Due to a recent episode of House, M.D. and my stumbling upon a poker tournament on television last weekend, I have been slightly intent on playing. So I went out and bought a deck of cards and some poker chips.

Last night, we were preparing to sit at the table to have some Rainbow Sherbet. Megan asked if we were going to do anything while eating. I asked if she had anything in mind. She suggested poker. At this, Geneva piped up, “Poke her in the eye?!”

Related to this older post by Jason, RonD provides an interesting and profitable analysis of faith.

The Presbyteer strives for consistency…

“It is our job as the brothers and fathers of the church to protect our children from unworthy participation.“

Tom Vail, editor of the book Grand Canyon: A Different View, will be speaking at Liberty University on Tuesday, April 18th.

This is the book that many scientists were upset about being for sale at Grand Canyon Park bookstores a few years back. The book gives a creationist explanation of the Grand Canyon, showing how the evidence is consistent with the Great Flood of Scripture.

The event is free of charge, and there will be time afterwards for questions.

Okay, it’s really White on Wright, but once I got rice in my head, I just couldn’t let it go. Anyhow.

Yesterday James White ripped on NT Wright, saying that in the UK he’s not looked upon as a conservative at all. I’m not sure who White was talking to over there, but I’ve read several UK news articles that treat Wright as the whacked-out-conservative, similar to how Jerry Falwell is written about here in the US.

Anyhow, White quotes Wright from this article in The Australian…

Attesting to this is one of the Church of England’s heaviest hitters, the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, who was in Australia recently on a lecture tour. An eminent theologian, an expert on the historical and biblical Jesus and a staunch believer in the resurrection, he baulks at denouncing those who are not.
“I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection,” he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg, co-author with Wright of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.
“But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.
“Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection.
“I actually think that’s a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don’t want to say he isn’t a Christian.

I’m not convinced that’s adequate cause to label Wright a liberal, though. Basically, Wright is affirming all the right things here, even being very critical of The DaVinci Code. But he holds back on condemning a person to hell, that confesses faith in Jesus. Wright clearly indicates that he believes those that deny the ressurrection are wrong, but doesn’t say they are necessarily doomed to hell.

And it’s this hesitation, apparently, that White has a problem with.

The issue of Credenda I mentioned a little while back is released on the web. Great stuff, check it out.

I have a few comments about some of what’s been said about this issue of Credenda, and this issue of paedocommunion.

First off, let me make clear where I stand. I consider myself fully paedocommunion compliant®. When Peter Leithart, in the Colloquium book, writes,

First, what is the question of paedocommunion? It is not in essence a question about the age of admission to the Lord’s table. Some who do not adopt the paedocommunion position would admit very young children, and the difference from advocates of paedocommunion would be a matter of a few months. If, hypothetically, some means were invented to gauge the level of “discernment” in infants and infants who registered a score of “6” were admitted to the table, that practice still would not constitute paedocommunion. Nor is it a question about force-feeding bread and wine to newborns. Though some traditions give the elements to newly baptized infants, no Reformed advocate of paedocommunion, to my knowledge, has argued for this practice. Most Reformed theologians are content to wait until the child is able to eat solid food before he begins to participate in the Supper.

The real question before us is this: Does baptism initiate the baptized to the Lord’s table, so that all who are baptized have a right to the meal? Paedocommunion advocates, for all their differences, will answer in the affirmative. Nothing more than the rite of water baptism is required for access to the Lord’s table. Opponents of paedocommunion will answer in the negative. Something more is required–some level of understanding, some degree of spiritual discernment, some sort of conversion experience, and some means for the church to assess these attainments. Paedocommunion teaches that baptism ingrafts a child into the body of Christ, and that all members of the body of Christ are welcome at the Lord’s table.

I thoroughly agree with him, and believe I fall on the paedocommunion side, as he has defined it.

A lot is being said of late about the massive and deep sectarianism in the Presbyterian and Reformed wing of the Church. I don’t disagree… it is an ugly blemish that we need to be cleansed of. But the important thing to note here, is that it is a blemish that we need to be cleansed of. It isn’t a sin that someone else has to deal with. We are Reformed, and we want to split. It’s like our mantra.

We take an issue, and we draw a line in the sand and demand the taking of sides. Sadly, this issue of Credenda has been central to yet another one of these silly lines.
“What?”, it is said, “this man pastors a church that admits children to the Table of the Lord at 2 years, 18 months, 12 months, when the child shows an interest in partaking? Incredulous! How dare they bar children from the Table!”

Come on, folks! This isn’t barring children from the Table. It is exactly what Tim Gallant, in basically the only pro-paedocommunion book in print argues as paedocommunion. This is what Robert Rayburn, in his debate with Ken Gentry, argues as paedocommunion. It is what Peter Leithart describes in the quote above, as paedocommunion.

Let’s not further divide ourselves on this point. We’ve already got an uphill battle to admit even five and six year olds (or 12 and 15 year olds) to the Table, why further divide ourselves on the question of whether or not newborn infants should be given the Supper, over and against waiting until they’re one, and recognize the sacrament as a unifying event? Do we really want to split into even smaller factions? Such a pointless division reveals how deep-seated our lust for sectarianism really is.

I noticed today that Answers in Genesis not only has free books on their website, but also free video. I’ve updated the page to the right with that info.

My blog has been lacking in one of the best areas lately… my Dinner Conversations category. This is not because I don’t have incredible conversations with my children anymore… it’s just that every time they say something that is worth blogging, and I make a mental not to blog about it, and then, at some later point, sit down to blog it… I don’t remember what it was.

I blame old age.

I’m always saying how great Andrew Peterson is. Well, now you can test the waters risk-free. Due to a goof, one of the tracks on his latest, Appendix A:Bootlegs and B-sides, was left off. So he’s giving it away.

The 2005 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference with NT Wright and Richard Gaffin is available in mp3 format on the Auburn Avenue Media site. So I finally got it. Should be good listening