Deep Water. Since I last blogged there's been 3 developments concerning choosing a church and baptism position.

Kristin and I enjoyed dinner with Dave Hamlin and family last week. He's a more experienced baptismal-wrestler than I and got me thinking that perhaps neither the RB (Reformed Baptists) or PB (PaedoBaptists) position may be completely correct.

Kristin and I enjojed lunch with an associate pastor from a local PCA church. He got me thinking that there's a danger to a thorough doctrinal study. When you're down in the weeds for a long time it's hard to keep your eyes on Christ. Instead of being Christ-centered and grace-focused, we major on something that is not as major as Christ.

Also I finished the article, "A String of Pearls Unstrung". It's the best I've read so far from the RB position, but still my conscience (Scripture-shaped?) thinks the RBs ignore regeneration in infants ("From my mother's breast you have caused me to trust in You. From the womb You have been my God", etc). If someone is not old enough to confess Christ they're convinced that that person is an unbeliever. The strongest point I saw in the article is an apparent inconsistency in the PB position between particular atonement and New Covenant membership. They ask, if Christ's blood was effectual for the salvation of only the elect, and the New Covenant is administered in His blood, then how can there be any non-elect in the New Covenant? Therefore the sign of the New Covenant, baptism, should be withheld until you have some evidence that this person is elect.

Duane Garner suggests I critique how Baptists (and many Presbyterians) define "elect". I'll add this to my list of things to study--there's much more connected to understanding baptism than meets the eye.