the preaching of the truths of man's entirely corrupt nature, God's absolutely free and sovereign choice in election, Christ's subsequent efficacious purchase of those elected by God the Father, the Holy Spirit's effectual calling of those whom Christ purchased, and the entire Godhead's preserving ability to keep the elect from falling from grace diminishes the fullness of the glory of God's grace. It puts man in the driver's seat of his own destiny. It mingles works and grace, even if the work is only a volitional act of the individual. Synergism gives man some of the role in coming to Christ, thereby giving him some sense of achievement in salvation ("I decided for Christ"). This kind of teaching will always and inevitably lead to a form of boasting, even if it only exists in the subtle form of applause after evangelical rallies or "spiritual maturity" whispered about amongst youth circles (as if maturity in the Christian walk had to do with when you "walked an aisle" rather than how much you study your Bible). Rather the Augustinian/Calvinistic view of salvation does not place the difference in the individual for the reason that some come to believe and others do not. Instead, we as Reformers believe it is the freedom of God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy (Romans 9:15). In such a soteriological system, God is given all the glory for He is the one who elects (Ephesians 1:4-5), draws (John 6:44), purchases (Acts 20:28), sanctifies (Philippians 2:13) and glorifies (Romans 8:30). Therefore, man cannot exalt himself, but must put his hand on his mouth and fall before the Lord and marvel at his redeeming grace. That is why I am a Calvinist and that is why it is imperative to the preaching of the gospel!

Read Great Literature Books, Not Just Theological Ones

As I write this article, I am sitting on our sandy colored canvas couch with skin that is still blistery from my morning shower. The smell of dark, rich coffee grounds still wafts through our apartment as I sit and ponder. My bare feet are pressed against the wood floor and I can still taste the saccharine, coffee creamer. The soft hum of the air conditioner is the only white noise as I am left alone between these four, white concrete walls. The 19" television reflects my faceless silhouette and a blurry replica of the rest of my surroundings. While gazing at the monitor, I have an epiphany of sorts. The television screen's depiction of my whereabouts is profoundly accurate. Modern homes remove us from the physical landscape and place us in a kind of non-descript location. In fact, I do not even know what the weather is like outside.

I write all this to communicate one important truth I believe we often forget: life is sensory. We live in a multi-dimensional world where we are immersed in sights, sounds, noises, and smells. In our modern society, we can often feel detached from the world around us. Great books help us to connect with the physical world by taking us to both places we have been and haven't been and allowing us to see what we didn't see before. In particular, great literature books help us do this. That is why I am encouraging you to read great literary books and not just theological ones. You will find great jewels if you do. And occassionally you come upon a diamond like this one in Willa Cather's My Antonia:

There in the sheltered draw-bottom the wind did not blow very hard, but I could hear it singing its humming tune up on the level, and I could see the tall grasses wave. The earth was warm under me, and warm as I crumbled it through my fingers. Queer little red bugs came out and moved in slow squadrons around me. Their backs were polished vermilion, with black spots. I kept as still as I could. Nothing happened. I did not expect anything to happen. I was something that lay under the sun and felt it, like the pumpkins, and I did not want to be anything more. I was entirely happy. Perhaps we feel like that when we die and become a part of something entire, whether it is sun and air, or goodness and knowledge. At any rate, that is happiness; to be dissolved into something complete and great. When it comes to one, it comes as naturally as sleep.

How wonderful it is to lose oneself in something entire! It is the goal of life and the pinnacle of man's enjoyment to be dissolved into something complete and great. What a message that our culture needs to hear today: the end of self-discovery is misery but the end of self-forgetfulness is joy! However, it is not the "sun and air, or goodness and knowledge" that we are called to lose ourselves in but the creator of sun, air, goodness, and knowledge! How close Cather was and yet, tragically, how far away.

Thus, I encourage you, as a discerning reader, to expand your diet of books. You might be surprised at what you find. Soli deo gloria!

Children are included in the New Covenant

A book I highly recommend (though I do not endore his Federal Vision theology) is Douglas Wilson's To a Thousand Generations. I find the case he makes for ochobaptism (or household baptism) to be very convincing. Concerning his argumentation, Douglas Wilson makes the bold claim: "In arguing for biblical infant baptism, it is not sufficient for us to say that infant baptism is merely consistent with the Scriptures, or that a biblical case can be made for it. In order for us to be satisfied that we are being biblical Christians, we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism." I believe that if we begin by understanding that children are members of the New Covenant and that the New Covenant is equated with the Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians 3, the case for administering the sign of the New Covenant to all its members becomes undeniable. But do the Scriptures teach that children will be included in the New Covenant? To avoid this fact, one has to discount virtually all the prophecies concerning the New Covenant in the OT. Here are a few:


24 My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. -Ezekiel 37:24-26 (ESV; emphasis mine)

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.-Malachi 4:5-6 (ESV; emphasis mine)

21 And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore."-Isaiah 59:21 (ESV; emphasis mine)

36 Now therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, ‘It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence’: 37 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. 38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.-Jeremiah 32:36-41 (ESV; emphasis mine)

Consider the weight of these texts and how all the other covenants in Scripture (the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) all included Scripture. The grammatico/historical approach (which is a characteristic of the Reformed hermeneutic) requires us to try and interpret these passages how the original audience would have understood them. Is there any doubt that to a Jewish audience who heard the prophecies concerning a coming covenant (one that is promised to be better as well) they would have assumed their children were included as well? Of course they would, and especially since all the covenants of the patriarchs included children. These prophecies and their emphasis on generational blessing and promise would have only echoed their understanding that God is Lord of the Covenant and that children are included. The goal of the New Covenant is not to abrogate the covenantal parent/child relationship but to fulfill it. This is particularly obvious in the Malachi 4:5-6 passage.

Reformed Baptists often want to negate the continuity between the two covenants by emphasizing the "newness" of the New Covenant and going to Hebrews 8. I myself found this a compelling case at one time; however, the point of the Hebrews 8 passage is that the New Covenant is different because it can actually guarantee faithfulness of the members' descendants. The Old Covenant could not do that because the law was not written on the heart but on tablets of stone. Why would we make the New Covenant weaker than the Old by restricting the inclusion of children? The fact is, with the weight of the OT prophecy concerning the New Covenant, there is no Biblical grounds to do so. I firmly believe that Baptists practice credobaptism because they preach a regenerate membership. The only problem is nominalization is just as rampant amongst Baptist circles (if not more so) as it is amongst Presbyterian ones. There will always be those who are in the visible church who are not truly part of the invisible. That is why the practice of church discipline and excommunication should exist.

My main problem with credobaptism is that it is not a theological system that is practically lived out, at least not in Reformed Baptist camps (and thankfully so). However, in many other Baptist churches that have a low view of doctrine and teaching, there is a tendency to have a low view of childrearing. After all, why would you raise your child in the "discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4) when they are not included in the covenant promises? For that matter, why even read any of Ephesians 6 that has to do with children since, after all, children are excluded from the promises of the New Covenant? Why catechize? Why say blessings with your children at bedtime? Why read them Scripture? They are no different than the children of nonbelievers. Fortunately, while devoted Christians may fall on either side of this issue in the theoretical, all devoted Christians raise their children as if they were members of the covenant. Soli deo gloria!