New web album.

John IV May pics

NEW BABY PICTURES! :)

Another Excerpt From Chilton

Good Morning. I am sitting here on my couch reading some more of David Chilton's extensive work on Revelation and I came across a part that I can't resist posting. It is eloquent and sums up a lot of things that I have been thinking without knowing exactly how to put it into words. This part is Chilton's commentary on Rev. 1:5. So, without any further ado, here it is: (yes, its another sorta long one) :)

The third member of the Godhead (in this liturgical order) is
Jesus Christ, spoken of by St. John under three designations:
the faithful Witness, the Firstborn from the dead, and the Ruler
of the kings of the earth. R. J. Rushdoony has forcefully
pointed out how the term Witness (in Greek, martyr), has ac-
quired connotations foreign to the word’s original meaning: “In
the Bible, the witness is one who works to enforce the law and
assist in its execution, even to the enforcement of the death pen-
alty. ‘Martyr’ has now come to mean the exact reverse, i.e., one
who is executed rather than an executioner, one who is perse-
cuted rather than one who is central to prosecution. The result is
a serious misreading of Scripture. . . . The significance of Jesus
Christ as ‘the faithful and true witness’ is that He not only wit-
nesses against those who are at war against God, but He also ex-
ecutes them. . . . Jesus Christ therefore witnesses against every
man and nation that establishes its life on any other premise
than the sovereign and triune God and His infallible and ab-
solute law-word.”

The theme of Christ as the preeminent Witness is important
in Revelation, as we noted above on v. 2. By way of supplement-
ing Rushdoony’s analysis, we may observe that a central aspect
of Christ’s witness-bearing was His death at the hands of false
witnesses. Those in this book who bear witness in His image will
also do so at the cost of their lives (6:9; 12:11). The modern con-
notation of the word marfyr is thus not so far-fetched and un-
biblical as it might appear at first glance; but it is necessary, as
Rushdoony has shown, to recall the basic meaning of the term.
Jesus is also the Firstborn from the dead. By His resurrec-
tion from the dead, He has attained supremacy, having “first
place in everything” (Col. 1:18). As Peter said on the Day of Pen-
tecost: “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all wit-
nesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God,
and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy
Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.
For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself
says: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, until I
make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet. Therefore let all
the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him
both Lord and Christ –this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts
2:32-36). God fulfilled the promise He had made long before: “I
will make Him My Firstborn, the highest of the kings of the
earth” (Ps. 89:27).

St. John obviously had this passage from the Psalms in
mind, for the next designation he gives to our Lord is the Ruler
of the kings of the earth. Christ’s priority and sovereignty are
above all. He is not “only” the Savior, waiting for a future cata-
clysmic event before He can become King; He is the universal
King now, in this age – sitting at His Father’s right hand while all
His enemies are being put under His feet. This process of taking
dominion over all the earth in terms of His rightful title is going
on at this moment, and has been ever since He rose from the
dead. As Firstborn (and only-begotten!), Christ possesses the
crown rights of all creation: “All authority in heaven and earth
has been given to Me,”He claimed (Matt. 28:18). All nations
have been granted to Him as His inheritance, and the kings of
earth are under court order to submit to Him (Ps. 2:8-12). Com-
menting on Christ’s title Ruler of the kings of the earth, William
Symington wrote: “The persons who are here supposed to be
subject to Christ, are kings, civil rulers, supreme and subordi-
nate, all in civil authority, whether in the legislative, judicial, or
executive branches of government. Of such Jesus Christ is
Prince; – ruler, lord, chief, the first in power, authority,
and dominion.”

This, in fact, is precisely the reason for the persecution of
Christians by the State. Jesus Christ by the Gospel has asserted
His absolute sovereignty and dominion over the rulers and na-
tions of earth. They have a choice: Either submit to His govern-
ment and law, accepting His non-negotiable terms of surrender
and peace, or be smashed to bits by the rod of His anger. Such
an audacious, uncompromising position is an affront to the dig-
nit y of any self-respecting humanist — much more so to rulers
who are accustomed to thinking of themselves as gods walking
on earth. Perhaps this Christ can be allowed a place in the pan-
theon, along with the rest of us gods; but for His followers to
proclaim Him as Lord of all, whose law is binding upon all men,
whose statutes call into judgment the legislation and decrees of
the nations – this is too much; it is inexcusable, and cannot be
allowed.

It would have been much easier on the early Christians, of
course, if they had preached the popular retreatist doctrine that
Jesus is Lord of the “heart,” that He is concerned with “spirit-
ual” (meaning non-earthly) conquests, but isn’t the least bit in-
terested’ in political questions; that He is content to be “Lord” in
the realm of the spirit, while Caesar is Lord everywhere else
(i.e., where we feel it really matters). Such a doctrine would
have been no threat whatsoever to the gods of Rome. In fact,
Caesar couldn’t ask for a more cooperative religion! Toothless,
impotent Christianity is a gold mine for statism: It keeps men’s
attention focused on the clouds while the State picks their pock-
ets and steals their children.

But the early Church was not aware of this escapist teaching.
Instead, it taught the Biblical doctrine of Christ’s Lordship –
that He is Lord of all, “Ruler of the kings of the earth.” It was
this that guaranteed their persecution, torture, and death at the
hands of the State. And it was also this that guaranteed their ul-
timate victory. Because Jesus is universal Lord, all opposition to
His rule is doomed to failure, and will be crushed. Because
Christ is King of kings, Christians are assured of two things:
warfare to the death against all would-be-gods; and the com-
plete triumph of the Christian faith over all its enemies.

For this reason, St. John breaks into a doxology of praise to
Jesus Christ, who loves us and freed us from our sins by the
ransom-price of His blood, and has made us to be a Kingdom
and priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the
dominion forever and ever. Not only have we been redeemed
from our slavery, but we have been constituted as a Kingdom of
priests. The Kingdom has begun: Christians are now ruling with
Christ (Eph. 1:20-22; 2:6; Col. 1:13), and our dominion will in-
crease across the world (Rev. 5:9-10). We are a victorious, con-
quering priesthood, bringing all areas of life under His rule.

Demographic Winter

On Saturday night at a friends house my wife and I watched a documentary that was quite profound. The message that it presented was quite the opposite of that which our expectations dictated (in a good way). When one sits down to listen to a bunch of University of Chicago and other secular "scholarly" professors talk about demographics the first thing that would pop into most minds would be "overpopulation". I expected to hear things like how in X number of years we would have to practice euthanasia to regulate the worlds population, enforce birth control, etc. The first mental image that came to my mind was Ted Turner if that tells you anything.

Demographic Winter says that we (United States, Russia, Europe & others) are going to be looking at third world country status in one to at best two generations because we can't repopulate ourselves. It proposes that the reasons we are actually declining in population and experiencing economic disperity are due to: immature males who are 18-25+ living at their mommas house playing Xbox's (or what ever the current video game console is) instead of working and establishing their own family, fatherless homes, one parent homes, hostility between parents in two parent homes, women working outside the home, higher education, cohabitation, premarital sex, and my personal favorite - faithless societies. THESE ARE THE GOD HATING LIBERALS THAT WE HEAR ATHEISTIC GARBAGE FROM DAY IN AND DAY OUT!!! How they arrive at these conclusions without embracing Christian faith is beyond me, so you can imagine my jaw-dropping reaction when they started citing these faults as causing the demographic problems we face as a society.

Demographic Winner not only gets the problems right but even more astonishing they conclude with the right solution that says it will be families of faith raising up like minded offspring that will save our society and return prosperity to our culture!!! Again, how they arrive at these conclusions is amazing and to some extent leaves a question mark in my brain.

My review of this documentary doesn't do the documentary itself justice though. I would strongly advise families to watch and discuss this film together and find out where your family stands on this issue of demographics and reproduction. This is a wonderful tool to use when instilling in our children a proper worldview as it pertains to multiplying and being fruitful.

This is normally where I would insert any cautions to be on-the-look-out for when you are watching the film I am recommending to you, but I must say I incredulously have no criticism of the film itself. These professors and experts from secular outlets of policy analysis and education get it right in this documentary. The only kind of warning I can think of is that these "experts" only look at and speak about the data they are presenting rather than practicing what they preach. I would admonish you to not follow the idle example these "professionals" live out, but to practice the lessons that they teach in this film and be doers of this warning to our civilization and not hearers only. Anyone can be a back seat driver, a sideline athlete, or an armchair philosopher that only talks about what should be done and never does anything. We as people of God must be the ones to obey God's first charge to man when He told us to be fruitful and multiply and take dominion of the earth.

Click here to order this documentary

Covenant Children

I have been thinking lately on the topic of padeobaptism and covenant children. Now is a good time for me to be thinking of such things, right?, since God has most graciously put into Whitney's and my keeping a precious (and I would say little, but he isn't so little anymore) baby boy. So, here I am on the bed with baby John sleeping right next to me and Whitney and I am thinking such thoughts as, "how do I view this young child that God has given me for my legacy? How does God view this child that he has put in my stead?" Does the way that God views John IV differ from the way He views me? I will admit right here and now that I am not interested in trying to promote myself as a theologian which is why to some degree I have put off writing anything like this until now - but now I find myself looking into the beautiful eyes of my little son and such questions arise that I cannot avoid. 

The other day I was skimming my facebook profile and found a quiz/survey that a friend sent me called, "How Reformed are You?" I laughed out loud when I saw it and then decided to take the test to see how the Reformed crystal ball would label me. The reason I laughed was because I knew that no matter how good the test would be it would somehow in someway force me to choose an answer that I would not entirely espouse. I came to one question that caught my attention - it read something like this: How do you view your children? a) We baptize them so that they become regenerate b) we baptize them because we assume they already are regenerate c) they are vipers in diapers d) we assume they will become regenerate but that they are not now and thus we don't baptize them until they make a profession of faith. A year ago I would have said, "this is an easy one, its d) without a doubt." But now I am pretty sure that I would, given my preference, pick two of the answers - b) and c). Here is why...

First of all, and I do not say this arrogantly, the scriptures are and unending story of God saving His people... ALL of His people. When did He save His people?  He chose His people for His glory before the foundations of the earth that through His calling them into Himself they might exalt Him [Rom 8:28-30]. He justified them by His grace, through faith [Hab. 2, Rom 1, Gal 3].Who were those "people"? If we go back to the Law (the first five books of Scripture. And for me Deuteronomy has been the most helpful on this issue, to me anyway) we see that God made a covenant with His people. This covenant said in so many words this; "I will be your God and you shall be My people if you follow Me." If we go back to implementation of this covenant in the days of Abraham we see that those who kept this covenant with God received a sign that he was set apart and was chosen by God (Deut 7:6, 14:2 & Gen 17 I believe are some examples). This sign was given generationally. Meaning that the covenant extended to all in the lineage of the covenant keepers. The way that this would work in the families of covenanters, the male children would be given the sign on their eighth day of life after entering this world (the only reason for waiting until the eighth day and not performing this sign earlier was due to medical considerations). At eight days old I think we would all agree that they probably were not entreated into the making of this decision. At this point at least there is no age of accountability. Why? Because the parents, in fulfilling one of their covenant obligations, were going to live and breath and impart this covenant to their children ALL the time (Deut: 6). The biggest part of relaying the details of this covenant to the child was ensuring that the child understood that he was a part of this covenant by default of his parents being called of God into this covenant. If he kept his covenant obligations God would keeps His. If he did not keep his covenant obligations and forsook God he would be damned for his foolishness (Ps. 53:1) and he would receive the covenant curses (Ex 34, Deut 4). 

It is important to note here that men were and are saved by the same gift from God that they were given in the Old Testament. Faith alone (Eph 2). Faith in what? That Jesus would be, to those who lived in the Old Testament, and is, to us today, the propitiation for our sins. Salvation has always been through faith (Heb 11). So, our salvation by grace, through faith is not of our own works (because God gives us the faith) lest we should boast, it is the gift of God - this is the same God who is not controlled by time I will add. When did He give us this faith? It has always been there (because with God there are not time limitations. The faith has always existed because it is a part of God). There has never been a time in the regenerate persons life that God gave him regeneration. The regeneration has always been there. Does that mean the regenerate man always has the appearance of regeneration when observed by other men? Of course not. If you, considering yourself regenerate, think that you have always had the appearance of regeneration in your countenance let me tell you delicate creature that you are fooling yourself. I, considering myself to be of God's people, know that I do not always emit a fragrance of regeneration to all I come in contact with. But does God take away His sign on me (baptism and being one of His) when I sin? No. Why? This is where God extends grace to us, His chosen, holy people. This is where when my sin abounds but God's grace does much more abound (Rom. 5). Does this give me license to sin then? God forbid! [Rom 6]. 

So, when God so beautifully and tenderly extends His grace to us by not removing our sign and seal that He has given to us when we sin, why would we as parents suffer our little ones, who are umbrellaed just as rightly under God's covenant as we are, to come unto the Father by sign of baptism and sequentially partaking of communion. Does not God look upon my son, John IV as He does me? Yes he is indeed a sinner as am I. When God called, way up my lineage somewhere, that man or woman out of darkness into His light and He said to him or her that he would be a God to them and their children and to their children's children (which I might add would include me somewhere in there) do we believe that He meant it? When He said that does that mean that we are really His? Yes! Does that mean we receive His promises? Yes! Does that mean we should receive His sign given amongst men? Yes! If salvation is not of ourselves and we do not make a decision to accept Jesus but He accepts us and chooses us then we and our children are given the promise of God being our God. To make the argument that we must wait until our children reach the "age of accountability" (which is nowhere mentioned in scripture I might add) and then they can make a decision to "accept Christ" and then receive baptism and communion and fellowship with the rest of covenant keepers is twisting scripture to the extent where it would not surprise us to see God asking Abraham if he would like to make a covenant with Him and then wait to hear back from Abraham when he was "ready." Do we accept Christ? No. Do we choose God? No. He has already chosen us and our children. Do we, and will our children, proclaim Christ? Yes, because He is their and our God not of our works lest we should boast. 

This is why when Paul writes to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 7 he talks about a believing wife who is married to an unbelieving husband being the channel for which the promises of God flow through. Paul is reassuring the believers that though they may be married to an unbelieving spouse their children will still be made "holy" (yes, that is the word that is used in vs. 14). Notice that yet again we do not see these extended promises being contingent on whether the child will decide to be a covenant keeper or not. Why? Because it is a covenant. It works both ways whether we like it or not. We cannot dictate whether or what parts of the covenant will be extended to our children because it already is - obligations, curses to covenant-breakers and all. We as parents cannot say, "we'll I would just like the covenant rewards part to be extended, but don't include the covenant curses just in case my child does not embrace the covenant." That is not to be our attitude as parents because number one, we don't get a choice in that and number two because we are to be about diligently teaching this covenant made between God and His people by revealing God's word to them, and yes that includes the parts that talk about the way God views them and how they are a part of His covenant and should be treated as members and heirs of God from conception.  

"...as for me and my HOUSE, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24:15

"That is all I got to say 'bout that"

Don't forget...

You can click on the Vision Forum banner to the right and order straight from the website.