I've just stumbled across this article on paedocommunion.
http://www.paedocommunion.com/articles/lusk_for_the_childrens_sake.php
So, to remind me where to find it in future, I've put a link to it here. Excellent.
(Given he mentions post-mill, presumably if I come back far enough into the future, I will see Bible-teaching churches across the UK that welcome children in this way).
I'm just finishing reading through 2 Samuel. Joab and Abishai, the two (surviving) sons of Zeruiah, remind me of the role that James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, sometimes play in the gospels.
The assassination of Amasa in chapter 21 seems as much to do with Joab's determination to continue in charge of the army as it is about Amasa's slowness to muster Judah. In short, he wants to be David's right-hand man. Compare Mark 10:35-45. Joab's hastiness to slay Absalom is deemed too hasty by David, cf. Luke 9:54-55.
I'm just trying to tap consciously into something I had noticed instinctively. The question is: I'm I noticing something that isn't objectively there? Even if it is a valid observation, so what?
Enough subconscious blogging for one morning! Bye all
See this Comment
Note to self: It really is time to do some proper reading and thinking into preterism
OK. Let me try and be a little clearer.
John Frame says (if I understand him correctly) that, in the act of God making himself known to me, there are 3 perspectives through which this can be viewed.
Yet again, I'm sure this has been said numerous times. But I'll record it here by way of "note to self"...
Richard Pratt's book He Gave Us Stories discusses handling OT narratives. Recommend it. Part 1 of the book discusses how we approach stories - not in terms of techniques to follow, but in terms of the kind of approach we need. He only mentions Frame very occasionally, but a lot of what he says is along the lines of "Don't set this method / approach over against that method / approach, as if you must pick one or the other. You need both."
[Edit: This post originally had a lot more after this point, but I've since managed to write what I was saying more clearly. Have a look at the post immediately after (chronologically) this one. So I've removed the unclear stuff I wrote originally. Cut!]
Extremely helpful quotation.
(OK, I can't resist writing this: James reads David who quotes Barb listening to Lusk quoting Leithart)
http://davidpfield.blogspot.com/2006/09/baptism-and-covenant.html
In particular, I've never before seen the conceptual link between the covenant community / elect distinction and the creature / creator distinction. Thanks David for fishing these things out for us.
Before you say,... I know – these observations have been made before and are not new. But…
Here are two true statements:
I assume we wish to join the Eastern and Western churches throughout their history in affirming that the Spirit is one of the three persons, that the Spirit is divine, is God. If not, the implications are serious indeed – but it also makes the rest of this post redundant. Proceeding, then, on that assumption…
Thanks to Chris Green and Dick Lucas in their BST commentary on 2 Peter for the following paragraph. 2 Peter 2 really is frighteningly contemporary in the scenario it describes.
I’m often saddened when, in these days, weddings seems to matter more then marriage. (How encouraging, by contrast, to be helping one couple, who have recently become followers of Christ, to organise a wedding in the shortest possible time. They are keen to be married and are prepared to sacrifice lots of elements of “the ideal wedding”).
Having flow charted 2 Peter, the main points stand out quite clearly from the subordinate ones.
Again – just in case this is helpful for anyone, here are two summaries of 2 Peter.
Summary
