London Mens' Convention

I am glad I went this year, but I can't say it was a barrel of laughs! If you know anyone who went, then get your hands on the talks.
Vaughan Roberts was clear on the content of the message, but offered few surprises. If you'd asked someone what a clear-minded evangelical would put in the talk, it was there.
Al Stewart on heaven and hell was disturbingly clear, challenging to all complacency and very sobering. Stuart Townend's musical support for the heaven talk was outstanding, doctrinally and emotionally underlining and developing the talk, linking heaven to the resurrection, giving us chance to sing the doctrines Stewart had taught, and opening our lips to sing appropriate responsive praise.
The hell talk brought us up short.
Rico Tice then came out with some simple practical challenges. Get to bed so you can get up to pray for friends, and "live so that your life raises questions and speak so that you answer them" - or something of that meaning.
I was once again struck though by the importance of preaching: you could read, I guess, everything that was said. And I don't think there was a lot new for me. But someone preached it: it came through that sacramental means of the prophetically declared, authoritatively spoken proclamation. The Spirit definitely uses this means to hammer home to the heart what the head accepts - or what both know they should accept but fear to do so.

No guts before glory?

I just finished Kim Riddlebarger's "A Case for Amillennialism", an introduction to the Christian understanding of the end of the world particularly focusing on the issue of how we should interpret the "thousand years" of Revelation 20. I would highly recommend it.
But as I read it, something struck me that Dr Riddlebarger did not address.
What struck me is this: advocates of both pre- and postmillennialism both get to avoid tribulation. Dispensationalist premillennialists get whisked off to glory before there's serious suffering; postmillennialists believe that the world will be thoroughly Christianised, meaning it never really gets bad.
1. Isn't that a desire for glory and ease now? I love the idea that the Bible tells me I will never suffer for my faith, but it does in fact say that.
2. What does that mean about the Christians in the Islamic world whose faith is suppressed, or, if they are converts from Islam, liable to severe punishment? What about the 20+ pastors the Chinese have locked up as they try to crush the House Churches pre-Olympics? What about the Christians mistreated by Hindu militants across India whilst the police do nothing?
If believers need anything from the Bible now, it is an explanation of why being a Christian is, in external and material terms, pretty awful; only us relatively few Western Christians could ever dream up millennialistic fantasies, surely?

The end of capitalism?

Before dabbling in theology, the Amateur did a degree, in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Recent events on the markets have provoked me to actually use the tools acquired.
Essentially the issue is, is there enough cash out there to keep the economy operating?
Banks need cash to meet the demands of their savers.
Companies need cash advanced to invest.
Financial institutions in general need cash to invest and earn interest.
Of course, money then multiplies through the wonders of the system: so M0, the measure of notes and coins, is tiny compared to a money supply figure such as M4.
But if there's not enough liquid cash out there to meet demands for "my money back", it all falls apart.
Now what would happen if the wheels came off? Despite yesterday's good day, what if a series of financial institutions, and therefore the entire supply of credit (which is fake money - we loan it even though it belongs to other people and the cash is elsewhere - that's the multipliers for you) falls apart?
Is it the end of world capitalism?
No - look at the prices of raw materials, both minerals and oil. Sovereign wealth funds have piles of cash just waiting. So what would happen if share prices fell? These funds could move in a buy swathes of the Western capitalist system at a knock down price.
That would be the most dramatic shift of economic power ever. Suddenly economic power would no longer be mainly in the hands of western, liberal, Judaeo-Christian-influenced societies. It would be in the hands of states often supportive of political and religious philosophies inimical to such societies, such as Saudi Arabia.
I have no problem with the dictatorship of the proletariat at home. It's the possibility that capitalism might be rescued by other forces abroad that worries me.
Let's pray that recent jitters were just that.

So, what is a sacrament after all?

Dear me, not figured it out yet? After all, I am an amateur. There is a huge difference between an amateur and a professional. Primarily that thinking is a luxury for me for which I seldom have time.
When earlier in the year I was reading Genesis, I was struck by the sacramental nature of covenant relationship. Noah gets a rainbow, Abraham gets a sighting of the land, gets circumcision, gets that ritual with God walking through the cut animals, and Jacob gets his ladder. Each time God acts, He provides a sign of that of which He has spoken, which is symbolic, that is, it is itself illustrative of the promise, and which is also a seal, a guarantee of that of which God has spoken. When the patriarchs acts in faith, they find God truly faithful to these promises.
Here's my problem: the idea of a seal. Faithlessness delays divine action, but He works out His purpose in the end. So here's the big issue: are baptism and Communion given to the church, signs symbolic of His work among us which all visible members receive (fine, happy so far) and seals that He does so act among us. Or are they seals to the individual as well? If so, what is the role of faith? "Do those without faith also receive the signified?" - the great Reformational debate - still ought be discussed after you've dismissed substantial interpretations of sacraments (Roman, Lutheran and Zwinglian) for covenantal ones (Reformed). I hope that the book I'm reading at the moment, by Leonard Vander Zee, clears that one up for me.

The roots of Heresy

The shock of my life flew out of 2 Peter 2 yesterday. The roots of heresy are greed and being overwhelmed by one's physical desires (v2). Anyone struggling with those can tip over into heresy, denying Christ and His cross (v1). The solution? Authority (v10). We need an outside authority to set us right. Which is why heresy always attacks the Bible, I guess. Anyway, I was sobered. How close am I then, a western materialist, to denying my Lord every minute?
Oh, and Scripture has a lot to say about the tongue and self-control, particularly in Proverbs, doesn't it! Ouch!
Who will save me from this body of death? --> Romans 8

Cessationism and Baptism

Huh? What's this going to be about.
Last night I became a cessationist. Cessationism is normally associated with the idea that one believes that certain works of the Holy Spirit are no longer seen in the church, but that's not my cessationism. Mine is that the apostolic era is over: there are no more apostles. So the character and purpose of the work of the Holy Spirit is different: there are no miracles of confirmation of ministry, or any need to provide particular wisdom concerning Christ because it's all there in the Scriptures. So He carries on doing much, including many miracles, but they are different in character and purpose: healing for the sake of a sick person, rather than frequent, public and dramatic healing to draw attention to the apostle in whose words and person the ministry of Christ is continued.
You see, my acceptance of cessationism came from a new understanding of what it means.
Baptism?
Baptism is an outward sign of those actions God purposes covenantally to pursue with an individual, placing them under obligations vis-a-vis Himself. I was caught up in the fear of either a Catholic or Zwinglian view, partly because I hadn't got the covenantal element of Reformed thinking. Yes, the invisible church is constituted by new birth, but neither the old or the new covenant visible community is co-extensive with the invisible true body of the elect. Rather, the sign of the covenant is applied to show that someone is entering a community that lives under that covenant. Can babies receive it? Well, if their parents are bringing them up in full awareness of the covenant, why might they not receive the sign of that?
Again, a new understanding brings a new view, here on paedobaptism.
Help! I'm thinking aloud and online! Any advice?

Reasons for blogging

It creates a fantastic online archive, should my computer explode and my house burn down, of anything interesting I've ever thought.

Goats' hair, rams' hides and goats' hides

So why is the Tabernacle covered in this stuff (Exodus 26)? It's so normal, nothing royal or divine about it. Then again, why did God clothe Himself in human flesh (John 1:14)? Or is that the point?
It seems to me that God dwells in humility as one of us among us, although under that normal tent or human flesh dwells the Creator and King.
But surely the teaching of Genesis 1-2 or Psalm 8 makes human flesh the ideal clothing for God?
There's a lot of questions - anyone out there interested in answering?