Volume 4: Issue 5 | October 2021
Explanation of the Fifth Commandment:
Good Fathers and Mothers Reflect God
"Honor your father and your mother,
that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
–Exodus 20:12
How should we know how an ideal father and mother think and behave? Look at God! You may have a patient dad, but occasionally his fuse runs short and he blows up; but the Lord’s fuse is never short. His loving patience is enduring. You may have an intelligent mother who can teach you many things, but she is a creature and therefore limited. However, good parents can show us what God’s character is like, and God’s revelation of himself can show us how to be good parents.
God doesn’t tell us to call him “Father” as a helpful analogy. Instead, fatherhood exists only because God exists. Fathers and mothers are reflections of their true source in God. You can hear a child reason from the concrete to the abstract, from the visible to the invisible. “Dad is willing to forgive me when I do wrong, and he says he has to forgive me because God has forgiven him.” “My mother always keeps her word, which makes me know that I have peace and security with her because God always keeps his word.” God gives us fathers and mothers so that every generation can learn about their Creator and God.
The word “honor” in the commandment means something that is heavy and therefore important. God commands his people in their families to think of their fathers and mothers as weighty and important by obeying their commands, heeding their advice, and valuing their wisdom. The Lord wants to be known by us. One way he has given to reveal himself to us is through mother and father. The agenda of the Fifth Commandment is not a patriarchal agenda, nor the human “because I told you so and I pay the bills” agenda. God wants children to be in homes where they can see God reflected in their mothers and fathers, and then honor the words, conduct, and passions of godly parents who will lead them to the way of life. So God tells parents in Deuteronomy 6 to talk about God’s deeds and answer their questions.
Sadly, few have such godly parents who instruct them, care for them, pray with them, and teach them the Bible and how to live. If you have such parents, remember the great blessing God has given you. I have been in situations at the start of a class in Seminary where the professor began by trying to get to know his students. He might say, “Tell us your testimony.” Somebody would talk bashfully about their upbringing with great Christian parents, the same mom and dad as their siblings, having the Bible read to them their whole lives, having a loving church, and finishing, sort of embarrassed because they do not have a “real” testimony, “There was never a day where I didn’t know that Jesus is my King and Savior.” When I hear that, I want to scream. It isn’t fun or exciting being lost, being in broken homes, not being safe or loved. Wasting days in the misery of sin is not fun.
Covenant children, I am talking to you now. If your parents are faithfully pursuing the Lord and trying to reflect him in the ways they love you, thank God for your parents. Listen to them. Ask their advice. Accept their wisdom, prayers, and corrections. When the Westminster Shorter Catechism explains the Fifth Commandment, it uses the words “honor,” “duty” and “belonging” for what the commandment encourages children to do with parents. If you have godly parents, God makes his first appeal to you through them. That is his design for the family. Make the most of your blessing, which children around the world would give anything to have. Listen to them and accept their correction. God has given you good parents so that you will have a hunger to know the good God and trust in him.
But not everybody has such parents. What about them and this commandment? Stay tuned.
-- Hunter Jackson
Will Our Children Also Trust the Lord?
First Things (May 2021) published an essay by the sociologist Christian Smith who has studied the spiritual lives of adolescents and their families. He found that among all influences affecting children’s spiritual loyalties, nothing comes remotely close to the importance of family life. The responsibility, he writes, for our children’s future faith rests far more on father and mother than on youth groups, summer camps, Sabbath School teaching, sermons, missions trips, or schooling choices. Such things can help to “channel” our children’s thinking into ways that honor the Lord, but they do not and cannot come close to the influence of father and mother.
What do parents need to do, he asks? 1) Live consistent Christian lives. A father and mother who dislike and distrust each other; a family filled with anger or worse; or unfair demands of children will tempt children to reject God. 2) Worship God daily with the children, avoiding the temptation to make it long and burdensome. 3) Use an “authoritative” approach to the children, holding them to godly standards of behavior while being consistently warm and available. In the language of Smith, “clear expectations and affective warmth.” 4) Talk often about your Christian faith and be ready to answer questions children raise without fear or evasiveness. Here frequent hospitality pays unexpected dividends: your children get to hear adults talking to each other, sometimes about spiritual things. I would include 5) do not complain about your imperfect church but instead highlight the best things.
Not included in this article is something a researcher found using meticulous parish records of parishes in Swiss Reformed churches. Children as adults were most likely to attend church regularly, in ascending order of importance, if 1) the parents sent them to church school when young, or if 2) the mother took them to church regularly, or if 3) both parents took them to church regularly, or if 4) only the father took them to church regularly. (Think about why 3) and 4) are in that order.) (See "The demographic characteristics of the linguistic and religious groups in Switzerland, in vol. 2 of Population Studies No. 31: The Demographic Characteristics of National Minorities in Certain European States", edited by W. Haug et al. which was cited in several Christian journals shortly after publication, such as Touchstone).
None of this research should be surprising. God tells fathers and mothers directly, and especially fathers, that raising children in the faith is primarily their job. “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).” “Fathers, do not provoke your children lest they become discouraged (Colossians 3:21).” Moses likewise instructed fathers and mothers to teach God’s Word to their children, so that they will remember God’s great deeds (Deuteronomy 6:7, 11:19). Fathers cannot lead in teaching their children if they get trapped in the slavery of a “body and soul” job, or spend all of their waking hours outside of the house or working (don’t bother me!) inside. A home office should have an open door, not a closed one.
Grandparents also have the duty to help their grandchildren know and remember how great God is (Deuteronomy 4:9). Grandparents cannot do this teaching effectively if they retire to Florida or if their children move to Alaska. The whole book of Proverbs is a father’s instructions to his son, beginning with the admonition, “Hear, my son, your father’s instruction, and forsake not your mother’s teaching (Proverbs 1:8).”
Fathers and mothers need to be part of churches that teach the truth, including how to raise children rightly. If you need help, observe some older Christians whose children you admire. Ask them for help and advice. Older women have the responsibility to teach younger women, “to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled (Titus 2:4-5).”
Fathers and mothers need not be fearful of failure. Yes, children will make up their own minds and some will choose to listen to other voices and go astray. Adam, put into the best of circumstances, chose to disobey God. However, what we can rightly believe is that “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself (Acts 2:39).”
Postscript:
If you are reading this and are as yet unmarried and do not have a child, do not conceive a child out of wedlock, for both reasons of God’s law and prudence. The Bible’s instruction about the family regularly uses “father and mother,” rather than “parents.” Men and women need each other both to conceive and to rear children. Children need both a father and a mother: as many researchers have discovered, and as the human race has always known, fathers and mothers differ in how they relate to their children. All children know instinctively that a father and a mother should be raising them. It does our country no good when people pretend otherwise under the guise of not making the single parent or her child feel badly. Children already know that something is missing. So do single parents whether by reason of a spouse dying young, or divorce, or having a child alone. God calls himself the God of “the fatherless and the widow” because he cares for the weak, but no one should voluntarily assume that status.
– Bill Edgar
Don't Believe Lucy Van Pelt!
"He who hates, disguises it with his lips,
And lays up deceit within himself;
When he speaks kindly, do not believe him,
For there are seven abominations in his heart;
Though his hatred is covered by deceit,
His wickedness will be revealed before the assembly."
– Proverbs 26:24-26
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” If you know someone holds deceit in his heart, then do not believe her, no matter how persuasively she talks. Lucy tells Charlie Brown that this time, really, no lying, she will hold the football for him to kick. The joke is always on “good ol' Charlie Brown,” as Lucy once again pulls the football away gleefully, and he falls on his back. Gullible Charlie Brown remains a culpable fool, fooled again by Lucy’s gracious speech.
The Book of Proverbs has no use for the gullible, viewing them as willful fools. Even when everyone else can see a hateful, deceitful person for what he is (his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly) the world’s Charlie Browns choose to believe gracious words. Sometimes even praising themselves for being so trusting, the gullible swallow lies: “I’ll pay you back this time, honest;” “I need ten dollars to buy some food; no drugs this time, honest;” “My country will destroy all its poison gas; we’ll never use it again.” Woe to the country that sends a gullible naïve diplomat to negotiate with its enemy.
Satan spoke friendly words to Eve, whom he hated. “Has God really said you shall not eat from any tree of the Garden?” Then came a promise of being like God knowing good and evil, and finally a flat denial that God would punish her with death. When God confronted Eve with her disobedience, she used gullibility as a defense. “The serpent deceived me, and I ate (Genesis 3:13, see I Timothy 2:14).” Her defense left God unmoved.
Should we take people at face value, as they present themselves? Yes, charity and love impel us to believe and trust our neighbors. Indeed, society could not function with all mistrusting all, all of the time. However, part of wisdom is to “see through” people who are full of hatred for their neighbors: “Do not believe him,” is the command of father to son in this proverb. To deny that such people exist, or that an enemy is an enemy, is detestable “make-believe.”
Even in the Church of Jesus Christ, tares (i.e., weeds) grow among the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30). Paul warns Timothy against Alexander the coppersmith (II Timothy 4:14). Friends owe friends warnings about deceitful people, and the wise will listen because some people, full of hatred, cover their deceit with gracious words. John G. Bennett, Jr., the con man who ran the Philadelphia-based Ponzi scheme, the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy, ensnared many Christian institutions between 1989 and 1995. “He prayed so well,” deceived Christians said. The proverb warns Charlie Brown, “Don’t believe Lucy!”
– Bill Edgar
A Thoughtful Question: Cremation
1. What do you think of cremation?
The only recorded practice in the Bible is burial. Genesis tells at length how Abraham bought a burial place for himself and his wife Sarah. Joseph commanded that his embalmed bones be carried out of Egypt to be buried in the land of Canaan. The various kings of Judah were buried in the City of David alongside their ancestors. The New Testament relates the burials of John the Baptist, Lazarus, and Ananias and Sapphira. After his crucifixion, Jesus’ followers Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea buried his body.
There is no recorded instance of cremation in the Bible, but it recognizes that not everyone will be buried in a tomb. Revelation 20:13 prophesies the sea giving up its dead at the Resurrection. Greeks and Romans practiced both cremation and bodily burial, but Jews and Christians from time immemorial chose burial whenever possible. After the Roman Empire officially approved Christianity, cremation disappeared.
Why might Christians prefer bodily burial? 1) Jesus our Lord was buried, so it is fit that we follow his path. 2) The Holy Spirit dwells in God’s people individually as well as in the Church, so it is fit to treat even a dead body with care and respect. 3) We look forward to the Resurrection, and bodily burial reminds us of that future state of our dead bodies: we will again walk upon this earth. 4) Cremation tends towards making us forget that God made us body and soul. Death divides them, but our hope is their future reuniting in the Resurrection. 5) Our catechism teaches, “The souls of believers are made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves until the resurrection (answer to Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 37).
Will cremated people participate in the Resurrection? Most certainly! For example, God will resurrect people who perish in a fire as surely as he will those who die in their sleep. However, the horrible things that happen in God’s Providence should not become our reason for imitating them, including not burning the bodies of the dead.
– Bill Edgar
Stories of Evangeline: How Miss Metheny Met The Mountain Gang
by Rev. Remo I. Robb
Reprint from the Covenanter Witness, June 30, 1948, p. 415
One danger Miss Metheny had to guard against while she lived in the mountains was that while she rode among the villages she would be almost certain at some time to meet with mountain robbers. They traveled in gangs of ten to fifteen men, and if they met some few travelers in the hidden pathways of the mountains, they would rob them, beat them and maybe even kill them. Such gangs have infected the lonely roads since long ago. You will remember Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, and the “certain man” who “went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.”
Miss Metheny knew of at least one missionary woman who had fallen into the hands of such a gang and had been brutally killed. As protection against such a possibility, she always rode a horse and had her Bible woman with her, and two men who served as guards. From the beginning of her stay in the mountains she hoped most fervently that the Lord would protect her from falling into the hands of a mountain gang. When she rode out to the different villages, she noted the lonely places along the way and was especially alert lest some gang be hidden back among the trees. For many months she went her way without once seeing any sign, or hearing any word of mountain robbers.
Then one afternoon as she was riding far away from home in a very remote part of the mountains, she heard voices of men away ahead.
“What noise is that?” she asked of her bodyguard. “It is men,” he replied. “Are there workmen here in the mountains?” she asked. “No, I am sure. We would hear their hammers if there was.” “Then what men are they?” “It must be mountain robbers.” “M–mmm! Maybe they are going the same direction we are, and we can stay behind them,” she suggested with some vain hope. “I think not. The talk is louder than when we first heard it.” “To be sure, that is right,” she agreed. “If it were not for the winding path among the trees we could see them even now.” The Bible woman spoke. “We should turn back. Our horses can outrun them from here.” “No, I think we had better not turn back unless we know we have to.” “But that is what our horses are for.” “We may be wrong. It might not be a mountain gang. Maybe they will not hurt us anyway. And I do not intend to run from a danger before I have seen what it is.”
But the other bodyguard spoke up. “It is robbers, all right. There is no doubt.”
They rode on quietly. The shouts of the men could be heard plainly; loud, rough voices they were, echoing the nature of a gang that cared not who heard them, and were strong enough to sweep over anything that lay in their path.
Should Miss Metheny turn back? Was her Lord able to deliver her? Had he given her safeguards in her horses and her bodyguards that she would not now use? Or were there stronger unseen powers watching over her?
What if she did turn back! The word would get around that she had fled from the mountain robbers. Most people would say that she had done wisely. But a few would judge her faith and her Lord by the way she acted and would say, “I guess her Lord keeps her from all dangers but the men of the mountains. He can’t be so great after all, or he could save her from them.” Riding slowly toward these dangerous men, she felt that here was where she would have to trust her Savior fully, completely, and know that beyond all outward appearances He was greater and more powerful than any or all these men. So she said to her companions, “We will not turn back, we will go right on.”
In a few minutes they made a turn among the trees, and there coming toward them was the crowd of fifteen or twenty men. They were as rough looking as their shouts had indicated. They shouted again, a wild gleeful shout, as they saw this small company of two men and two women on horses, one of them an American. The small company moved ahead slowly but did not stop.
Closer and closer came the two bands, one with all the power and strength necessary to beat and rob, to bloody and slay; the other so apparently helpless but empowered by one sublime and perfect trust in God. They were almost together and something was certain to happen. At any moment the men would spring into action.
Suddenly a man of the gang cried out. “Ya immi” – “Our mother,” he said.
Yes, indeed, “Ya immi!” And who would call her “our mother” away off there in the mountains? Who, but one of the men who had been in the prison in Alexandretta during the days when she went and talked to them twice a week and greeted them with “Hello sons,” and they returned the greeting with “Hello mother.” And there in the robber gang was one of her former “sons.” He had finished his prison term and had been released to return to the mountain surroundings, but having no one to help him had fallen in with the robbers again. Now, far from all human aid, God was using him to protect his faithful servant. The mountain gang would not attack anyone who was a friend, of course not. And here in their midst was one to whom the American lady was a real friend, so much that he had called her “Mother.”
They laid no hand on her nor on her friends. They greeted her in a rough but good natured fashion and passed by. Quietly and thankfully, Miss Metheny and her companions rode on. They had experienced the very Presence of the Most High.
Closer was He than breathing,
And nearer than hands or feet.
{Alfred, Lord Tennyson –ed.}
As Miss Metheny finished this story, she said, “I have never ceased thanking God for the days I spent with the prisoners. Many times on my trips through the mountains we met the robber gangs, and it never failed that some one would cry out, “Ya immi” – “our mother.” God provided many of my “sons” to save my life.”
Infant Baptism
See Acts 2:16-18, 37-39 and Colossians 2:11-13
Why do we baptize the infant children of believers?
This is the question, because we do not baptize all infants without exception. Once our neighbors asked if I would baptize their firstborn. We invited them for dinner and explained they would need to join the church at the same time. They weren't interested. I didn't do the baptism. So why do we baptize the infant children of believers?
The sure and sound way to answer the question is to go to the Bible. We will do that second. A second suggestive way to address the question is to begin with our lived human reality.
What is our shared human reality? We are both body and soul, both flesh and mind. These two are created together, they are deeply intertwined, and they are equally ultimate, since the body will be resurrected and reunited with the soul. Being bodies, we have a life cycle. Being bodies, we are vulnerable and dependent.
Consider the extent of our dependence on others. There is a glint in Dad's and Mom's eyes. Then we begin in a state of the most extraordinary dependence, encased within Mom's womb, dependent on her health for our very life. If all goes well, we graduate to a state of extreme dependence. What does the infant do for himself? Nothing! He can only appeal for help by crying, and the crying is not specific. Dad and Mom must work down their checklist, hoping their theory of baby problems is sufficient.
The infant graduates to moderate dependence, as in a seven year old, then mild dependence, as with a fourteen year old. And then, the young adult with a paycheck! Maximum independence – which means nearly complete dependence on others to grow food, pump clean water, supply heat and electricity. If there is an accident, or illness, dependence instantly returns. As the years roll by, dependence increases until, if one lives long enough, extreme dependence returns. Then comes death, and you are completely dependent on others to respect your will regarding your body, your property, and your 'dependents.'
The infant faces several vital questions. Will anyone answer my cry? Who will care for me? With growth, other questions arise: Where do I belong? What is my purpose? One question is always there: whom can I trust?
To restrict baptism to those who can articulate their faith in Jesus, as do the Baptists and all who practice credo-baptism, is to define the church as comprised solely of the thinkers, willers and speakers. It restricts the church to adults and near-adults. It says that the church is for the strong. This leaves the infant outside the church, and divides the family. The single church-going Baptist mother rightly brings her daughter to church, but cannot properly speak to her child about 'our church.' She must say 'my church.' The child, who is united to her by biology, law, and dependence, is not a member of that church.
But we baptize the infant children of believers because we know the church is made up of believers and their households. This is how it was for Abraham. The infants are members of the church, the family is united, and the vital questions are powerfully answered: does anyone care about me? Here are many who witnessed your baptism and promised to pray for you! Where do I belong? You belong here, where you have been a member longer than you can remember. What is your purpose? Learn it from the Lord in whose name you were baptized.
Whom can you trust? Infant baptism gives a provocative answer. You are not to trust yourself. You were born so sinful you needed to be spiritually washed immediately. Trust the one who embraced you, despite your sin, and welcomed you, despite your uselessness.
Infant baptism may seem counter-intuitive because it runs contrary to the dominant American philosophy of Expressive Individualism. In Expressive Individualism (written into American law by such Supreme Court decisions as Casey) the flourishing human life is said to be the life in which you (singular you) do what you have decided to do, on the basis of your (singular your) searching your own heart to discover what you deem to be true, right, and important. The law zealously protects this vision of life by forbidding the states from protecting the life of the child in the womb. Expressive Individualism is so established in these United States that children are sacrificed so that Mother can pursue her own ends. Father may not rescue his children. Neither legislatures, nor lower courts, nor the police may intervene to protect the helpless. The Strong have decreed a vision of life, and it is Expressive Individualism.
Yet there are many penetrating problems with Expressive Individualism. It forgets the body, and the life cycle and dependence that flow from bodily existence. It leaves the weak behind, as only the strong can even begin to define their own goals and pursue them unencumbered. Children cannot do this. The elderly lose the ability to. The profoundly disabled never could. Expressive Individualism is an ideology to justify the strong as they do what they will.
But even for the strong, Expressive Individualism is overwhelming. Determine what is true? How can I do that? I must spend years diving into myself, to learn who I am, what matters to me, and then express my unique individuality? But when I reach the culmination of this project and loudly proclaim my individuality, who will be committed to validating me? Won't everyone else be wrapped up in themselves? What if my chosen individuality is of no interest to them? Will I be content in my loneliness?
Expressive Individualism alienates even the strong from each other. But its biggest problem is that it is a lie. We are not independent. We are not self-created. The final proof is inescapable: let us will ever so strongly to continue living, we will fail and die.
It may be within our power to be excellent humans. But we make terribly disappointing gods. We don't even make decent angels. A hundred years, most spent in decline? Some species of whale do better.
There is in fact a bigger picture into which we fit, even if we rebel against it. Infant baptism testifies to that picture: there are things you didn't choose, and don't even remember, that are nonetheless crucial to who you are. God says you are such a spiritual mess, you needed to be washed right away; but God is so gracious he welcomed you anyway, and washed you. When you see an infant baptized, you are counseled not to glory in your strength, but to remember that you were once just as helpless, and will return to helplessness. Find peace with God, who protects the helpless.
Infant baptism is a comfort to the baptized child. I belong. I have friends here. There is a direction I am called to walk. Best of all, God cares for the weak.
Now the devout Baptist is not an Expressive Individualist. The devout Baptist is a Christian, who has obtained a faith of equal standing with our own. 'Enough philosophy!' our friend may say. 'To the Bible! Show me infant baptism in the Bible, or don't bother!' Yes, the Bible is the sound and sure way. Here is our answer:
1) On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles, and they preached in various languages to a crowd assembled from many nations. Peter then explained in a shared language (Aramaic or Greek) that this was the fulfillment of God's promise through the prophet Joel. He quoted Joel 2 at length:
"And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy..."
Peter then proclaimed the fulfillment of this prophecy: Jesus, being alive and raised up to heaven, received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and poured out what they could see and hear. So they were to know for certain that God had made him Lord and Christ, this Jesus, whom they had crucified. (See Acts 2:14-36)
That was a crushing announcement! What were they to do? “Repent, and be baptized... in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
How did Peter know they would receive the Spirit? “For the promise (see the quotation from Joel) is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:38-39)
What do we see here? First, that Jesus fulfills the promises of the Old Testament. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him.” (2 Corinthians 1:20) The core promise to Abraham was to be God to him and to his children after him. For that reason, Abraham was to train his children to know the Lord, and circumcise every male within his household, as soon as he entered the household, whether by birth or to work. That very day Abraham was circumcised, at age 99, together with his son Ishmael and every male worker, servant, or slave that he had.
Peter said, 'Be baptized … for the promise is to you and your children.' The immediate explicit inclusion of the children signals the same covenantal pattern as was required of Abraham. The promise is for the children. Therefore they are to receive baptism, the sign of the promise.
2) What did Joel promise? That the Holy Spirit would come on all the members of the household. Jesus fulfilled that promise. Therefore the household is included in his work. Peter therefore could promise the Holy Spirit to the baptized, because the promise (which in context specifically means the Spirit) was to them and to their children.
Peter was just reading Joel. To whom did Joel promise the Spirit? To the sons and daughters, to the young and old, even to the servants. So what were they to do? They were to be baptized: the repentant hearers, and their households, who were included in the promise, so that they also could receive the promised spiritual gift.
3) Peter taught that the Abrahamic covenant continues after Pentecost. See the end of the following chapter, at Acts 3:25-26:
"You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness."
Peter combined the climax of the great initial promise in Genesis 12:3, “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” with the great promise of Genesis 22:18, “in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Notice that God promised to bless 'families,' not individuals. Peter preached the fulfillment of that covenantal promise. God had promised to bless families. Jesus fulfills that promise. Therefore, those who believe in Jesus are to come as families for baptism.
4) The New Testament is very emphatic: those who believe in Jesus are children of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile (see Matthew 8:11, Romans 4:11-17, Galatians 3:7-14, 29). We are children of Abraham in two ways: we are justified in the same way, and we place our faith in his descendant Jesus. First, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness; when we believe God, our faith will be counted to us as righteousness. Second, what are we to believe? That God so loved the world that he gave his only son, a son of Abraham according to the flesh, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.
Since Abraham, our father in the faith, was justified by faith, and commanded to circumcise his children as a sign of the covenant with God, so we, Abraham's children by faith, who are likewise justified by faith, are commanded to baptize our children as a sign of the covenant with God.
5) We are placing baptism where the Old Testament placed circumcision. Is this valid? Sometimes Baptists imagine that circumcision was a national rite, or an ethnic marker. They are mistaken. Circumcision had spiritual significance, as is shown by Moses and Jeremiah telling Israel to circumcise their hearts (Deuteronomy 10:16, Jeremiah 4:4), a physical impossibility. Circumcision was a spiritual sign, and it signified precisely what baptism signifies. First, the cutting away of the foreskin signified the cutting away of sin, just as washing with water signifies being cleansed from sin. The point is repentance and forgiveness. Second, the organ of reproduction was marked to point forward to the Savior who would be born within that great family. In baptism, the name of that Savior is placed upon us. The point is faith in the Savior, either promised or present. Circumcision and baptism likewise were to be applied when the person joined the covenant community. They have the same significance. The differences exist because the Savior has now come and shed his blood for us.
But to nail down the point, read Colossians 2:11-13. Paul, above all, vociferously insisted that Gentile believers were not to be circumcised (see Acts 15:1-2, Galatians 2:3, 5:2-6). Yet here he writes, to a mixed church, "In him also you were circumcised." Why does he not object? He explains, "With a circumcision made without hands'"so he is not speaking literally. They had not had surgery. "By putting off the body of the flesh," so he is saying that they had been spiritually circumcised. How had this occurred? "By the circumcision of Christ", so he is certainly speaking to Christians.
When had these Christians been circumcised, albeit spiritually, with Paul's approval? 'Having been buried with him in baptism.' Note that he not only says that baptism accomplished their circumcision, he also creates two parallels between them. In circumcision they put off the body of the flesh, which normally would mean dying. This happened when they were buried with Jesus in baptism, which again normally occurs at death. The two sacraments speak of death. Second, it was the circumcision "of Christ", that occurred when they were buried "with him in baptism." Both connect us to the work of Christ.
Paul continues to tie circumcision and baptism together in verse 13. "You, who were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him." Their life before baptism is called 'uncircumcision.' That guilty state was reversed at baptism. What circumcision signified, baptism accomplishes. Therefore baptism is to be applied as circumcision was applied: to all those in the believing household.
We move on now to supporting considerations.
1) In 1 Corinthians 7:14 we are told that if there is one believing parent, the children are holy, not unclean. By sad experience we know that not all children of believers are saved, so holy cannot mean saved. What then does it mean? The holy-unclean pairing points to a covenantal status. If there is at least one believing parent, the child is part of the covenantal community, the people set apart to God, that is, holy.
The visible church is now God's covenantal community. Therefore, these holy children belong to it, and must receive the sign of entry, baptism.
2) In Acts and 1 Corinthians 1 we encounter household baptisms. “It doesn't say there were babies in those households!” say our Baptist friends. True enough, the Bible never lists names and ages. But that does not make this a neutral consideration. If it is sinful to baptize the infant children of believers, how could the Holy Spirit have blithely noted time and again the baptism of whole households without assuring us that all those within the household were of an age to articulate their faith? The Baptist is left rooting for childless households in the ancient church. Note that in the case of the Philippian jailer, it explicitly notes that his household rejoiced, because he had believed (Acts 16:34). His faith is foregrounded; their state is not specified, even when it would be easy to include.
The repeated reference to household baptisms makes perfect sense to us. Acts unfolds on the basis of Acts 2:38-39: the promise is to you and to your children. You, the adult, are called to believe. When you believe, you are to be baptized, and so are your dependents, your household, if you are the head of the family. For that reason we read repeatedly of heads of households believing, and the whole household receiving baptism. Ages are not specified, because the ages don't matter.
3) Lastly, consider the occasion when parents brought their children, including infants (see Luke 18:15) to Jesus for him to touch. This might seem simply a touchy-feely story about how Jesus loved children, except for what he said: "do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God." If the kingdom belongs to such as these, the sign of entering the kingdom belongs to them as well.
Conclusion
When you see a helpless infant baptized, you see a sign of God's grace to the weak and dependent. But God's grace is always grace to the helpless! The most determined Individualist is dead in his trespasses, until God makes him alive. "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it" (Luke 18:17).
In baptism, the sign of the covenant, God speaks louder than man. It is true that man speaks in baptism. Someone is exercising faith by bringing the child. The pastor does not take the bowl and dash through a park, baptizing kids in their strollers. Someone is saying, 'I believe,' by bringing the baby. It is true that faith must be present for a baptism to be valid.
But as always, God is speaking louder. He is cleaning the dirty, welcoming the alienated, forgiving the sinner, supporting the dependent. He is giving the sign of life after death. So in obedience to God, believers must bring their children to Jesus to bless; they must bring them to the church to be baptized. Baptism is a sign to us, that we are not gods, deciding good and evil. God has decided, and welcomes and protects. Infant baptism tells the baptized children: you belong here.
– John D. Edgar
I'm Baptized
"Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you— so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."
-- 1 Corinthians 1:1-17
A scenario for you: You’ve been on a missions trip and spent a significant amount of time with a group of believers; you’ve been praying with them, teaching them about Christ from the Scriptures and what that means for their lives, their communities and the temptations they’re gonna face living in one of the larger cities. And then the Lord leads you elsewhere and of course you’re curious as to how your brothers and sisters will fare. So you’re very eager to hear a report that someone has brought you about your beloved brothers and sisters.
It’s bad news. The church is severely divided, taking each other to court for trivial matters, the poor in the Church are getting humiliated when they come together for the Lord’s Supper and there’s all kinds of immorality happening. What kind of immorality? Immorality that even pagans don’t tolerate. It’s obvious that these believers need instruction…badly…and you are going to write them a letter; but what do you write to them? What truths about Christ and the Scriptures would you want to consistently comment about in the letter you write them? What I’m describing with a bit of simplification are the circumstances around Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. In this letter Paul has certain themes that appear throughout the whole letter, and one of them is baptism.
Take a second and think about that. If you had the opportunity to mediate between two Christians who are fighting…to deal with a Christian wanting to indulge in sexual sins…or perhaps to try to tell the ethnic groups or different social classes, “You need to be one people!”...would you do so by talking about baptism? This is exactly what Paul does; he doesn’t just give a definition of baptism, but rather Paul puts his finger directly on a struggle or problem in the church and connects it to baptism.
What Paul doesn’t know is that’s the complete opposite of how baptism functions in America’s religious life. For most folks in the States, baptism is personal and in the past. Personal: me, Jesus, and my religious experience. Not grounded in faith and repentance and not connected to the Church. And past: “Why should some pouring of water or immersion that I received in the past matter now?” But not for Paul, and not for Christ! Baptism cannot be exclusively personal or a reality that doesn’t show up anywhere in your ethics and actions. Paul specifically combats divisive behavior and ungodly living with the gospel and with baptism...and he starts right in the first chapter.
The Corinthian church was divided: the Greek Christians wanted to hear Greek speakers and the Jewish Christians wanted Jewish speakers and leaders. The divisions get so petty that there were even some who said to their brothers and sisters, “Hey listen you wanna follow Paul or Apollos, fine, but I follow Christ!” In other words, “I’m the real follower of Christ with the right doctrine and the rest of you are not.” And in rapid fire succession Paul lays on the questions, “Is Christ divided?” “Was Paul crucified for you?” “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” Three questions, all absurd, and that’s the point. Peter (Cephas), Paul, Apollos have proclaimed the good news, but they haven’t paid the price for our sins. They administered the sacraments that signify and seal the good news, but they haven’t accomplished our redemption. There is no forgiveness of sins, new life, and resurrection in the statement, “I follow Paul.” And Paul knows this. Later in the letter he writes, “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” (I Corinthians 3:5-6) As the church argued about “Who is most like me? Who is my leader?” Paul changes the questions to “Who died for you?” “In whose name were you baptized?” These fighting Christians with different backgrounds, opinions, and expectations would all have to answer the questions with the name of the same Lord, Jesus.
These are two questions to reach out with to fighting Christians today, when you are interacting with a brother or sister, whom you disagree with, whom you feel jealously or resentfully towards, or whom you don’t naturally gel with. “Who was crucified for them?” “In whose name were they baptized?” If your baptism calls you to put away division, to be united, what would that look like? Later in Chapter 12, Paul does again what we’ve seen in Chapter 1: he mentions baptism and then spells out an implication. So in verse 13, he writes, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” And then after fleshing this out, by explaining that since we are A BODY, not everyone has the same gifts and abilities (you need both knees and arms), Paul concludes with this in verses 25-26, “that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.” For Paul, baptism means that we have individually come to share in the sufferings of Christ and will share in his glory, but baptism also means we share corporately in the sufferings of one another, in the successes and blessings of one another. So when we think of the benefits of baptism we need to consider it within the body of Christ.
And what exactly are the benefits that baptism signifies and seals? Listen to question 94 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is a Sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.
Two comments about the language the WSC uses. First, consider “our engagement to be the Lord’s.” Engagement has a lot of meanings, but I think the Westminster Assembly was after what we would call devotion, commitment, loyalty. The Larger Catechism teaching on baptism says, “open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s (Q.165).”
The second comment focuses on the benefits. If I asked the question “What are the benefits of baptism?” and then simply answered, “Oh, you know; the benefits of the covenant of grace!” that might not give as much as detail as some of us need. Now, the Assembly is expecting you to remember by Q.94 all the benefits they had mentioned back in Q.36-38. So again, referencing the Larger Catechism Q.165, the benefits are described as the following: Remission of sins by his blood (the forgiveness of our sins); Regeneration by his Spirit (a new life powered or enabled by the Spirit); Adoption (a new identity); and Resurrection unto everlasting life (a new hope).
Now, if somebody received a new hope, a new identity, and a new life this would certainly permeate every part of their existence. There would not be a portion of their life or ethics where they could say, “Those new things I received have nothing to do with how I treat my neighbor or how I respond to temptation.” And yet, as I was preparing this sermon, I was struck with the realization that I don’t spend much time thinking about my baptism, what it means about my identity, my family, my hope and my security. Does our baptism not speak? When you are tempted to believe that there are sins that will always dominate your life, does baptism speak to you? When you are experiencing pain, loss, and struggle, does your baptism say, “Hey, I was only a past event; I have nothing for you”?
No, not at all. Our baptism shouts to Christians who question the Father’s love, “You are adopted, you belong to me, because of Christ you are accepted, you are mine.” Later, Paul says to the Corinthian church facing all types of temptations from riches, to adultery, to greed and drunkenness; listen to your baptism, “You were washed!” “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (I Corinthians 6: 9b-11) I’m blown away by Paul’s argument here; he’s talking to Christians who are being tempted to get back into worldly living, into the flesh. And do you hear how Paul tells them to resist? There’s a part of me that wants Paul to just say to these Christians “It’s wrong, it’s a sin, don’t do it. Stop it, resist!” But Paul’s understanding of baptism is too lively, it’s too strong, he doesn’t believe that the Corinthian Christians just received a quick pour of water over their heads, but by the working of the Spirit they were set apart from the world and its emptiness. So our baptism reminds us that these temptations are not unconquerable giants; but rather it would be a willed, deliberate action on the part of washed saints to jump right back into the mud that they begged Jesus to clean them of. So he says to Christians facing temptation, feeling pulled by sinful desires, “You were WASHED!” Your baptism teaches you how to speak to your temptations.
It’s this kind of understanding of baptism that led Luther to repeat to himself over and over again, “I’m baptized.” And we can’t charge Martin Luther with sounding too Roman Catholic (remember, this is the “Here I stand” figure of the Reformation) or with downplaying the centrality of Jesus; but when Luther was tempted to sin he would respond, “I’m baptized.” Anxious and fearing for his life: “I’m baptized.” When amazed that even when redeemed, his struggle with sin was still so fierce, “I’m baptized.” And this from a man who was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church! There’s two reasons why I think that’s significant. First, Luther was taking comfort, gaining encouragement, from a baptism that he could not have had any memory of. Luther, born into a medieval Catholic family, was baptized as an infant in the RCC. Many of you, like Luther, don’t have any memory of your baptism; it’s an event that your parents told you about. But that doesn’t mean your baptism doesn’t speak to you. God saw fit that you would be marked with the sign of his promise. That you are not a son or daughter of the world, but you belong to him. Talk with mom and dad; ask them why it was important for you to be baptized. Ask God for grace, ask for his Holy Spirit to come and give you the faith needed to lay hold of all the benefits and comforts that your baptism spoke of.
The second point: some of you have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet, like Luther, it may have been administered by someone in the RCC, or some other tradition that you look back on now with an awareness that they were not teaching some of the same doctrines that you have come to believe and cherish. But this doesn’t mean you have some sort of second rate or C- grade baptism. The significance is not so much the character or doctrine of the man who baptized you in the name of the Triune God (it does have to be a Trinitarian baptism). What is significant is what the Father, the Son, and the Spirit accomplished and did for you and your reception of it with faith. Your baptism speaks, even if the one who administered it is in error.
Friends, live in light of your baptism this week!
– Hunter Jackson
Preacher! The Children are Listening…
Questions about Satan Lying, Jesus Dying, And Blasphemy
1. What does it mean to blaspheme?
To blaspheme means to be disrespectful of God or things connected to God. Someone who blasphemes speaks or behaves rudely, casually, or carelessly about things that God has said are holy (set apart and special). God tell us that he is holy and that his name, his attributes (qualities that are part of who he is), his works, and his commands are also holy. “Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,” he says in the Third Commandment. It is a sin he takes very seriously (Exodus 20:7). In Joshua chapter 7, Achan blasphemed God by taking for himself some of the treasures of Jericho that God had designated as holy and had commanded that no one should touch them. King Nebuchadnezzar blasphemed God both by making a golden statue of himself and commanding everyone to worship it (Daniel 3), and later by giving himself the glory for the magnificence of his kingdom, instead of giving the glory to God (Daniel 4:28-37).
If we love and serve God, we might not be likely to be tempted to blaspheme him by worshiping idols or talking rudely about his works and attributes, but we still might fall into the habit of speaking carelessly and casually about them in ways that he has forbidden. Many people around us use God’s name frequently without even noticing they are using it, for example, “Oh my God, our vacation was amazing!” “Jesus! Why is the doctor taking so long!” When people use God’s name that way they aren’t truly giving credit to God or asking Jesus for help – they are just indicating strong feelings. Psalm 74:18 tells us that those who blaspheme God’s name are foolish people. God’s name is powerful and should only be used in respectful ways that rightly declare his glory and claim his promises.
If we notice, or someone points out to us, that we have fallen into speech habits that are blaspheming God, we should change those habits of speech and replace them with other ones that are not dishonoring to God. That is a good opportunity to use God’s name in the way he wants us to use it by saying, “God, help me. I need to change!”
2. Can Jesus make a mistake?
No he can’t. Jesus, the Son of God, is a human man, but he is also God, completely and totally. Since God knows all things and never makes any mistakes, Jesus shares these qualities (Psalm 18:30, Numbers 23:19). It is very comforting to know that we can depend on Jesus who understands what it is like to be a human (Hebrews 4:15), and is also God who never changes and won’t ever make a mistake (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8).
3. Which matters more – the dying or the rising of Jesus?
Neither! They are both essential to our salvation. If Jesus had just died and not risen again, he would not have accomplished our salvation. His rising again showed that the work was finished and God considered the debt of our sins paid. If Jesus had stayed dead, then we would know God had not accepted his sacrifice and we are not saved. Or, if Jesus had just fallen unconscious but not truly died, and then risen again from his coma, he wouldn’t have fulfilled the requirement of dying as the perfect sacrifice to satisfy God’s justice and we would also not be saved. They are both required for salvation (I Corinthians 15:12-23, Hebrews 9:28, Colossians 2:12-14, Romans 10:9, I Peter 2:21-25).
4. Why is Satan a good liar?
Satan is a good (that is, effective) liar because he is smart, he has been around a long time, and the only thing he cares about is getting his own way (Genesis 3:1). He never thinks, “Hm… that’s not nice, I shouldn’t say that,” or “That could hurt someone or get someone in trouble.” God created Satan to be a great angel, and he made him clever and capable. Since Satan wasn’t content to be who God made him to be, he now uses his abilities for evil (Isaiah 14:12-14). He hates God and cares only to thwart God’s plan and hurt God’s people – beginning in the garden when he lied to Eve (Genesis 3:4-5, I Peter 5:8). Nothing is off limits where Satan is concerned as long as God doesn’t prevent him from doing it (Job 1:6-12). Jesus calls him the father of lies because he’s so masterful at it (John 8:44). We can take comfort in the knowledge that God has full power over Satan and restrains him from accomplishing all his wicked goals and desires (Revelation 20:1-3).
5. Why do we worship God and not ourselves?
We worship God because he made us and he commands us to worship him (Exodus 20:3). God is the all-powerful creator (Jeremiah 32:17). If we worship ourselves, we break God’s command to worship him alone and we say that we are the most wonderful and important beings that exist. Sin twists our hearts and causes us to put our own desires and accomplishments first (Ephesians 2:1-3). This can only change when God works in our hearts to turn our desire from loving and worshiping our selves to loving and worshiping him (Ezekiel 36:26, Ephesians 1:18). For the time being on this earth, God allows many people to continue putting their own goals, desires, and self-admiration above him. He even appears to give them success and happiness in doing so. But it will not last, and it will not bring them salvation if they keep at it (Psalm 92:7, Ecclesiastes 7:15). At the Last Day, God tells us, he will fix this situation, and every knee shall bow to him and worship him as they should have been doing all along (Romans 14:11-12, Revelation 20:11-15).
Has a young person recently ask you a theological question - perhaps in response to a Scripture reading, lesson, or to something the preacher said during church? If you would like, send that question to susanledgar@gmail.com for inclusion in a future issue.
– Susan Edgar
Report on the Fall 2021 Meeting of the Atlantic Presbytery
The Atlantic Presbytery finally met at the Broomall RPC on October 8-9, after two online meetings and one meeting moved to White Lake Camp. The meeting was not entirely free of Covid-19 concerns, as two delegates had to stay home, and the presbytery prayed for a family that recently lost a loved one. But those present were glad to meet and thankful to enjoy Broomall's long-delayed hospitality.
Retired Pastor Bill Edgar preached on Friday night, using the 1806 RP Testimony chapter 24.7 as a basis on which to exhort the pastors not to read their sermons. Student Hunter Jackson preached from Ezekiel 33 on Saturday morning, telling us that warnings save lives, and that preachers must strive to be innocent of the blood of all men. Being a student, Mr. Jackson's sermon was then publicly evaluated. He passed that exam unanimously, as he also passed his Systematic Theology and Distinctive Principles exam, and a particularly challenging Church History exam. Mr. Jackson has one exam to pass in the spring to become eligible to receive a call, just in time for his anticipated graduation from Westminster Seminary in May 2022.
Zach Dotson, long the pulpit supply at Coldenham-Newburgh, has accepted a call to a church in Tasmania, Australia. He is working out the immigration details with the Australian authorities and hopes to be on the ground there by next summer. Until then he continues to preach for Coldenham, which in turn is free to begin a pastoral search. (In related news, Andrew Kerr of Northern Ireland continues to struggle with the American bureaucracy as he seeks to become the pastor at Ridgefield Park.)
Just as Mr. Jackson and Mr. Dotson anticipate finishing the licensure process, God provided two new men to begin it. Ryan Alsheimer (Walton) and Zack Seigman (Elkins Park) were presented to the court by their respective sessions and were received as students under care. Mr. Alsheimer has finished his seminary education and is currently working for a nonprofit in the Oneonta NY area. Mr. Seigman is attending Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. In addition, elder John Cripps of Walton has come forward, seeking to be licensed for more regular preaching of the Word. He will presumably begin taking his four exams in the spring.
The court was presented with nine communications. One communication about church letters supporting conscientious objections to vaccine mandates provoked the most vigorous discussion. By an 8-5 vote, the presbytery voted that since the RPCNA has not taken a position on vaccination, no elder of our presbytery shall write or sign a letter of exemption for vaccination in his capacity as an elder. Individual believers may of course write their own letters, based upon their own consciences, and any letters that a pastor may have written already shall stand, but no more are to be written in the future. Two delegates gave notice that they intend to appeal this decision to Synod.
The discussion was wide-ranging, with both sides appealing to the Westminster Confession and RP Testimony, chapter 21. One key concern that was raised is the necessity of distinguishing between a prudential concern (“I think this vaccine is unnecessary or foolish”) versus a conscientious concern (“This mandate forces me to sin”). Another key concern is the difference between what an individual is convinced of and what the church has decided as a matter of doctrine. On one side, the question was asked, “If whatever is not from faith is sin,” why wouldn't a session write to support someone's freedom to not get a vaccine? On the other side it was objected that this amounts to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.
The vaccine issue will likely be discussed at later meetings. As the discussion proceeded, it was noted without challenge that no one seemed actually to be in favor of vaccine mandates. The concerns rather lie with properly using (and thus safeguarding) the practice of religious exemptions. It was also noted that sessions WILL supply letters in support of requests to not be assigned work on the Lord's Day, as this topic is most definitely and emphatically addressed in our doctrinal standards.
A recent presbytery push for good governance practices at the denominational level was continued with the approval of a letter urging disclosure of the salaries of denominational employees. It was judged prudent to seek an insurance rider to cover presbytery events held at local churches. Another retreat for pastors and their families will be planned for the summer of 2022. There were further efforts to elucidate the complex governmental structure of White Lake Camp. We rejoiced to hear of the election of David Klussman as an elder at White Lake. He will become the first elder raised from his youth in the White Lake congregation in at least seventy years.
Overall the presbytery rejoiced because it was able to meet in person, it saw an excellent candidate for the ministry progress through his exams, and met two new young men seeking to prepare for the ministry. The next meeting is scheduled for March 25-26 at Cambridge.
– John Edgar
A Little Shout-out for William Edgar's 7 Questions
Marvin Olasky in the September 11, 2021 issue of World magazine: “And a reminder: As Christians face race-first attacks, more still unites us than separates us when we stand on the Bible. William Edgar’s 7 Big Questions Your Life Depends On (Crown & Covenant, 2020) includes looks at “Did God Really Say?” (frequently asked now) and “Do You Want To Be Healed?” (not asked often enough).”
Clarification
Several have asked about the reference in our last issue (July 2021, 4.4, p 9) to Michael LeFebvre as a “heretic.” The word “heretic” attempted to summarize the tone of Synod’s discussion of a committee report, which dealt with many pages of reports and complaints from Great Lakes Gulf Presbytery. Synod made no ruling as to whether LeFebvre is a “heretic,” and neither did it vindicate him. For a review of LeFebvre’s recent book, The Liturgy of Creation, see A Little Strength 4.3, p 9.
A Little Peek Ahead...
In upcoming issues, we will explore the enigma of the Enneagram, mull over the place of manuscripts for ministers to preach from, and reflect on the reality of race. A young correspondent reports on his experience attending Theological Foundations for Youth; we hope that rising high school seniors reading this would be interested in following in his footsteps.
If you have a Thoughtful Question, or have heard tough questions from a young person (elementary school and younger), please email them to williamjosephedgar@gmail.com (Thoughtful Questions I Have Been Asked) or susanledgar@gmail.com (Preacher! The Children Are Listening...).
A Little Help?
We are now over halfway through our fourth year of running completely on donations. Note: We may need to curtail our mailings at some point if donation levels continue as they are. Could you help us stay in print and online? If you appreciate our efforts and enjoy reading our little journal, please click here or mail your gift to
A Little Strength
901 Cypress Avenue
Elkins Park PA 19027
Make your check out to “Elkins Park RP Church” with “A Little Strength” in the memo line.
Authors in this issue
Bill Edgar is a retired pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia) and the author of 7 Big Questions Your Life Depends On, and History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America 1871-1920. A sequel history covering 1920 to 1980 is in the works.
John Edgar is the pastor of Elkins Park RPC (Philadelphia).
Susan Edgar is a member of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia).
Hunter Jackson is a student under care of Atlantic Presbytery and is studying at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is currently serving as pastoral intern at Elkins Park RP Church.
Marvin Olasky is the Editor-in-Chief of World Magazine, dean of the World Journalism Institute, and the author of 28 books.
Remo Robb (1899-1957) was born in Canton, China to RP missionaries, became an American RP pastor, and served as Synod's Home Missions Secretary.