I’ve already mentioned his lectures available at the Dabney Study Center. Here is an interview on the topic. Peter uses Ecclesiastes to analyze pomoism, so his comments relate well to Jeff’s interview about his book on Ecclesiastes.

Good stuff.

Well, Doug does his thing in saying out loud what everyone knows is going on. And, as usual, he does it well:

In other words, the federal vision folks, who have brought charges against no one, and are currently trying to drive zero opponents from their pulpits, and who are blocking no candidates at all in presbytery exams, are nevertheless to be blamed because that is no doubt what they would do if ever given the chance. Thus we see the doctrine of hypothetical retaliation and justification, which really is a problematic use of that last word. This kind of “justification” sees launching an unprovoked attack as “retaliatory in principle” because, “even though they didn’t do this unto us, they will do it if they ever have the chance.” To the pure all things are pure, and so it makes sense that to the aggressive all things look aggressive.

Read the whole thing.

The good news is that, on the local level, outside of a few Unreal Tournament as Chrisian discernment regions, there is Christian peace. I go to presbytery, fellowship with brother and father ministers, and am refreshed by Christian fellowship and collegiality. This was my experience in all my presbyteries. The only bump in this one a couple of years ago was due to some sad things circulating from outside–and that didn’t affect me with the majority of presbyters anyway. Once the Federal Vision Committee cleared up the issues, that was over.

If it wasn’t for a minority of activists, there would not be a war going on. The internet can be deceptive in that regard–kind of like looking into a palantir in Lord of the Rings.
Most of the PCA is not behaving like they did “outside Gallio’s house.” And for that, I’m glad.

But should anyone say, he cannot comprehend the operations of the Holy Ghost in these cases; we reply that the thing ought not to be denied, merely because we do not comprehend it. It is not more difficult to conceive the idea of the Holy Spirit restoring the faculties of the infant, and rendering them capable of receiving evangelical objects, as soon as reason shall dawn, than it is to conceive the idea of original sin, which is nothing else but the depravation of those faculties, inclining them to objects of sense. If we can conceive of the principle of evil before any act of it, why not the principle of good before any act of the same? If Adam had not sinned, his descendants would have been naturally innocent; and why cannot it be conceived, that the Holy Spirit places infants, who are born sinful, in some state of regeneration? The cause of our corruption is the proneness of the soul to follow the motions of the body [Note: I doubt that this account of the nature of original sin is correct. –MH]: why then should we not conceive, that the Holy Spirit prevents the soul from following those motions, and gives it the power of directing them aright?

…they may obtain all spiritual blessings from the very moment of their birth, but that these may be confirmed in baptism, which is the seal, pledge, or earnest of them; the infant, indeed, knows not what is taking place, but when he arrives at years of discretion, then he recognizes it, and from the knowledge of it, possesses every motive to holiness. Some infants are regenerated in the womb, and before baptism, others in baptism, others after: we assign no particular period.

I keep running into Bible stories and other communications where Genesis 15.6 is interpreted as Abraham’s conversion.

And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

But that simply isn’t true.  This statement, showing that God justifies the one who has faith in him, is a claim about an ongoing reality in Abraham’s life.

Abraham’s faith is visible from his response (Genesis 12.4) to God’s call (Genesis 12.1-3).  Thus Hebrews tells us,

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

[Law and gospel differ] In the promises they make to man.  the law promises life upon the condition of perfect obedience; the gospel, on the condition of faith in Christ and the commencement of new obedience (p. 3).

From Zacharias Ursinus:

It has been shown, that a Mediator is one who reconciles parties that are at variance, as God and men. This reconciliation is called in the Scriptures a covenant…[p. 96].
This agreement, or reconciliation, is called a Covenant, because God promises certain blessings, and demand from us in return our obedience, employing also certain solemn ceremonies for the confirmation thereof…. [p. 97]

This covenant is one in substance, but two-fold in circumstances; or it is one as it respects the general conditions upon which God enters into an engagement with us, and we with him; and it is two as it respects the conditions which are less general, or as some say, as it respects the mode of its administration.

The Covenant is one in substance. 1. Because there is but one God, one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, one way of reconciliation, one faith, and one way of salvation for all who are and have been saved from the bbeginning… [p. 98].

2. There is but one covenant, because the principal conditions, which are called the substance of the covenant, are the same before and since the incarnation of Christ; for in each testament God promises to those that repent and believe, the remission of sin; whilst men bind themselves, on the other hand, to exercise faith in God, and to repent of their sins.

But there are said to be two covenants, the old and the new, as it respects circumstances and conditions which are less general, which constitute the form, or the mode of administration, contributing to the principal conditions, in order that the faithful, by their help, may obtain those which are general.

IV. IN WHAT DO THE OLD AND THE NEW COVENANT AGREE, AND IN WHAT DO THEY DIFFER?

Since there is but one covenant, and the Scriptures speak of it as though it were two, we must consider in what particulars the old and the new covenants agree and in what they differ.

They agree, 1. In having god as their author and Christ as the Mediator. …

2. In the promise of grace concerning the remission of sins and eternal life granted freely to such as believe by and for the sake of christ, which promise was common to those who live under the old covenant, as well as to us; although it is now delivered more clearly, for god promises the same grace to all that believe in the Mediator….

3. In the condition in respect to ourselves. In each covenant, God requires from men faith and obedience. “Walk before me and be thou perfect.” “Repent and believe the Gospel.” (Gen. 17:1. Mark 1:15.) The new covenant, therefore, agrees with the old in that which relates to the principal conditions, both on the part of God, and on the part of man…. [p. 99]

OK it is bad manners to quote an entire post, so I won’t. But every bit of it is quotable!

A parable:

Imagine, if you will, a king who had many subjects in his castle, all who were doing their best to serve him faithfully. The king was gracious and gave them regular banquets, and the servants did their duty faithfully in return. Imagine, then, that the king brought a bunch of new servants in to serve alongside these – servants that were entirely unexpected, particularly because many of them were so young and seemingly inexperienced at royal servitude. When the older servants expressed shock at the presence of the younger, the king turned and said to them, “Actually, my friends, it is these who are the greatest example of the kind of people I want to serve me! They are not only equal members of the kingdom – they are the ultimate example of members of the kingdom!”

Imagine, then, as the king returned to his duties, leaving the oversight of the castle in the hands of his older servants, that these servants decided the newcomers needed to pass a few tests first. The simple ceremony of the king’s acceptance was not enough; these newcomers would need to prove they deserved to come to the banquet as well. Would the king be terribly pleased that his older servants were so vigilant in making sure the kingdom was filled only with those deemed to be “true” members by experienced servants?

What anti-paedocom exegesis sounds like to ex-baptist ears:

Look: when Presbyterians make this argument against paedocommunion, Baptist have every reason in the world to roll their eyes and throw their hands up in the air. This is the exact same argument used over and over again by Baptists. Every NT example of baptism is accompanied by belief and repentance, therefore infants can’t be baptized…you get the picture. When I made the move to paedobaptism and then ran into Presbys making this argument against paedocommunion, I thought I was in the twilight zone.

On believing the Bible:

Or maybe we can approach this from a few different angles. In the first place, I grew weary of credobaptist theology precisely because the credobaptist has to spend so darn much time explaining that certain passages about baptism don’t mean what it sounds like they mean. When Peter says, “baptism saves,” he doesn’t mean “baptism saves.” When he says, “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins,” he actually meant, “repent for the forgiveness of sins, and then be baptized.” When Paul says that baptism puts us “in Christ,” that we are “buried and raised with him in baptism,” and that baptism places us into the body of Christ, he doesn’t actually mean that baptism really does those things. It’s all just a symbol (Baptist).

Or just a “sign and seal” (Presbyterian). I’m really having a hard time seeing the difference, except that Presbys do it to babies, too. When it comes to the way Baptists and some Presbys talk about baptism, quite frankly, the Baptist position is far more internally consistent.

The only inaccuracy I can see is that Travis thinks that the “PCA has come out strongly against paedocommunion.” No. It has been granted as an exception for decades in many presbyteries and is represented in the denominational seminary. The shrill voices you hear are striving to not sound like a minority (I don’t mean that the majority are in favor of paedocommunion; I mean peace-of-the-church-shattering hostility to paedocommunion is a recent minority movement.  I know lots of credocommunionist pastors in the PCA who believe paedocommunionists are orthodox and Reformed). One can read the official ruling and see how the PCA has reacted officially.