Happy in Grace

Some Words From Ted Tripp on Unbiblical Parenting Goals

2010-07-30T11:46:00.003-06:00

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about parenting lately. Having two children is hard enough, and now we are getting ready to have a third. Child rearing has been an experience of great challenges. One of the books I’ve read in order to gain a biblical perspective on this duty is Shepherding a Child’s Heart by Ted Tripp. One passage I have found particularly challenging and relevant is his section on unbiblical goals in parenting. I want to mention two of them here in particular:

Well Behaved Children

“Some succumb to the pressure to raise well-behaved kids. We help them develop
poise. We teach them to converse. We want children who possess social graces. We
want them to be able to make guests comfortable. We want them to be able to
respond with grace under pressure. We know that these skills are necessary to be
successful in our world. It pleases us to see these social graces in our
children.

I’m A Pastor who has raised three children. I’m certainly not down on
well-behaved children. Yet, having well-behaved children is not a worthy goal.
It is a great secondary benefit of biblical child rearing, but an unworthy goal
in itself.

You cannot respond to your children to please someone else. The temptations to
do so are numerous. Every parent has faced the pressure to correct a son or
daughter because others deemed it appropriate. Perhaps you were with a group
when Junior did or said something that you understood and were comfortable with,
but that was unquestionably misread by others in the room. Stabbed by their
daggers of disapproval, you felt the need to correct him for the sake of others.
If you acquiesce, your parenting focus becomes behavior. This obscures dealing
biblically with Junior’s heart. The burning issue becomes what others think
rather than what God thinks. Patient, godly correction is precluded by the
urgent pressure to change behavior. If your goal is well behaved kids, you are
open to hundreds of temptations to expediency.
What happens to the child who is trained to do all the appropriate things? When being well-mannered is severed from biblical roots in servant hood, manners becomes (sic) a classy tool of manipulation. Your children learn how to work others in a subtle but profoundly self-serving way. Some children become crass manipulators
of others and disdainful of people with less polish. Others, seeing through the
sham and hypocrisy, become brash and crass rejecters of the conventions of
culture. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, scores of young adults rejected
etiquette in an attempt to be real and unpretending. Either reaction is a
casualty of manners detached from the biblical moorings of being a servant”
(Tripp, 45-46).

Another unbiblical goal that I think is worth mentioning is “control.”

Control

“Some parents have no noble goal at all; they simply want to control their
children. These parents want their children to mind, to behave, to be good,
to be nice. They remind their children of how things were when they were
youngsters. Frequently they employ the “tried and true” methods of
discipline—whatever their parents did that seemed to work. They want
children who are manageable. They want them to do the right thing whatever that is at the moment). The bottom line is to control their kids. But, the control is not directed toward specific character development objectives. The concern is personal convenience and public appearance” (Tripp, 46-47).

In any position of leadership, especially in the ministry, I think these unbiblical goals become easy temptations. People look at us and think that our kids ought to be perfect, since after all “if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:5). Ministers don’t want people to get the idea that they cannot “control” their own household, so it’s easy to feel tempted to bow to the pressure of other people’s expectations. At times it might even feel that the ability to "control" your kids is a condition of employment! This kind of unbiblical pressure can be excruciating, and it can be very difficult to keep one's parenting focus where it should be.

I have felt this pressure numerous times since the first day that I became a father. Even though I recognize that temptation is unbiblical, it rears its ugly head quite often so that I must cry out, “Lord, deliver me from the fear of man, and help me to patiently shepherd my child according to your expectations and not the expectations of others.”

Theological Liberalism in the Local Newspaper

2010-07-10T08:47:00.003-06:00

I saw this sign driving by one day, but I didn't expect to see it show up in the local newspaper. The person submitting this pictorial found it refreshing. I find it absurd, but I'll leave the spelling error alone.

First, you might say that God is too big to fit in any "religion," if you use technical distinction. By this I mean, "religion" is man's attempt to get to God on his own. Taking this definition, I would say that all human attempts at reaching God fail. No "religion" can do it because God is too big, mysterious, an holy that we cannot reach Him in our own efforts. This leaves human beings with a real problem. If all man's attempts at reaching God ultimately fail, how are we to know anything about him at all? The good news here is that God has made himself known; he has revealed himself, and he has spoken to man in the Bible.

Of course the likely response to this is that my argument doesn't hold any weight because you may not believe the Bible. However, it still doesn't keep the sign in the picture above from being absurd. This sign is on the marquee of a Congregational Methodist church. I don't know much about this particular denomination, but the name at least sounds like it belongs to a Christian congregation. Christianity has 66 book of sacred scripture collected in what we call the Bible. Christian congregations ought to be defined by the Bible, and the Bible is an exclusive book. In Genesis you see a God who created the universe and created all human beings from a single originating pair. In Exodus you see a God who reveals himself to Moses as a jealous God who condemns 1)the worship of any other gods, or 2) the creating of images to worship which implies that God regulates how he is to be worshiped, or 3) taking the Lord's name in vain which implies an empty claim to follow him. Later on in the Old Testament the people are told that they worship God with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. In the Gospels, Jesus claims to be the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to God but through him. Jesus also claims that a rejection of him, that is Jesus, is essentially a rejection of the Father. If we take Jesus words seriously, we cannot reject Jesus and still claim to be following Christian God.

The absurd thing about the statement, on that marquee is that it claims to come from a Christian church. If they would just take the sign off and call themselves universalists at least it would be honest, but how can anyone who claims to be a Christian so easily abandon the words of Christ?

My Thesis....

2010-06-21T11:30:00.003-06:00

For the last two years I've been trying to write a thesis on John Gill (between working at a homeless shelter, moving to another state, teaching school full time, serving as a part time youth minister, and trying to be a good husband and father). Now, I've finally finished a draft of the whole thing. I still have some work to do on editing and refining, but it appears that I should be finished by my deadline--this time.

When I'm finally finished, I wonder what I'm going to do with myself? Ha. Ha.

Three Weeks Down

2009-09-12T20:52:00.004-06:00

Well, I've made it through the first three weeks. The first day was rough. I was so nervous and I think the kids in my class were even more nervous that I was. We broke the ice well, but when I went home that first night I felt totally overwhelmed. I felt so incompetent. However, I went in for another day and things went a little better. I enjoyed a weekend to recover, and every day since then has been better. I have found that I really love teaching, and I love my class too.

I've had a few surprises about the generation gap that exists between myself and my students. I was talking to them about a book that we were reading together and we were just looking at the publication information. I noticed that the book was published in Wheaton, IL, and I said, "Do you know what's in that city? Wheaton College. That's where Billy Graham went to school." Do my surprise, I heard one of my students say, "Who is Billy Graham?" The sad thing is that he wasn't alone. I don't think any of them knew who he was, but a few started to have a light come on when I told them about Franklin Graham and mentioned Samaritan's Purse.

The other surprise came when I brought in a donation of a set of encyclopedias. Before telling the class I asked, "Do you know what an encyclopedia is?" and I actually had several who said they did not. I guess when you can look up anything that you want to on the Internet in a matter of seconds, a bulky set of encyclopedias is just not that practical. I did try to convince them, though, that what they would find in print in that set of books in our class is more reliable than what they would find in a google search.

During the second week of class I had to take a quick trip home to Illinois. My great grandmother passed away and her funeral was on Wednesday morning. We left after school on Tuesday and I was back in time to teach Thursday. By that time I felt comfortable enough as a teacher that I don't think I missed a beat when it came to the classroom for the remainder of the week.

The first few days I was mostly nervous because I didn't know how I was going to fill up a whole day with what little I had to say. Now, only three weeks in, I realize that the day is so short I can barely cover the things I need to in the short time I have with the students.

The first week or two I was probably too much of a push over when it came to keeping an orderly classroom. They all had so many questions and many of them were not pertinent to what we were talking about in class but I let them ask anyway and I did my best to answer. I've discovered that much of this was a waste of class time and I've started to be a bit more strict about how the classroom time is run. I'm sure it won't be long and we will have a good routine established and they will know what I expect.

My favorite part of the class is my time reading with them. We've started out the year reading Bruce Ware's book Big Truths for Young Hearts. It has been a great and fruitful time. We have already finished the chapters on the doctrine of Scripture and the Trinity and we're now beginning creation. The kids are enjoying it and it is probably the material where I feel most at home.

Three weeks in is pretty small considering I've got to keep this up till May, but I'm feeling pretty good about things so far and I'm looking forward to more surprises and more things that I can teach the wonderful kids that I have now come to know and love.

Back to School: A New Seat

2009-08-14T22:27:00.004-06:00

In less than one week I will begin my first school year--as a teacher. I'll be teaching 5th and 6th grade and I have a total of 10 students. I'll be teaching a Bible class on Acts-Revelation (in chronological order), History of the US (1815-present), Grammar and Spelling, and 5th grade Math and Science.

This will be a very busy semester for me. Not only am I teaching all these classes, but I have a deadline to complete my thesis for the Master of Theology that I am enrolled in at Southwestern.

Classical Christian Education: My New Calling

2009-04-29T12:15:00.004-06:00

Education has been my life. I have known nothing but school for as long as I can remember. After high school I immediately went to SBU. After SBU I went to Southern Seminary. After SBTS there was a year and a half break followed by returning to continue my theological education at Southwestern Seminary. I am now moving into a role on the other side of the classroom. I'll be a teacher. You can read about how this transpired here.

I have been preparing for the gospel ministry since I was 15 years old. I have had the desire to be a pastor for over half my life. Yet, through God's providence, that desire has been left mostly unfulfilled. I have been following what I believed God was calling me to, and I will continue to do so. In making this change of direction I do not believe for a minute that I will be leaving behind my calling. In short, God has called me to teach and preach the Bible, and in this new role I will be teaching the Bible daily. I hope that as time goes on and we get plugged in to a local church that opportunities for preaching will also come. I will keep busy with what God is giving me to do in the meantime.

Axioms for a Great Commission Resurgence

2009-04-17T12:25:00.004-06:00

I got to listen to Dr. Danny Akin's chapel message at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary yesterday and he has some very important things to say about the Southern Baptist Convention. You can listen here, or read the manuscript here.

Update: 5/1/09

There has also been a website launched where you can sign up to show your support for a Great Commission Resurgence.

So I Will Come

2009-04-11T09:53:00.005-06:00

Come, sinners, view the Lamb of God,
Wounded and dying, bathed in blood!
Behold His side, and venture near,
The well of endless life is here.
Here I forget my cares and pains
And find a drink whose pow’r remains;
Only the fountain-head above
Can satisfy the thirst of love.

So I will come and view the cross
Where mercy answered righteousness;
The spotless Lamb of God was slain
For this unworthy, helpless sinner’s gain!

His thorns and nails pierce through my heart,
In ev’ry groan I bear a part;
I view His wounds with streaming eyes:
But see! He bows His head and dies!
Oh that I thus could always feel!
Lord, more and more Your love reveal!
Then my glad tongue shall loud proclaim
The grace and glory of Your name.

John Newton (1725-1807) / David L. Ward
© 2008 ReformedPraise.org

Listen Here

How to Do Family Devotions With Small Children

2009-04-10T17:30:00.001-06:00

I'm thankful to a friend from Southern Seminary who shared this on his blog. Check this out.

Founders Ministries Blog: How to stay out of debt

2009-04-08T11:53:00.002-06:00

Tom Ascol has posted a video with a little known secret for how to stay out of debt and stay there. Check it out.

John Gill Give Away!!!

2009-03-30T15:43:00.001-06:00

I'm giving away a free copy of John Gill's collected works on CD Rom on my other blog. You can sign up here.

Why I Believe in Closed (Close, or Strict) Communion

2009-03-23T14:20:00.002-06:00

The first thing that I must address here is terminology. Not all people mean the same thing by "closed communion." Some, when they hear the term assume that it means that only those who are members of a particular church are admitted to partake of communion. I don't believe in this, and I don't think that this is historically what is meant by the term "closed communion." What I believe this historically meant is that baptism is a prerequisite for communion. It's also called "strict communion." It is a practice that Baptists have historically been maligned for because we do not permit those who were so called "baptized" as infants to participate in communion in our churches--though we recognize that they may be genuine Christians. Baptists have been called bigoted for this practice. Even some Baptists have shied away from this practice because we don't want to offend our gospel believing friends. However, I think that if one is convinced that the Bible teaches believer baptism and wants to be consistent in practice, closed communion is the logical position to hold. There are more reasons for this than I care to go into here; however, I will list a few:

1) Everyone practices some type of closed communion. No one would admit unbelievers to the Lord's Table. One has to draw a line at some point, or communion would be a meaningless event.

2) All other denominations have historically seen baptism as a prerequisite for membership. Baptists are actually in agreement with the majority of the Christian tradition in maintaining that Baptism is a prerequisite for communion. I once went to visit an Episcopal church, just to observe, and when it was time for the "Eucharist," the rector invited "all baptized Christians" to partake. In practicing closed communion, Baptists do not practice anything different regarding communion than other denominations--we just disagree about what baptism is.

3) Baptists, by definition, believe that baptism is an ordinance for believers only. This means that when an infant is sprinkled it is NOT baptized at all. If a Baptist is consistent, he will not recognize an infant baptism, or even a sprinkling, a legitimate baptism at all. With this being the case it is not that Baptists are making a judgment about the salvation of those who are so called "baptized" as infants. We are making a judgment about the legitimacy of their baptism. If they are not baptized at all, then according to my reason #2 above, they ought not be admitted to communion in any church.

These are just a few arguments for why I believe in closed communion. This is not an exhaustive list, and I admit that I haven't even begun to make a Scriptural argument yet. The case that I make here is based on history and logic. I admit this, and I am prepared to use Scripture to defend the case that I am making here.

New Audio: Does Jesus Scare You More than the Storm?

2009-03-08T22:30:00.006-06:00

I got a chance to preach tonight at Lebanon Baptist Church in Cleburne, TX. My friend, Todd Peebles, is the pastor there, and he allowed me to come and share. I am very happy that we were able to record it and now I am able to share it. Click here to listen.

This is a message on the story of when Jesus calmed the storm from the account in Matthew 4:35-41. I believe this text teaches that Jesus is one and the same with the God of the Old Testament and that as such he exercises sovereignty over his creation.

New Recording of My Preaching

2009-03-05T11:04:00.009-06:00

I recently had a friend (Todd Peebles) here at the seminary record one of my old sermons to an mp3 file that I had previously only had on tape. The text is Psalm 15, and it was preached back in November or December of 2004. Right click on the phrase "one of my old sermons" above, and click "save target as" to download it. Or just click on it and you can listen to it stream.

Spiritual Disciplines of the Christian Life: Free Audio

2009-03-01T17:47:00.005-06:00

Christianaudio.com gives away a free audio book every month. I've been downloading them for a year now and have simply never thought to share it on my blog. I've benefited from several classics, and this month they are giving away Donald Whitney's book Spiritual Disciplines of the Christian Life. I read this book during my first year at Southern Seminary and it is a great overview of practical discipleship. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Here is a link to their site. You will also need to use the coupon code for this month: MAR2009.

Win a Premium Calf Leather ESV Study Bible

2009-02-27T13:09:00.002-06:00

Several of my friends have already linked to this blog which is giving away a "Premium Calf Leather ESV Study Bible. Go to the site and register for your own chance to win.

Prospectus Approved!!! Almost.

2009-02-27T11:46:00.003-06:00

I just met with my supervisor this morning about my prospectus submission. The significant aspect that needed revised was the thesis statement. I had originally proposed a statement that was too vague: "This thesis will argue that Gill's commentary on the Song of Solomon was written with a presupposition that the book is about Christ and the Church, and a presupposed ecclesiological vision flowing from other texts throughout the Bible." This statement was followed by a paragraph fleshing out what I intended which my supervisor said contained a better thesis statement: "None of Gill's ecclesiological claims flow directly from the Song, but in every reference to an ecclesiological claim within the Song, Gill draws support from similar images elsewhere in Scripture from which these claims are actually derived." I plan to make the necessary revisions and my prospectus should be approved early next week. My fear now is that I have overstated my claim. I use the word "every." While I know that this was extremely common, I will have to see as I write whether the claim can be substantiated.

New John Gill Blog

2009-02-20T11:43:00.003-06:00

I have created a new blog and will probably be contributing to it much more than I do this one. It is a blog devoted to research on John Gill, a Particular Baptist pastor in 16th century London. That is who I am writing my thesis on. I have been joined by Allen Mickle and Jonny White, both Ph.D. students also writing their dissertations on Gill. You can find this new blog here.

New Features for my Blog

2009-02-16T17:12:00.002-06:00

It has been a while since I've done anything new to my blog besides the occasional post. Those are also usually few and far between. However, I was just looking through the features available on blogger and I thought I would give some new things a try. First, I've added Adsense (pending approval). I don't know how successful this will be, but it may be a way to generate just a little side income. I'm not going to get too excited though. I have no idea who reads this blog anyway. Second, I've added a block on the side to show who follows this blog. As I mentioned earlier, I don't even know who reads this. So if you are a regular reader of my blog, please add yourself to my blog followers so I will get to know some of the people who read what I put out there. Finally, I thought it would just be fun to add a poll. This would also be a feature that would help me to get some idea of how many people see my blog. So if you don't want to show yourself as one of my followers, then please, participate in my surveys just to help me gage whether it is even worth it to post anything at all. The first poll that I have introduced is "Do you think that John Gill was a hyper-Calvinist?"

John Gill: Advocate of the Use of Means in Evangelism?

2008-12-31T09:33:00.005-06:00

John Gill is usually considered to be the father of the hyper-Calvinistic Baptists. There is a very long tradition of calling Gill a hyper-Calvinist. A 900 page dissertation has even been done on the subject of Gill and hyper-Calvinism. However, my own reading of Gill has uncovered several passages that make me question this common assumption. I will not argue one way or the other, because honestly the issue is very technical and it is not the specific area of his theology that I am studying, but I want to post a few quotes from Gill here just for others to see--and you can judge for yourself whether John Gill was a hyper-Calvinist:

From His Commentary on Song of Solomon II:14:

It is reported of the dove, that it will allure wild doves by its familiar converses into the dove-house with it: those who are called by grace, will use all proper ways and methods to allure and gain others to Christ, and to compliance with his ways and ordinances, as the church does the daughters of Jerusalem in this Song.

Do these sound like the words of someone who doesn't think that evangelism matters? Do they sound like the words of someone who opposes evangelism? It seems very clear to me that in this passage, Gill was advocating the proper "use of means for the propagation of the gospel to the heathen."

Forthcoming Blog Posts on John Gill

2008-12-27T15:12:00.002-06:00

I've been working on my Th.M. Thesis on John Gill for the past few months and I was just directed to this blog, Helm's Deep: December, for some forthcoming posts on Gill in January.

The Election of 2008 and the Comming Apocalypse

2008-10-23T19:56:00.004-06:00

As election day draws near. Premellinnial Dispensationalism is looking a little more plausible to me. As I think of what might happen on that day, visions of the seven seals come to mind like something you might see in a "Left Behind" book.

However, I must be reminded that I have nothing to fear. For one, if the end times are upon us, believers can rejoice in the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We can also remember that our God sets up kings and tears them down at his will. He holds the hearts of kings in his hands and turns them which ever way he wishes. Regardless of how bleak the political situation seems, our God reigns and His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.

John 3:16 and Particular Redemption

2008-10-01T17:25:00.003-06:00

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

Probably no verse is used more as an objection to the Calvinist "L" (LIMITED ATONEMENT) than John 3:16. Those who object quote the verse and point to the word "World." They say that Calvinists try to make the word "world" mean "elect." The accusation is that Calvinists are not taking the plain sense of the word "world" here. However, I don't think that this is a fair objection. For one, this is not how Calvinists understand the verse. Maybe some do, but a better understanding is to accept what the text actually says. God loved the whole world--EVERYONE--Universally. This is not saying at all that Jesus died in the place of every person in the same sense. All this part of the verse speaks to is God's LOVE for the world--not who was purchased in the transaction that took place on the cross.

The second half of the verse (in my view) is actually in the favor of a Calvinistic interpretation. "That whosoever believeth...." Now, some emphacize the "whosoever," and emphacize the unlimited nature of that word. However, that word is not alone. It says, "whosoever believeth." The word "whosoever" is limited by the word "believeth." For this reason, all Christians have to "limit" the atonement to some extent. Not everyone is saved--only those who believe.

In the end, John 3:16 is no verse to use as an objection to particular redemption. It is untrue to claim that Calvinists have to go against the plain meaning of the "world" in this text. What the text does imply, is that anyone who believes can be saved. This is something that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can agree on. We all must preach the gospel in the power of God, knowing that the gospel is freely open to anyone who believes. God is powerful enough to soften the hardest heart and open blind eyes, and to breath life into dead men.

Are You Old Enough to Be a Church Member?

2008-07-28T15:33:00.006-06:00

Upon completion of my M.Div. I went to another state and served as a full time pastor for the first time. While in the interview process I discovered something that I had never seen before in their constitution and by-laws. This particular church required that individuals must be 18 years old before they could join as church members. I thought it was odd, and I expressed my disagreement with such an idea, but I agreed to go along with it in hopes that it would change after I had taught what I believed the Bible says about church membership. In God's providence, I wasn't at the church long enough to lead that kind of change, and I really never thought of the issue again . . . until yesterday.

Yesterday I visited a baptismal service at one of the mega-churches in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The church was not a "Baptist" church, but it did hold to baptism of believers alone by immersion. As I looked over the bulletin, I noticed on the back it gave the church's requirements for membership. The statement included the same requirement for membership that I had seen before. A candidate for membership must be 18 years of age before being considered for membership.

Upon seeing this statement, my mind began racing to think of all the reasons why I disagree with such a position. I think that I will list these reasons in case anyone else that reads this runs into a similar situation. However, I must admit many of the reasons overlap and run together.

1. This just seems to be a business understanding of how to conduct church life, rather than a biblical one. Nowhere in the Bible does it give us any warrant to withhold church membership to someone because they are a "minor." I can understand that the motivation may be good. This policy may be in place in order to keep decision making in the hands of those who have the maturity to understand what is involved in many areas of the business of a local church. Or, it may be in place in order to prevent manipulation when it comes to church votes. However, at the root, it is an arbitrary age that depends more on business than the Bible.

2. Membership in a local church ought to be closely tied to baptism. If a church does not believe that individuals under 18 years old are competent to be church members, then they ought to withhold baptism as well. I'm not advocating withholding baptism, but rather, I'm just showing what should be the logical implications of a policy like this one.

3. If membership is reserved to those over 18 then there is no biblical recourse to follow when church discipline is needed for those who are younger. Matthew 18 and the Corinthian letters give us clear instructions on how and why to practice church discipline. But if we do not recognize baptized believing children as members, we have no biblical recourse to follow when a professed believing child falls into unrepentant sin. It may be that this is one of the reasons for such a policy. In our society it would be shocking to think of practicing church discipline on a child. However, in my mind, if someone is old enough to give credible evidence of conversion and to follow the Lord in baptism, then they ought to be held accountable just as any other church member.

4. The policy goes against a biblical view of what church membership is about. Church membership is the covenanting together of a body of believers to worship together, agreeing to hold one another accountable in the pursuit of following Christ. Such a policy excludes from membership many of those who need this accountability.

Conclusion

I must admit that there is a dual danger. On the one hand, we must be vigilant to make sure that those who we baptize are of an age that they are competent to understand and embrace the gospel. I do not want to advocate infant baptism by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, I see no biblical warrant to withhold the benefits of church membership from any baptized believing person--so long as they are not under discipline.

Off the top of my head that is about all of the reasons I can think of. Anyone reading is welcome to add reasons, or to challenge the reasons that I gave.

My Position on Women in Ministry and a Biblical Justification

2008-07-21T14:22:00.000-06:00

I recently had an interview with a church where I was asked what my position was on women in ministry. I answered with what I thought to be biblical, though I knew that it would be an unpopular answer. I tried to be gracious and loving, yet I do not thing that I could avoid offending some that were in the room. Later, someone who I love very much and who loves me very much asked me how the interview went, and they were shocked to find out what my position was. So I thought it would be good to post on my blog what my answer to that question is.

My Position

The first thing that I must say is that I believe that there are countless opportunities for women to minister in the church in a biblical way. I believe that the Bible permits women to serve in just about any serving capacity that you can find within the church. Teaching children, teaching women, hospitality, and even counseling other women are all biblical ways that women can serve. However, I do believe that the New Testament gives a limitation when it comes to certain things—that is, teaching or exercising authority over a man. Basically, I do not believe that the Bible permits a woman to be a pastor, or an elder. I also believe that in regard to Sunday School or other discipleship classes within the church a woman should not be put in a position of teaching or exercising authority over men. There are those that take offense to that saying, “why do you think that I can only teach other women and children?” However, I don’t believe that teaching women and children is any kind of put down. That kind of ministry is vitally important and of great value to the church and to the kingdom of God—it should never be looked down on as if it were subordinate to the teaching of men.

Biblical Justification

Brace yourselves. To modern and post-modern ears that have been thoroughly saturated with the feminism of our day, the biblical text that I’m about to quote is quite possibly one of the most offensive passages in the Bible. I must remind you that this is a direct quote and it is not my own words. This is what Paul said to Timothy:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
(1Ti 2:11-15)

What are we supposed to do with a Scripture text like this? There are really only three options available:
1) You could say that Paul is saying exactly what it sounds like Paul is saying—that women are not aloud to teach or exercise authority over a man—but that we know better now and that Paul was wrong. This is often the tactic that liberals will try to take. After all, to a liberal, the Bible is a human document where men wrote about their experience with God. If our experience with God is different then the Bible must be outdated. However, I don’t think that this position could be accepted by those who want to accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Those who want to allow women to teach men in the church today, but who still hold that the Bible is authoritative will usually go with option number two below.
2) You could say that this passage in 1 Timothy doesn’t really mean what it says. Commonly they way that this works out is there will be the explanation that Paul was dealing with a church that had some women that were being disruptive, so he was writing to correct that specific error. Since we don’t have that problem today, then what Paul said must not apply to us. I think that the problem with this is that nowhere in the text does it ever tell us that the church was having that kind of problem. This solution is merely a conjecture. Modern interpreters have accepted that we know that it is perfectly ok for a woman to teach men, so they read back into the text a hypothetical situation in order to get around the plain meaning of the text. Another way of saying exactly the same thing is that Paul’s situation was culturally conditioned. According to this view, there were cultural reasons in Paul’s day for why he said what he said. However, this is problematic because Paul actually gives his reasons for saying it in the next verses. He does not name anything to do with culture but he grounds his teaching in the created order, and in the order of the Fall. This is extremely unpopular and offensive to modern ears. We just don’t argue this way anymore, but this is what Paul said, and I believe that he was inspired by God and inerrant when he wrote those words. Therefore, I believe that option number three is the most tenable option available if we want to be faithful to Scripture.
3) Paul meant exactly what he said, and that is still authoritative and binding for the church today. Therefore, any role within the church that consists in teaching or exercising authority over men ought to be limited to men only.

Conclusion

At the heart of this issue is not a chauvinistic agenda to keep women in their place, and it is not about who can teach a mixed Sunday School class. The heart of the issue is the authority of the Bible. If I didn’t believe that the authority of the Bible was at stake I would drop the issue and I wouldn’t care at all. But at the heart, I don’t think we can get away from the fact that we have a clear statement in the Bible about the issue. If we want to go along with our culture into the blurring of gender roles so that there are no distinctions, then we have to follow one of the two first options I gave. Either we must say the Bible is wrong, or we try to find some explanation of why we don’t have to obey this clear command.

I know that my position is unpopular, and I know that I’m at disagreement with some of the people who have always been closest to me throughout my entire life. However, in order to be faithful to the Bible and to my Lord Jesus who inspired those words, I must submit to him and not to social, traditional, or even familial pressures.

They Don't Speak for Me: Part II (revised)

2008-07-18T21:24:00.005-06:00

3. Calvinism Makes People Into Robots.

This too is an unfair straw-man mis-characterization of Calvinism. No true Calvinist believes such nonsense. The most common explanation that I know of for human freedom given by Calvinists such as myself is what is called "Compatiblist Freedom." Basically, it means that man makes real free choices and God is sovereignly in control of all things and that those two truths do not conflict with one another. There are two common examples of this truth: 1)Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers and at the end of the Joseph story it says that though his brothers meant it for evil, God meant it for good. The brothers made real choices that they were responsible for yet God was the one who sent Joseph ahead for the salvation of many people. 2)The book of acts says that Jesus was crucified by wicked men but that they were carrying out what God had determined would happen. The men who crucified Jesus were making real choices and were accountable for them, but they were ultimately doing what God had planned.

This may be a hard thing to understand, but I believe that it is what the Bible teaches, and the Bible doesn't seem to teach that the two contradict one another.

More on Calvinism to come.

ADDITION: I will add one other example of this truth that is very important in regaurd to the authority of the Bible. I belive in that God breathed the very words of Scripture. If the human authors of Scripture had complete and total freedom, then we can have no confidence that the Bible says what God wanted it to. A veiew that sees God as the ultimate cause of human actions is vital to our being able to say that the Bible is God's Word--otherwise all we have is man writing about his experiences with God.

They Don't Speak for Me

2008-07-11T16:41:00.003-06:00

I've written before on this blog concerning the "issue" of Calvinism in the SBC, and I think my views are fairly clear. However, in the interest of being clear, I want to address a few things that are commonly assumed about Calvinists that do not describe what I believe.

1. Evangelism is unimportant since God has already chosen who will be saved.
I hold to a form of evangelical Calvinism that was held to by Baptists such as William Carey and Adoniram Judson. Carey is considered the father of the modern missionary movement. It is just not based in history to think that Calvinism is either anti-missionary or lacks zeal in evangelism.

Rather, I believe that God ordains both the "ends" and the "means" in salvation. He not only has ordained to save each person who will be saved, but he has also ordained the means by which they will be saved--the preaching of the gospel. The fact is that the lost world is dieing and going to Hell, and the only hope that they have is that they hear us preach the Gospel and believe. We don't know who is going to respond and who isn't, but if we don't preach lost sinners will die and their blood will be on our hands.

2. Calvinism is for Presbyterians

This is also not true. Baptists have had two streams from almost the beginning of the English speaking Baptist movement--General and Particular Baptists. Among the English Baptists most of the General Baptists fell into heresies such as Arianism--denying that Jesus was God. The Particular Baptists were the more enduring form which American and Southern Baptists trace their roots. The Particular Baptist confession that was most held to was the 2nd London Confession of 1689. This was brought to America as the Philadelphia Confession, and it was probably the most common confession of Baptists both North and South before the New Hampshire confession was written. This confession is a clearly evangelical Calvinistic document--which has been widely (though not uniformly) embraced by Baptists for over 300 years.

To calm any fears of a form of Presbyterian church government, I will say that I stand with the traditional Baptist church government of "congregationalism." I believe that it is taught in the Bible and I have written a lengthy paper defending this view in a previous post. To make it short and clear--I believe that the hightest authority for making decisions for any local church is the gathered congregation. No outside man made body can impose it's will against the will of the congregation, and no elder or church officer can be given the authority that belongs only to the gathered congregation. A gathered local church of Christ is ruled by Christ through the Biblie and by no other human authority.

I have more to say about this issue, but my time runs short. I will post again soon with some more common misconceptions about Calvinism in Baptist life.

Video: This Too Shall Be Made Right

2008-07-11T09:44:00.005-06:00

Found this video on Saidatsouthern.com. It's an unofficial video of Derek Webb's song, "This Too Shall Be Made Right."

Video: John Piper at T4G08

2008-06-02T12:53:00.000-06:00

A Biblical, Theological, and Practical Argument for Congregational Polity

2008-05-08T07:21:00.002-06:00

This is my paper for the Ecclesiology course that I took with Dr. Patterson this Spring:

This paper will argue that congregational church government is revealed in the Bible, is theologically consistent, and is practical for implementation in the local church today. That is, the Bible teaches that the highest ecclesiastical authority on this earth is the local church, and that the authority of the local church is seated in the congregation as a whole. This thesis has been argued before by many Baptists of the past, as well as others in the Free Church tradition. In fact, it is not likely that any new ground will be covered in this paper, yet it is an important argument to be made. It needs to be heard again today.

The conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention has brought about many wonderful results. One of these results has been a reinvigorated widespread sense of urgency for biblical fidelity. Along with this urgency has been a renewed interest in ecclesiology. This can be seen in the many conversations about Baptist identity, in the emphasis at the seminary level on Baptist distinctives, as well as in the ministry of the Center for Church Reform based out of Capital Hill Baptist Church. Mark Dever has labored there to encourage theological reform and the recovery of an authentic Baptist (and biblical) polity.

However, even with this renewed interest in historic Baptist polity, some “Baptist” churches have had doubts about the practice of congregational church government. Some have seen abuses of congregational authority and reject it on that basis. Others dismiss congregationalism as the effect that American pragmatic philosophy has produced in church life. However, it is almost humorous to think that authority for making decisions resting in a large collective group could be considered practical. It would seem that authority resting in the hands of just a few would be much more pragmatic. Such critics of congregationalism within Baptist life have maintained the practice of believer’s baptism and have striven for regenerate church membership, yet making a break with historic Baptist polity they opt for what might be called “elder rule.” John Hammett comments that “To a pastor who feels his congregation is obstructing his attempts to lead them in godly ways, elder rule might be very appealing.”[1] Such a church might still be considered congregational in the sense that it is independent of outside ecclesiastical authority; however, they reject that church authority is seated in the whole congregation. In such churches, the elders make the final decisions, and they are responsible for maintaining membership and discipline. This paper will argue that this understanding of church government (which may even be called semi-Presbyterianism) is deficient.[2]

The scope of this paper will be limited to the issue of congregational authority. Some congregationalists maintain that the Bible also mandates that a plurality of elders should lead, while others maintain that there is a general pattern of leadership by a single elder or pastor. This debate is outside of the scope of this paper. The more important concern for this paper is the seat of authority—not the structure of leadership. Though there is a pattern of plural leadership that seems evident, there is no explicit command in Scripture concerning the number of leaders that a congregation should have. However, this paper will argue that there is an explicit biblical command for local congregations to exercise congregational authority, and any form of church government which circumvents this command by delegation is in conflict with a Scriptural command.

There is also a terminology confusion that must be addressed here. This paper will not be able to fix the confusion that exists, but hopefully anyone who reads it will at least understand what is meant in this argument. By “elder rule,” this paper means a form of church government where elders make the final decisions, with or without the wisdom of congregational input. By “elder led” this paper means a form of government that has a plurality of elders, yet the final decisions are still made by the congregation jointly. The issue at hand is where authority is seated—in the elders, or in the congregation.

Biblical Basis

Congregational church government is the pattern revealed in the Bible and as such ought to be implemented today in churches that desire to pattern themselves after the New Testament churches. The texts used to argue for congregationalism have been well worn. This paper will use the same texts that are always used in this endeavor and will seek to gain insight from other able interpreters.

The idea that congregational church government is taught in the New Testament is not beyond being contested. Those who practice Presbyterianism and Episcopal forms of government would clearly reject that. Presbyterians would argue that the Bible teaches elder rule and connectionalism. Episcopalians and Catholics would likely argue that the Bible is ambiguous about church government. Over a period of years, God led the church to establish a hierarchical structure. In fact, Peter Toon argues that “the modern Anglican . . . does not see any blueprint for the polity and government of the church written in Scripture.”[3] Toon basis almost his entire argument for Episcopal government on church history and his claim that God divinely guided the early church to adopt that model. In contrast, Baptists have historically believed that congregationalism is a revealed doctrine. As noted by Baptist historian Gregory Wills, “They held authority immediately from Christ and administered it according to the pattern revealed in scripture.”[4]

Discipline Texts

The texts most commonly used to argue for congregationalism by 18^th and 19^th century Baptists were Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, and 2 Corinthians 2:6.[5] These texts all treat the issue of church discipline. The biblical pattern for discipline demonstrated to earlier Baptists that congregational church government is biblical.

First, in Matthew 18 Jesus gives his disciples instructions for dealing with a brother in error:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 18:15-18).[6]

The key phrase here is “tell it to the church.” This is only one of two places in the gospels that the word ekklhsia occurs.[7] According to Jesus’ command, if the brother in error does not repent, the final redemptive measure is to bring it before the church. As Craig Blomberg has stated,

Ultimately, if the sinner remains recalcitrant, the entire church community must in some sense be made aware of the offense so that the rebellious individual has nowhere to hide. If even this procedure fails to bring repentance, then as a last resort Jesus commands the entire community to dissociate itself from the individual.[8]

Church discipline cannot be done in a corner. It is presumption to think that this practice can be delegated to anyone other than who Jesus specified.

In a government where authority resides in elders, the authority to discipline does not reside in the members jointly, but it is delegated to another. This kind of delegation may have good intentions. It may be motivated by a desire to prevent a scandal for the church. Yet, this clearly violates the pattern that Jesus commanded. Even a good motivation is not a warrant to abandon the command of Jesus in regard to discipline. Samuel Waldron makes this argument against Presbyterianism:

[Presbyterians believe] that the board of elders of a church legally and representatively is that church. Their decisions, therefore, constitute the decisions of the church. The consent of the church is not necessary to confirm or consent to such decisions, because the church has already given its consent in the decision of their representatives, the elders. . . . [M]atters of church membership and discipline may be decided by the elders alone. They are the church representatively in this matter. No vote of the assembled church membership is necessary.[9]

Waldron argues that this delegation of discipline has no biblical basis, is purely arbitrary, and actually contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Nineteenth century Baptist churchman, J. M. Pendleton, affirms the same thing: “the power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated.”[10] The other church discipline texts demonstrate the congregation’s authority to discipline even more clearly.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives directions to the Corinthian church to expel an immoral man who claimed to be a believer:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you” (1Cor 5:9-13).

The first observation is that this letter, like most of the Pauline letters, is addressed to the whole church at Corinth. This is probably the plainest evidence that exists. Almost all of the Pauline letters were addressed to churches. In addition to discipline, Paul “saw doctrinal purity as a congregational responsibility.”[11] Paul does not delegate obedience in the matter of discipline to any other body, but it is to be the action of the whole congregation jointly. Specifically, the last sentence says “Purge the evil person from among you.” Paul, in no uncertain terms commands the whole congregation to perform this action. Richard B. Hays observes that Paul did not scold the immoral man or woman involved in the sin, but the whole congregation for being complicit.[12] Hays states, “The Corinthians are to gather as a community and take solemn action to exclude the incestuous man from the church.”[13] Responsibility for action lies with the gathered congregation.

Second Corinthians gives the most significant evidence for this joint authority for discipline. When it appears that the immoral man from 1 Corinthians has repented, Paul gives instructions for his readmission to fellowship. In this instruction he states, “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough” (2Cor 2:6). This text begs the question, “majority of what?” The command to discipline in the first letter was given to the church as a whole. There was no direction for the elders to expel the man. Therefore, this text seems to indicate that the decision to discipline was made by a majority vote of the gathered congregation. However, Ernest Best rejects that this text indicates a majority vote. Rather Best argues that, “All the word signifies is that there was no serious opposition to the decision.”[14] Whether a formal vote was taken may not be knowable. It is clear that the action was taken by the whole congregation—not a committee. However, the idea of a congregational vote should not be thrown out. The concept of a majority lends itself to this idea. Margret Thrall states,

It may simply be that Paul had been informed of the taking of a congregational vote, which had resulted in support for the line he had urged (or demanded?) in his letter. If so, the phrase uJpo twn pleionwn may have come naturally to mind, without any emphasis on those who might have dissented from the decision, whether they supported a harsher sentence or a more lenient one.[15]

David Garland concurs that a congregational vote may possibly be what the term “majority” refers to here.[16] A majority implies an identifiable body from which the opinion is discerned. This may or may not imply dissent, but it does imply that the will of the whole congregation was clear.

Not only does this support that the authority for discipline resides in the congregation jointly, but it also supports the mere concept of church membership. Since church membership is not directly mentioned in the Bible, some might question the practice of keeping track of any membership role at all. However, this text clearly shows that the church of Corinth had some means of recognizing who they considered a part of their local body. It also indicates that they had some means of knowing the majority opinion on matters of membership and discipline. Whether they collected ballots, raised hands, or merely voice voted with a resounding “amen” may be in question, but clearly some means of voting must have been in place.

The clearest evidence for congregational authority is found in the fact that the New Testament congregations had the authority to maintain their own membership and discipline. This was held by such a notable Baptist theologian as John L. Dagg who said, “Each church for itself has the responsibility of admitting to its own membership. A single church may exclude from its own fellowship, as in the case of the incestuous member excommunicated by the church at Corinth; and the power to exclude implies the power to admit. The pastor has not the power; nor is it possessed by any ecclesiastical judicatory except the church itself.”[17] Mark Dever similarly sums up the common argument given by Baptists for congregationalism based on church discipline as follows:

Advocates of Congregationalism understand that the Bible teaches the local congregation is ultimately responsible for its discipline and doctrine. Disputes between members (Matt. 18:15-17), as well as matters of doctrine (Gal. 1:8; 2 Tim. 4:3), church discipline (1 Cor. 5), and membership, (2 Cor. 2:6-8), are all recognized as congregational matters. No other authority may obtrude itself into the position of giving final correction to the congregation or overruling them on such matters. Nor may the congregation delegate this authority to an elder or bishop or any other structure, thereby deferring their own accountability before God for doctrine or discipline.[18]

Baptists of the past clearly saw that the Bible teaches that congregations jointly held the responsibility for maintaining membership and discipline. The preceding biblical texts establish that the churches bear this responsibility with a reasonable measure of certainty. As J. M. Pendleton argued, “if the New Testament churches had the power and the right to receive, exclude, and restore members, they must have had the right to transact any other business coming before them. There surely can be nothing more vital to the interests of a church than the reception, exclusion, and restoration of members.”[19] The evidence already given in regard to church discipline has already made a sufficient case for congregational government, but this is not the only data available.

Selection and Commissioning of Leaders

Another biblical evidence for congregationalism is the indication within the biblical text that congregations called their own leaders. In Acts 6, the apostles called on the congregation to select from among themselves men to serve. Taking care of the physical needs of the church was distracting the apostles from the important work of preaching and prayer. This text has often been cited as the origin of the office of deacon, but it is not necessarily so. Whether it refers to deacons or not is irrelevant to the point that is at issue here. What is important is that they were selected by the congregation. The text says: “And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.’ And what they said pleased the whole gathering” (Acts 6:2-5). Here the apostles addressed “the full number of the disciples.” That would most likely be all the believers or the whole congregation. New Testament scholar John Polhill comments, “Even though the Hellenists had the main grievance, the problem involved the entire congregation; and the apostles wanted total participation.”[20] The congregation is told to select men “from among” themselves. The congregation had a role in selecting their own officers. Finally, the process culminates when the text states that it “pleased the whole gathering.” If anyone had the authority to mandate a decision it would have been the apostles, yet Scripture records the important note that the consent of the congregation was gained before moving forward. Polhill also states, “It is important to note that the congregation made the selection. The apostles assumed the leadership in making the proposal, but they left final approval to congregational decision.”[21] Was this a vote similar to modern methods of ballot taking? That is unknown, and probably irrelevant. Luke’s account just indicates that consent of the congregation was given in some fashion.

Related evidence comes from Acts 13 where it records the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas. John Hammett states that “it seems that the church was involved in commissioning Paul and Barnabas to their work as missionaries, and upon their return, Paul and Barnabas reported to the church (Acts 14:27).”[22]

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off (Acts 13:1-3).

John Polhill comments that “In v. 2 ‘they’ likely refers to the entire Antioch congregation gathered for worship.” Then he states that “It is not clear who laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, whether the other prophet-teachers, the elders of the church . . . or the whole congregation.” It is possible that it was a smaller group who laid their hands on the two missionaries; however, in contrast to an ordination by elders, Polhill continues, “The gesture was more a symbol of the congregation’s endorsing the work of the two.”[23]

The final biblical evidence considered here will be from the counsel of Jerusalem, which is often pointed to by others to advocate connectionalism. At the counsel the apostles and the elders of the Jerusalem church met to seek the Lord’s direction on how to handle Gentile converts. Upon reaching a decision the text states, “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22). When the apostles spoke, it was affirmed by the congregation. C. K. Barrett says that the Jerusalem church was virtually the only church represented: “Here they meet sun oJlh th ejkklhsia, the whole body of Christians, that is, of the Jerusalem church; the church of Antioch had sent only a small delegation (15.2), and no other church seems to have been represented.”[24] According to T. C. Smith, “The opinion of James was judicious enough for the concurrence of the assembly. It seems that the final decision rested with the general assembly of the church in Jerusalem.”[25] It is evident from the text that “the church was involved in the discussion (vv. 4, 12) and decision (v. 22) of the group there.”[26] From this involvement an argument can be made for congregational authority.

The fact that churches are to call their own leaders has been recognized among Baptists from the beginning an is reflected in the 2^nd London Confession which states, “The way appointed by Christ for the Calling of any person, fitted, and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the Office of Bishop, or Elder, in a Church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself.”[27] If early Baptists saw this principle as important enough to include it in a confession of faith it could not have been seen as a pragmatic approach but as a command of Christ.

Theological Arguments

This section will discuss the doctrines of the “priesthood of believers,” “regenerate membership,” and the kingship of Christ over his church. Each of these doctrines has implications for congregational government.

Priesthood of Believers

The priesthood of believers has been advocated by Protestants, including Martin Luther and others, since the reformation.[28] However, it is an often misunderstood and abused doctrine. It has been used by some to argue against any kind of theological or moral accountability within the church. If someone believes something heretical, or practices some kind of immoral behavior, they may seek to justify what they believe and to avoid church discipline by invoking the doctrine of the “priesthood of believers.” They claim that because of this doctrine, Christians ought not to judge one another in these matters. This was a major claim of moderates during the conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. Gregory Wills claims,

Throughout the twentieth century, [Southern Baptists] had placed the ideas of soul liberty and the priesthood of the believer near the center of Baptist theology. These doctrines, many Baptists urged, established the inviolable character of the individual conscience in matters spiritual: No person had a right to sit in judgment of another’s religious convictions. They meant that each person was free to embrace Christianity according to individual judgment and that churches and denominational organizations should tolerate those diverse judgments.[29]

However, the “priesthood of believers” is not a doctrine releasing people from accountability—in fact, the opposite is true. The priesthood of believers is a doctrine of responsibility.

This doctrine basically means two things. First, believers need no human mediator apart from Jesus Christ in order to be in right relationship with God. Jesus is the one mediator between God and man, and no other is needed—believers can go directly to him. There is no need for the priestly system or confession to priests of the Roman Catholic Church. Second, believers are all priests. Therefore, the “kingdom of priests” that Christ has redeemed is to act as priests in interceding for the lost world and in holding one another accountable. It takes no special ordination or spiritual power in order to hold fellow believers accountable—all it takes is the brotherhood involved in the New Testament church. In summary, the “priesthood of believers” means that believers have access to God directly through Christ, and that all believers are priests to one another and to the lost world.

If all believers are Spirit indwelled and have been given this responsibility of priesthood, then it logically follows that the basic unit of local Christian community, the Church, is collectively responsible and competent to make decisions. This doctrine is evidence that all believers in the community are equal and together they equally bear the responsibility for governing the decisions of the church. John Hammett states that “The priesthood of all believers is seen by many as the strongest support for congregational government.”[30]

It is true that “each individual believer is also fallible.”[31] It is not probable that every decision of the congregation will be unanimous. It is probably the case that sometimes the majority of the congregation may be wrong. This is probably why many have chosen to abandon congregational government. However, in spite of human fallibility, the whole congregation is still held accountable for what goes on in the church. Not only will leaders be judged when a church abandons the gospel, but the whole congregation will be held accountable. This responsibility for a congregation will not be avoided by a claim that they merely followed the directions of their leaders.

Regenerate Church Membership

A commitment to regenerate church membership is why congregational government actually works best in Baptist settings. Though other denominations may have believed in only admitting members who had experienced conversion,[32] Baptists have been the most consistent in this principle. Baptists have historically sought to maintain regenerate church membership by baptizing only those who have given a credible profession of faith. The more closely the membership of the church resembles those who are actually regenerate, the less likely it is that the church will move in sinful directions. However, even in Baptist life, regenerate church membership has not always been guarded closely.

It is obvious that in a setting where regenerate membership is not emphasized and not implemented, congregationalism will have problems. If many or most of the members of a congregation are lost persons, there is no reason to expect that congregational decisions will in any sense resemble the revealed will of God. It is reasonable to assume that those who have abandoned congregationalism in Baptist life have done so because they have seen examples of churches run by the decisions of lost people. This is a legitimate criticism of congregational government; however, if congregation is biblical, its weakness is not a good reason for abandoning it. Rather than abandoning congregational government, Baptist churches need to reemphasize regenerate membership and church discipline. In the past, Baptist churches had been so committed to this principle that they were called bigots by other denominations. Though this is not a pleasant thing, within it was a “hidden complement.”[33] It would be better to be called a bigot for obeying the commands of Christ, than to compromise on biblical principles and be loved by everyone.

The Kingship of Christ

The argument for congregationalism does not maintain that a local congregation is the final authority, but that it is the final human ecclesiastical authority. This is recognized in the 2^nd London Confession of Faith in the statement, “The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, in whom by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or Government of the Church, is invested in a supream [sic] & soveraigne [sic] manner, neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof,”[34] Ultimately the congregation is ruled by Christ through the instrument of his Word. No man can usurp Christ’s authority. Paul said to the church of Colossi, “And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent” (Col. 1:18), and to the church at Ephesus, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (Eph 5:23). No congregation is free to make any decision which is in conflict with the commands of Christ the king and head of the church.

This has been understood and taught among Southern Baptist from at least the time of its founders. William B. Johnson, the first president of the S. B. C., argued as follows: “Each church as an independent body, so far as the control of any other body on earth is regarded, acts freely. To Christ, her only Head, Lawgiver and Ruler, is she accountable; no other authority may exercise any control over her. For her government, Christ has enacted a perfect code of laws for every possible case.”[35] The church, each individual congregation, is immediately held accountable to Christ.

This fact is relevant in the argument for congregational government because if the authority of the church is seated in any delegated authority, then there is an intermediary authority between Christ and his church. Such an intermediary authority is absent from scripture. Introducing intermediary authorities is an act of presumption because it has not been commanded. For churches that recognize the validity of the regulative principle, congregational government ought to be the only option. Christ is the head of the church, and no one else may take his place.

Practical Arguments

A few objections to congregationalism have been mentioned that seem to be based on how unpractical it may seem. While the most convincing evidence for congregational polity should be biblical and theological, there are practical reasons to implement congregational government as well. In fact, if congregational government is biblical, and if it really is commanded by Christ, then it should be expected to be practical in maintaining the health of the church. Pragmatism is never a good test for truth because methods might give the appearance that they work, yet be in conflict with the truth. However, if something is true it should be expected to work. Such is the case with congregationalism.

Drawing from Mark Dever and James Leo Garrett Jr., John Hammett identifies three specific benefits of congregational polity. Dever argues in his work A Display of God’s Glory that one of the practical benefits of congregational polity is that it provides a safeguard against a drift toward doctrinal and spiritual decline. He states,

Friends, the verdict of history is in. While it is clear that no certain polity prevents churches from error, from declension, and from sterility, the more centralized polities seem to have a worse track record than does congregationalism in maintaining a faithful, vital, evangelical witness. (Congregationalism’s record is particularly enhanced in the case when the purity and visibility of the church is protected through a biblical practice of believer baptism and a rejection of infant baptism.) The papacy has wrought havoc on self-confessed Christians. Bishops have hardly done better. Even assemblies, conferences, presbyteries, synods and sessions, when they have moved from being advisors to being rulers, have overstepped their scripturally-warranted authority and have brought more trouble than help.

Could it be that the gospel itself is so simple and clear, and the relationship that we have with God by the Holy Spirit’s action in giving us the new birth is so real that the collection of those who believe the gospel and who know God are simply the best guardians of that gospel?[36]

Dever raises a significant point. The conservative resurgence in the S. B. C. would have been impossible in a setting where authority resides at the top of the structure. Hammett comments, “The power that changed the course of the Southern Baptist Convention was the power of thousands of grassroots Baptists. They were mobilized and directed by very able leaders, but the determining factor was the actions of thousands of average believers.”[37]

This works on the denominational level, and it ought to work on the level of the local church as well. If a pastor is preaching heresy or living an immoral lifestyle, under congregational government the church can vote to remove that man. However, if the authority resides in the elders, either the church will suffer along until the man resigns or is removed by the other elders if they are willing and able to do so, or the members just leave and let go of any investment that they had in that church.

Dever also argues that in some sense all churches are congregational: “Every local congregation in Christendom, from Greek Orthodox to Pentacostal, from Roman Catholic to Baptist, from Episcopalian to Lutheran, from Presbyterian to Methodist, is congregational in nature. They only exist as the people continue to participate in their activities.”[38] The leadership of a local congregation may have the ability to make all the decisions for the congregation, but if all the people leave, there will be no church. This is recognized by those who want to practice elder rule in Baptist life. It is simply wisdom to receive input from the congregation before making major decisions. Yet it is best if this input is more than just recognition of wise leadership principles. Given the biblical and theological basis above, the documents of a local church ought to acknowledge that final ecclesiastic authority resides in the congregation.

Hammett’s final stated benefit of congregationalism is an increased congregational loyalty. He states, “a lack of involvement and participation in discerning the direction of the church seem likely to weaken the sense of loyalty and commitment among the members of the congregation.”[39] If authority does not reside in the gathered congregation, but in the leaders, it seems that the result will be a loss of the idea that the church is the believers who gather. Instead, a top down authority structure would seem to result in spectators who “go to church,” rather than members who are the church.

Conclusion

This paper has argued on biblical and theological grounds in favor of congregational polity. An attempt has also been made to show that this structure is not only theologically correct but that it actually works in practical life. Biblical evidence is given which centers on church discipline and the selection of leaders. Theological evidence is given which uses the concepts of the priesthood of believers, regenerate church membership, and the Kingship of Christ.

If congregational government is truly the polity that is revealed in scripture then it should be expected to work, and it will benefit the health of churches. This paper is intended to be a brief articulation of this principle. It is hoped that others who may have opportunity to read this may join in advocating congregational polity and in trusting local congregations—led by the Spirit—to make the right decisions concerning whatever business that comes before them.

[1]John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel, 2005), 156.

[2]Ibid., 155.

[3]Toon, Peter, “Episcopalianism,” in Who Runs the Church? Four Views on Church Government, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 28.

[4]Gregory Wills, “The Church: Baptists and Their Churches in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life comp. Mark Dever (Washington, D. C.: Center for Church Reform, 2001), 20-21.

[5]Ibid.

[6]All Scripture quotations will be taken from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

[7] Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David Hubbard, vol. 33B (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1995), 532.

[8]Craig Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary, ed. David Dockery, vol. 22 (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992), 279.

[9]Samuel Waldron, “Plural-Elder Congregationalism,” in Who Runs the Church?, ed. Steven Cowan, 118-19.

[10]J. M. Pendleton, Baptist Church Manual (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1966), 102.

[11]John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 147.

[12]Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation, ed. James L. Mays (Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997), 82.

[13]Ibid., 83.

[14]Enest Best, Second Corinthians, Interpretation, ed. James L. Mays (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1987), 23.

[15]Margret Thrall, II Corinthians, The International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, vol. I (Edinburgh, Scottland: T & T Clark, 1994), 176.

[16]David B. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 29 (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 126.

[17]John L. Dagg, Church Order: A Treatise (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Baptist Publication Society, 1871), 268.

[18]Mark Dever, “The Church,” in Theology for the Church, ed. Danniel Akin (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadmand & Holman, 2007), 835.

[19]J. M. Pendleton, Baptist Church Manual, 107.

[20]John Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary, ed. David Dockery, vol. 26 (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992), 180.

[21]Ibid., 181.

[22]John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 148.

[23]John Polhill, Acts, 290.

[24]C. K. Barrett, Acts, The International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, vol. II (Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1998), 738.

[25]T. C. Smith, Acts-1 Corinthians, The Broadman Bible Commentary, ed. Clifton Allen, vol. 10 (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1970), 93.

[26]John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 148.

[27] William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1974), 287.

[28]John Hammett, “Human Nature,” in Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel Akin, 378.

[29] Gregory A. Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Chruch Discipline in the Baptist South 1785-1900 (New York, New York: Oxford Press, 1997), 4.

[30]John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 149.

[31]Ibid.

[32]Gregory Wills, Democratic Religion, 5.

[33]Ibid., 6.

[34]William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 286.

[35]William B. Johnson, “The Gospel Developed,” in Polity comp. Mark E. Dever, 175.

[36]Mark Dever, A Display of God's Glory (Washington, D. C.: Center for Church Reform, 2001), 38-39.

[37]John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 150.

[38]Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 225.

[39]John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 151.

The Homless and Me, Part VI (Mormon Edition)

2008-04-28T07:51:00.002-06:00

Yesterday was interesting. A couple of Mormons came to the front of the mission asking to see a resident yesterday. I let them know, as I would for anyone, that I cannot release any information about who lives at the mission--even whether the person is there or not--but that I could leave a message if they were there. When I walked away from the door, the person that they were looking for was already in the lobby and recognize that they were there for her. She went out to meet with them.

I could not just let it go at that. She was about to go out alone to face three Mormon elders, and I could not in good conscience let her go out to face these cult members by herself. I did the only thing that I knew that I could do. I asked them to find a different place than right in front of the mission--on mission property to talk. They were very defensive about this and they asked me why. Since they asked, I told them something to the effect of, "This is a Christian mission, and Mormons aren't Christians." This made them bad, and they became even more combative. The three of them started ganging up on me for a theological debate. I challenged them on what I could, but I was clearly outnumbered, and they knew Mormon theology much better than I did. I did clearly get them to admit though that they do believe that men can become gods. But with all the badgering that I was getting from the three of them, two more came up and I became outnumbered 5 to 1. Finally one of my fellow managers came and said that they needed me inside and I left. They soon left as well.

I've not been left in a situation quite like this before. I found myself to be a poor debater when it came to this type of thing--not because I was deficient in my knowledge of Christianity, but because I simply cannot think quickly enough to respond to 3 to 5 questioners at a time--and because I've not studied Mormonism itself that much. I've studied the Bible enough to know what Christian theology says, and I've been informed enough about what the differences are between Mormonism and Christianity, that I could keep my bearings and understand that what they said and the terms that they used don't mean the same things as when I use the same words.

Being in a position like that is not easy. I cannot depend on my own intellectual ability to make it through. I can only trust that Jesus will give me words to say, and that through the power of the Spirit, he can work the work that he desires to do. I pray that my encounter yesterday--as unprofitable as it may have seemed--might have results that I never see.

The Homeless and Me, Part V

2008-03-31T08:47:00.003-06:00

Last night was fun. I was promoted to a manager position starting last Wednesday, and last night I put out and banned my first resident. I had a report of some obscene behavior (the likes of which I won't even mention in this forum). I went to investigate what was going on and when I found the person in question I just asked him his name. He responded, "I'm not telling you. You have no right to question me!" I assured him that as long as he lived in the mission I could at least ask him his name. I was going to tell him that he would have to leave for the night and come back the next day and talk to a case manager--since I didn't actually see what was going on. However, he got angry and started to cuss at me. He also threatened to shoot me. I told him to leave and started to dial the police and he was gone before I finished the call. We marked his file so as not to let him back in to the facility for any reason for at least 6 months.

I love my job.

Baptism and Eternal Security

2008-03-26T07:58:00.003-06:00

A couple of years ago there was some controversy concerning alien immersion. Should a baptism administered in a church that does not affirm that a true believer cannot loose their salvation be considered valid--even if it is by immersion as a believer with no understanding that baptism in any way is salvific.

This issue was brought up in my class last night and I think I've had a change of mind. Earlier I would have accepted a baptism as valid as long as it met the other qualifications I listed above. However, Dr. Patterson described the qualification for a valid baptism is that it be administered by a New Testament church. The thing that he maintained was necessary for a New Testament church was that they be clear on salvation by grace through faith alone.

I'm not exactly sure that drawing a line at eternal security is necessarily the right place to draw a line. However, there is one thing that makes me think it is probably a good place for SBC entities to draw the line: "Perseverance of the Saints" is probably the only one of the 5 points of Calvinism that Southern Baptists can almost all agree on. If a church rejects perseverance, chances are they don't clearly teach salvation by grace alone either.

Praise God! He Gives Boldness for Evangelism

2008-02-27T08:56:00.004-06:00

The Lord did something wonderful this morning. I had two witnessing encounters this morning where God was clearly guiding me and giving me more boldness that I usually have. First, an older man eating breakfast at the shelter started talking to me about the Seminary and saying how “they don’t believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit,” and “they tell you there that the ending of the book of Mark shouldn’t be there.” Then he said, “Yeah, preachers all say that people have to believe before Jesus would heal them, but I think he heals first and then people believe.” Of course for this Calvinist, that was like saying sick’em. I told him I agreed. I said you have to be born again before you can believe. We talked about that for just a little bit, and then I said, “Are you born again.” Immediately he said no, but then backed up and said, “well I might be, I believe that Jesus died and rose again,” to which I responded, “Is he your king? Is he your Lord?” To which again he said immediately “No.” I pressed the issue of Lordship until he eventually finished eating and left the shelter. I don’t know his name. Then another guy which I have been getting to know, named David, had been listening to the conversation, and I had already agreed to give him a ride to a place that wasn’t far out of my way. So when I left I picked him up at the curve, and I didn’t even have to get the courage to say something, he started in saying that what I had said didn’t sound right to him. In a nut shell he told me that he thought that God would forgive people because of his love and that people have to obey to earn God’s favor (not in so many words). To which I clearly told him that each of us is dead in our sins, deserving hell, and we can’t do anything to save ourselves but to cast ourselves on the mercy of God trusting in the payment that Jesus secured in the Cross. Then we obey because we have a changed heart, not in order to earn God’s favor. He told me he could see how what I was saying was different, and said that he would think about it through the day. I went home and called Amy to tell her about it and as I was telling her I began to weep for joy because I don’t thing God has ever given me that kind of boldness in witnessing before, and as far as I can tell I think that I clearly communicated the Gospel faithfully and without compromise.

The Trouble with Calvinists

2008-02-22T15:30:00.005-06:00

OK. That title was a hook to get people to read this. I don't really have a problem with Calvinists. In particular, Baptist-Calvinists. In fact, I am one. I'm a genuine, convince, consistent, 5-point Baptist-Calvinist. I believe in:

Total Depravity--We are born sinners, and totally unable to do anything to save ourselves apart from God's work on us.
Unconditional Election--I believe that God chooses us not on the basis of any foreseen goodness in us, but out of His mere pleasure. He does not choose us based on our supposed advantages such as ethnic background or socioeconomic status, but rather He chooses anyone, anywhere, out of His mere pleasure.
Limited Atonement--I prefer the more accurate term "particular redemption." I believe that on the cross Jesus did more than make salvation available, but that he actually secured the salvation of everyone who would believe.
Irresistible Grace--Once again, I prefer the term "effectual calling." But I believe that God is strong enough that he overcomes any resistance that those who he chooses can put up. God speaks through His word, and spiritually dead sinners come to life and are enabled to believe. It is like a blind man who is healed by God from his blindness--there is no way on earth that the man would then resist the healing that he has just received. In the same way, when God saves a person, he reaches down to a spiritually dead, rebellious sinner, and changes his heart so that he wants to please God.
Perseverance of the Saints--I believe that all who God saves have been brought from death into eternal life and true Christians will persevere until the end.

Like I said, I am a Baptist-Calvinist. But is there something true to the title of this blog entry? Well, I purposefully titled it the "trouble with Calvinists" not with "Calvinism." I affirm all 5 points of Calvinism, but there may be trouble with some of my brethren who share this commitment with me. I will just give two things that I see as a common temptation that some (and I don't even think that this is the case with most or even a lot) Calvinists have:
1) There may be a temptation among some to break fellowship with other true believers, who have a genuine desire to be Biblical, who do not see things the same way we do.
2) There also may be a temptation for young pastors who embrace Calvinism to push too fast to change there churches--and this may end up blowing up in the face of the young pastor, as well as giving a bad taste for Calvinism to those in the church.

I must say three things in response to these two temptations:
1) These temptations are not limited to Calvinists. Some (and probably not most and maybe not even a lot) non-Calvinists are very antagonistic toward Calvinists and might push to break fellowship. Also, young non-Calvinists also have a problem some times with trying to change their church too quickly. So clearly these issues are not so much about Calvinists but about the personal temperament of the person who holds the doctrine.
2) I would encourage my Calvinist brothers to seek common ground and foster brotherly love with those who disagree on one or more points of Calvinism but who clearly desire to follow the Bible.
3) I also encourage my Calvinist brethren to be patient as you teach your people. It is highly unlikely that a young convinced Calvinists who holds to the regulative principle (as I do) and to a biblical pattern of plural-elder congregationalism (as I do) can go into a church and make any kind of progress until he first spends years and maybe even decades laboring to show his people that he loves them.

With all that said, I'm sure that I might get a few comments from both sides. I don't know what to expect. Will I get attacks--maybe, but I've spoken what I believe to be true.

God bless you all, and may He help us all to work toward preaching the biblical gospel so that we might see men and women be brought out of darkness and into His marvelous light.

ThM Progress

2008-02-15T16:48:00.002-06:00

I'm currently in my last course for my degree. I've got 7 books to read and though I'm less than a month into the class I've already finished 4. I've spoken with my Thesis supervisor about my topic, and I've got some direction for completing. I hope to have my prospectus complete by the Fall and press hard at writing to finish the thesis as quickly as possible. I plan to write about the ecclesiology of some of the early British Baptists. I'll be working first to try to narrow my thesis topic and find something significant to argue for.

The Homeless and Me, Part IV

2008-02-09T18:49:00.000-06:00

For the last week I've been recovering from the flu. I got off work on Monday morning and by the end of the day Monday I'd come down with the worst flu I've had in recent years. I went back in to work last night (Friday), and I suffered through the night. I almost thought I was the only one going to show up. One of my coworkers was late and the other one had been scheduled off to make up for a holiday that he had worked earlier. But God smiled on me. My manager was only 20 minutes late and all was fine. Nothing major happened and I was able to sit all night without much trouble--and with the help of some over the counter medication.

This is actually one of the hazards of working this job. There is a large quantity of various diseases in the homeless population that when you work in a shelter your bound to catch some. I've had a week long flu, but there is the possibility of TB, or other things that most people don't come into contact with that much.

There but for the grace of God go I.

Baptists, Blogs, and Liberty of Conscience

2008-02-04T16:48:00.001-06:00

I just finished reading a wonderful book called The Anabaptist View of the Church by Franklin H. Littell and I found it fascinating and challenging. After completing it a somewhat random thought came to mind.

I've recently heard Dr. Patterson say that posting inflammatory statements anonymously on blogs is the ultimate act of cowardice. It takes no courage at all to slander someone anonymously and is ultimately a very unchristian thing to do. I believe that he is exactly right, and to argue for this I want to mention the Anabaptists. They lived in a time when they could be persecuted, imprisoned, or even executed for saying what they believe--yet even they signed their works, knowing that they could face being burned alive or drowned. My thought is this. Yes, today a person could face legal issues, or even loosing a job for saying something on a blog, but to anyone who has a word of criticism to say about anything my suggestion is that you sign your name in honor of our Baptist and Anabaptist brethren who came before us. We live in a society today that we don't have to worry about the consequence of death for the things we say, and any consequence that we face pales in comparison to that. My suggestion is that if you have something that you want to say, but you are afraid of the consequences for saying it, just don't say anything at all, or go to the person who you have the issue with (following Matthew 18's advice). Hiding in a dark corner and throwing criticism anonymously dishonors those Baptists before us who died for their faith.

More Thoughts on Acts 29 and Missouri Baptists

2008-01-31T09:28:00.001-06:00

Don Hinkle's Dec. 20 article on the decision to defund Acts 29 churches was essentially right in his conclusion. The Missouri Baptist Convention Executive board has a right to determine how MBC affiliated churches' Cooperative Program funds are being spent. I will concede this with the understanding that the Executive Board is the elected representatives chosen by the churches, because I believe it is the only way that churches can be confident that their dollars are going to support gospel causes. But at the same time the churches also need to hold the executive board accountable and let the executive board know when their funds are not being spent in ways that they approve of. Ultimately it is the churches collectively that have the authority to tell the Executive Board what to do, and without this principle the conservative resurgence could have never happened. I'm thankful for this principle.

But there is a section that I object to in his article. He states:

The Acts 29 group and their supporters, which include a growing number of bitter moderates once in the MBC, believe the Executive Board’s action – based on the alcohol issue – is extra-biblical.

I don't think it was quite fair to lump the supporters of Acts 29 with "bitter moderates." While I'm sure that the moderates have probably jumped onto this cause because they are looking for any reason whatsoever to complain about the SBC, look at who else has been supportive of Acts 29. The Founder's ministry seems to be sympathetic to the cause and even interviewed one of the defunded church planters. Mark Dever recently spoke at an Acts 29 boot camp and stated:

Our differences are enough to separate some of my friends—your brothers and sisters in Christ—from you. And perhaps to separate them from me, now that I’m publicly speaking to you.

No one who is awake and paying attention to trends in the SBC can honestly say that the Founders or Mark Dever are people that the Moderates would be supportive of. The Moderates are just jumping on the bandwagon because it is an opportunity to criticize something in the MBC that they can get sympathy from conservatives.

As I started this post, I agree that the MBC has the right to make that decision, but I also think that individuals and churches are free to express that they disagree with the decision without being lumped into guilt by association with the Moderates. This is not a liberal conservative issue. It saddens me to see that a state convention that I'm fully supportive of in the sense that they have regained conservative control, has chosen to cut fellowship with other conservative churches.

Dr. Patterson is My Hero

2008-01-28T08:23:00.001-06:00

After 10 years of theological higher education, I'm taking what may possibly be my last classroom experience. After this semester I will be at thesis stage for my Th.M. and I'm still uncertain whether I will go on to pursue a Ph.D.

I have the privilege of having this (possibly) last class with Dr. Paige Patterson. He has been a hero of mine for nearly 10 years--since about some time during 1998. I took my very first Baptist History class at Southwest Baptist University, and we had a very brief unit on the conservative resurgence. I was interested in the topic due to my experiences as a summer missionary in Virginia (which had already at that time split into two state conventions). I heard different stories about how to explain what was going on in Baptist life at that time. Some of the people I most respected were in support of the resurgence, and most of the attitude at SBU was that it was just politics and a battle for control. It seemed to me that there must be something more to it all than that. So I decided to do my paper for the class on the resurgence and try to get to the bottom of it all.

I can't say that that paper was even very good, but the one thing that I remember about the paper is that it is where I first ran into the name Paige Patterson. Some of the sources I read said some "not very nice" things about him, yet the sources that I used that were from his actual words lead me to believe that in reality he was on my side. The arguments he made resonated with me, and it seemed that those who opposed him just wanted to criticize his methods, but they avoided talking about his theological positions. I could see that I lined up with Patterson.

As I continued my undergraduate degree I continued to learn about what had taken place in the convention--more than I could have learned from one introductory paper as a college sophomore. I became familiar with Southern Seminary and what had taken place there with Dr. Mohler. So as graduation approached I planned to go to Southern--which of course is what I did.

I loved my time at Southern. I grew so much as a person and I came to understand theology so much more clearly. While there I came to affirm the doctrines of grace, and I learned to see the importance of confessions and of historic Baptist polity. I wish everyone could experience what I did at Southern Seminary--it was some of the greatest, happiest years of my life.

Now I'm at Southwestern, and able to study under this hero of mine. I can see that if it had not been for the influence of Dr. Patterson, all the things that I love and cherish about the education I received at Southern I probably would have never experienced. Dr. Patterson can be thanked for recovering the SBC seminaries for the cause of biblical fidelity. I may not agree with every word that comes out of his mouth, and that's okay because we're Baptists, but I still wholeheartedly affirm that Dr. Patterson is my hero. I am so grateful for what he has done for Southern Baptists, and I am indebted to him for so much of the faith that I cling to. There are many out on the blogosphere that don't share my high regard for him. There are many who cannot think of any thing to say about him without criticism. However, I just wanted to take a moment to pay tribute to him and the legacy he has given to Southern Baptists. If it were not for his influence, the SBC bloggers would probably be debating an entirely different set of issues--and probably the issues that plague the other denominations (eg. Episcopal, PCUSA, United Church of Christ).

So for the sake of anyone reading my blog (which I'm sure is a very small handful of people--if even that) I just want to say, I thank God for Dr. Paige Patterson. He is my theological hero .

Be Reconciled

2008-01-26T20:56:00.000-06:00

I led the devotional at work again yesterday morning before letting our guests come in to eat. I shared from the parable of the unjust steward:

Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."
(Mat 18:21-35)

As I read Olasky before beginning the job, I found that in the earlier days of American charities one of the first steps to helping someone would be to find out if they had either family members who could take them in, or a connection to a church that could bear the responsibility for them. Today that kind of investigation seems foreign. It's like meddling in someone else's life, and it will often be received as unwelcome. I have already found that some who I have spoken to have families, they just don't get along with them--too many restrictions, or relational conflicts. So that's why I chose to speak on the unjust servant. I pressed the point that if they refuse to be reconciled to family, and hold bitterness in their hearts, it says something about where they stand with Jesus. Not that forgiving can somehow earn Christ's favor, but that when we have been forgiven our hearts should be changed such that we will forgive others. Also, I understand that this is not perfect, for we still all fall in many ways, but it should be an area where believers are convicted to submit to if there is any level of resistance present.

Cut to the Chase and Say What You Believe!!!!

2008-01-15T15:01:00.000-06:00

I have (for lack of a better term) a pet peeve about being wishy washy. I'm of the opinion that we would all be a lot better off if people would just say what they think and lay all their cards on the table (so to speak). It gets on my nerves so much for people to hem and haw around issues and never say what they really think. Or worse--to be purposefully ambiguous (for some unknown pedagogical reason). I can respect someone who I disagree with who is at least clear about what he thinks, but I'm even troubled by people who I agree with who avoid talking about issues because they don't want to raise a stink.

I think that this is how we ought to treat the gospel. We ought not merely list the scholarly options and let students take their own choice. Ministers who teach the gospel need to be advocates for what they believe that the truth is. To merely list the options and leave it to students to figure it out is irresponsible, if a teacher has real convictions about what the truth is. To be wishy washy is the same thing as advocating that the issues are just not important at all.

Therefore, anyone reading this, I don't want to sound cantankerous, but please, for the love of God and truth, speak (or write) from your convictions and stop caring so much about what people think.

Update on My Position Concerning the Missouri Baptists--Acts 29 Controversy

2008-01-14T17:17:00.000-06:00

I've thought more about this issue. I don't know if my position has changed any at all, but I've thought of just one more way to say it to clarify what I am saying. That is, I have no problem with the MBC requiring abstinence only positions from its church plants. I also have no problem with the MBC defunding specific churches who violate that commitment. What I do have a problem with is indiscriminately defunding any church plant based on their affiliation with the network. The line should not be drawn in such a way that cuts off people that the convention is actually in agreement with simply because they are members of a network with those who do not agree with the convention. I mean we are "Baptists" committed to the autonomy of local churches. Defunding the whole network seems like it cares little for this Baptist principle.

The Homeless and Me, Part III

2008-01-12T14:51:00.000-06:00

I've completed my first week. I have already learned a lot, and I've been faced with some challenges. Here are a few highlights of the week:

1) I did give the devotion on Thursday morning; however, I had been up all night, I had drank a pot of coffee, and I had an empty stomach. Needless to say, I was quite jittery and nervous. I've been that way when speaking before, but combine that with a little apprehension over the fact that I was speaking to people who so far I have very little understanding of their life situation, and I really felt like a rookie. I hope that someone could take something away from it. I think that next time I will speak from 1 Peter where it says:

Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God. (1Pe 1:22-23)

I will again speak about the love that believers have toward one another on the basis that they have been born again by imperishable seed. Thus, there is an even stronger tie that binds believers than that of blood, or other human distinctions.

2) Friday morning we were told that a woman had locked herself out of her room and she wasn't "dressed." There was only myself and the other monitor who could respond to this lockout for the next half hour and both of us are males, so we went together. Fortunately when we arrived she was in a housecoat. I'm thankful that our first report was an exaggeration.

3) Someone came to the door at about 11 p.m. on Thursday night wanting in for a place to stay. The intake for overnight stays can only be done by the caseworkers and we really had no way to let him come in. But my manager talked with him one on one and felt that it would be best if he walked him over to the men's facility. The man wasn't given a bed, but he was given a chair to sit in and a place that he was safe. Out on the street he was a victim of being "jumped on" (in his words). Just for the night we gave him a place to stay safe and warm (it was getting down to the high 30's).

4) When doing my rounds, every night there was one person sleeping in a sleeping bag right next to the fence on the mission property, on the sidewalk. It looked like the same sleeping bag every night.

5) I'm told by one of my coworkers that every resident that he knows personally has had some kind of relapse while he's been working there.

6) I'm reminded of how gracious God has been that I'm not living in a place like that.

7) I'm moved by the faces of the children--no older than my own--living there with their mothers. I don't know what situations the women who are living there come from, but I would guess that those with children have suffered from some kind of abandonment by men. This angers me. There are anonymous men who if they would just take responsibility for their children could rescue families from destitute circumstances.

These are just a few highlights of my first week. Some of the experiences, some of the feelings I've had, and some of the realities that I will see more of as I continue the work there.

The Wideness of God's Mercy

2008-01-08T16:48:00.001-06:00

Last night (or actually early this morning) my coworker who shares the same position as I do at the mission gave the devotion at the chapel before letting people in to eat breakfast. I am hoping that this means that in time I will be able to lead the devotion as well. My first preliminary thoughts on doing this are that I should do my first devotion on John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

I think it would be appropriate to emphasize the limiting statement here--"whoever believes in him." Most people when looking at this passage seem to emphasize "whoever" without the rest of the clause. The effect of that error is to make this out to be a universalistic statement. Jesus didn't just save "whoever" without any qualification whatsoever. He saves "whoever believes in him." What this does is it shows that God does not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, or even any past decisions. He discriminates (separates the sheep from the goats) on the basis of belief. Something that is totally a gift from Him anyway.

These are just a few thoughts as I'm preparing. I hope that I'm able to share it at work before too long.

The Homeless and Me, Part II

2008-01-08T08:51:00.000-06:00

Well, I just got home from my first shift working at Union Gospel Mission. It's 8:52 a.m. and I haven't slept since 6 a.m. yesterday so I may not be completely coherent. It was definitely a learning experience, though some of what I read to get ready generally gave me a good idea of what to expect. Some of the things that I didn't expect: 1) It seemed like more than half the people that I saw looked like regular people just like myself. They didn't look dirty, and they didn't act spaced out. They looked like normal everyday people that I would have worked with or known in other jobs that I've worked before. 2) Distinctions were made. They didn't just open the door for anyone to eat, and they did turn some away. I've learned from reading a book by Marvin Olasky that it is important to make these distinctions. Help will only be successful when those who you are helping want to help themselves. They have to prove that they will make an effort and not abuse the charity. Nothing was as radically extreme as what Olasky describes in the 18th and 19th centuries, but I was surprised just to see that there were some tests of worthiness being utilized at all. 3) I was not prepared for the directions that I received from every direction. I assumed that my trainer would explain all that I needed to do, but much was left to me just to pick up as I went along. I also got directions from some of the residents at the mission, as well as some stern suggestions from those who just came in off the street for the food. I learned this morning that one of the first things that will be essential for me to learn is who I can trust.

It was a very different kind of night than I've ever had before, and I'm looking forward to going back tonight to learn more. I'm pretty certain that people who saw me could tell I was pretty green--a rookie--gullible--and easy to take advantage of. They were probably right. This is the kind of thing that I need to help me to learn to be as Jesus commands us--wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

Alcohol Disclaimer

2007-12-26T13:45:00.000-06:00

I thought that this should be added to the post below:

Lest anyone think otherwise, I am a T-totaler. I voluntarily abstain from alcohol as a beverage. I have never even tasted an alcoholic beverage in my life. I am currently a student at SWBTS, and when we apply to the seminary we agree to abstain from the use of alcohol, and I abide by my agreement. However, this agreement is not what compels me to abstain from alcohol. I choose to voluntarily because I know how lacking in self-control I can tend to be some times. If I took away that self-imposed wall for myself, I am certain that I would rush headlong into drunkenness. So I choose not to even let it be an option, and by God's grace I was never exposed to it before I came to this personal decision.

My objection to the ruling of the MBC executive board is not because I think that churches should evangelize by meeting in the bars--I don't. My objection is that I don't think that total abstinence from alcohol is something that is biblically mandated--so we ought not preach that it is, and we ought not draw lines of fellowship separating from those who would hold different convictions. In my understanding, the MBC board can have whatever requirements for denominational service that they deem fit. I agree that they have the right to do what they did. I simply question the wisdom of drawing the line where it has been drawn--in a place that separates conservative, Bible believing, Bible preaching, biblically evangelistic churches from the support of the convention.

In addition, I'm very encouraged by the fact that the MBC is in the hands of conservative leadership. The Battle for the Bible in Missouri is seemingly won--and I rejoice for that. However, drawing lines excluding conservative churches from the support of the convention may give ammunition for the old leadership to throw. Yet, it is possible that they would throw this ammunition either way. My guess is that the old leadership was probably against the use of alcohol too. It's the social issues that give theological liberals a hearing when they claim that they are conservative. They can point to their record on social issues like alcohol, abortion, and homosexuality and claim to be conservative even though they don't believe the Bible--and the average church member doesn't know the difference as long as they support the Republican party. Again, this is one of the reasons why its important to take a stand where the Bible does and to not go further. If we go further we will end up eroding biblical authority and we will raise the next generation of liberals inside of Bible believing churches.

Andrew Fuller, Missouri Baptists, and Alcohol

2007-12-25T21:23:00.000-06:00

Two seemingly unrelated things are on my mind tonight—Andrew Fuller, and the Missouri Baptist Convention’s policies on alcohol. Why? Well, one of my friends from Southern Seminary, and a fellow former church member at Clifton Baptist, Kevin Larson, is one of the church planters who have been defunded by the Missouri Baptist Convention due to their affiliation with the Acts 29 church planting network. What motivated this move by the convention? The most likely candidate is the issue of alcohol. The Missouri Convention executive board is enforcing a total abstinence policy for their agency employees quite strictly. In fact, I would say they’ve gone a bit overboard. My friend Kevin has said in an interview with the Founders ministry that he abides by the total abstinence policy, and that the convention had previously approved his interpretation of their policy. But his affiliation with the Acts 29 network is what is costing the work that he is a part of their backing by the MBC. What’s the problem with Acts 29? It would seem that the problem is that they have no such abstinence only policy. Acts 29 allows churches to be affiliated where the planter has a “Christian liberty” view of the use of alcohol. What this reminds me of is the triple separationist attitude of many fundamentalists. By fundamentalists, I mean those groups who think Billy Graham is too liberal. In Graham’s 1951 New York crusade, he allowed some liberals to participate and he did not draw a line of fellowship since they desired to be a part of the crusade. On this basis of refusing to separate from liberals, Graham was lumped in with the liberals by the fundamentalists. I may not know all the details, but it seems that this is what is happening in Missouri, my friend Kevin isn’t being defunded because he disagrees with or disobeys the convention policy, but because he is a part of a church planting network who refuses to draw a line of separation over the issue of total abstinence from alcohol.

The second thing on my mind is Andrew Fuller. Why? Because my lovely wife gave me his Complete Works for Christmas. I was quite pleased and will enjoy this gift and get much profit from it. What does this have to do with the MBC? I was just curious what Fuller’s position on the use of alcohol would have been, so I checked the index and found only one reference listed for the entire 1012 page work. This reference was to drunkenness, and it was contained in his “Exposition of Genesis,” in the section about Noah after the flood. This is what Fuller had to say about Noah’s work as a vineyard keeper,

Perhaps there is no employment more free from snares. But in the most lawful occupations and enjoyments we must not reckon ourselves out of danger. It was very lawful for Noah to partake of the fruits of his labour; but Noah sinned in drinking to excess. He might not be aware of the strength of the wine, or his age might render him sooner influenced by it; at any rate we have reason to conclude, from his general character, that it was a fault in which he was “overtaken.” But let us not think lightly of the sin of drunkenness. “Who hath woe? Who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine.” Times of festivity require a double guard. Neither age nor character is any security in the hour of temptation. . . Drunkenness is a sin which involves in it the breach of the whole law, which requires love to God, our neighbor, and ourselves. The first abusing his mercies; the second as depriving those who are in want of them of necessary support, as well as setting an ill example; and the last as depriving ourselves of reason, self-government, and common decency. It also commonly leads on to other evils.[1]

Is this enough to guess what position Fuller would have held on the use of alcohol? It gives a few clues from which we can draw conclusions. First, he explicitly says that it was perfectly “lawful for Noah to partake of the fruits of his labour.” This might beg the question for some, “Was Fuller talking about wine or grape juice? Given the context of the statement this is really a silly question. In the very next sentence Fuller says that Noah, “might not be aware of the strength of the wine, or his age might render him sooner influenced by it.” Clearly, if Fuller thought that Noah’s lawful partaking of the fruits of his labor were merely to drink grape juice, then the very next statement makes no sense at all. Fuller held a biblically balanced position that condemned drunkenness as “a breach of the whole law,” yet he approved of Noah partaking in alcohol as long as it was not in excess.

One other issue comes to mind as I think about the controversy in the Missouri Baptist Convention—Biblical Authority. During the Building Bridges conference last month someone asked a question during the panel discussion that implicated Calvinists as being lax on sanctification—an implication that appeared to be rejected by both sides of the panel. The youngest member of the panel, Nathan Finn, spoke to the issue (with the assumption that the question referred to the alcohol issue) and concluded that this is not a Calvinism issue but a generational difference. I will agree with him, but I think that there is a reason for the generational difference. I will be 30 years old this March. The conservative resurgence began their unbroken streak of conservative SBC convention presidential wins the year after I was born. Many young seminary students and young pastors in my age demographic refuse to claim that drinking by itself is a sin. I would venture a guess that this refusal is an unintended consequence stemming directly from the conservative resurgence. With a return to a commitment to biblical authority, young leaders are increasingly seeing that to claim that drinking without getting drunk is a sin will erode our view of biblical authority. The Bible clearly condemns drunkenness, yet sees alcohol as a God given gift to be enjoyed as long as it is not abused. To insist on total abstinence in all situations by all Christians is to be (at the least) inconsistent with Sola Scriptura. Up and coming young Baptist leaders of a new generation are committed to biblical authority without compromise. The logical consequence of this is that graduating students who are now young pastors will reject man-made traditions that add to the Christian’s moral requirements on sub-biblical grounds. They will also return to a view held by earlier Baptists such as Andrew Fuller who condemned drunkenness, yet did not take this further than the Scriptures allowed.

[1]Andrew Fuller, “Exposition of Genesis,” in The Works of Andrew Fuller” Ed. Michael Haykin (East Peoria, IL: Banner of Truth, 2007), 364.

Merry Christmas!!

2007-12-25T08:51:00.000-06:00

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
(Isa 9:6-7)

It's Finally Over

2007-12-18T13:35:00.000-06:00

Today I turned in my last paper for the Fall semester. It was a week late. But on the bright side, I'm finished. I did get reassurance from the professor for my other class that I did very well in that class. I now await with fear and trembling the grade for the class that I finished a week late.

The Homeless and Me

2007-12-13T14:47:00.000-06:00

After I return from traveling for the Christmas holidays I will begin a new job. It's different from anything I've ever done before. I will be working for a homeless shelter.

Union Gospel Mission is the oldest Christian homeless shelter in Fort Worth. It has been open since 1888. They are supported by several churches and other organizations, and they do not receive any federal funds.

I will be working as a night monitor for the facilities beginning January 7. I'm looking forward to the new job. It will be a real change. I anticipate that it will be an eye opening experience and very rewarding. I will be working in a more tangibly ministry oriented job, and I will be heeding the voice of my savior who said that he would welcome those into heaven who fed him when he was hungry and gave him drink when he was thirsty.

My Theological Method

2007-12-07T01:48:00.000-06:00

Here's another paper I've just finished. I'll be turning it in tomorrow. (I mean today. It's 3 a.m.) The paper is on my own theological method.

It is not easy to write about one’s own theological method. As Reformed theologian Fred Klooster puts it, “Most theologians do not make a habit of explaining how they go about doing theology; they simply do it.”[1] In fact, the idea of self consciously describing how theology should be done may even be repulsive to some. Some might say, “Why can’t we just use the Bible?” The idea of sustained reflection on the nature and priority of the resources used in the theological enterprise seems to be an exercise with very little profit. An increasingly individualistic evangelical subculture wants to discard tradition, experience, and reason, and simply get alone with Jesus and His Word.

Justification for Theological Method

While getting alone with Jesus and His Word is pious, and even reflects an underlying good motive, it is too naïve for someone who wants to take seriously the scriptural charge for leaders to guard the gospel. Peter commands believers: “Take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability” (2 Pet 3:17).[2] Paul instructs Timothy: “Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching” (1 Tim 4:16); and “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us” (2 Tim 1:13-14); and “O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (1 Tim 6:20-21). He warns the Colossian church: “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col 2:8). He commanded the Ephesian elders: “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). The Lord Jesus, Himself, warned His followers to “take heed that ye be not led astray: for many shall come in my name” (Luke 21:8).

Doing theology has too high of stakes not to examine critically how it is done. Jesus and the apostle’s warning to take heed to doctrine gives today’s theologian biblical warrant to reflect on the task. Without critically examining the task, the church may be vulnerable to instability, being deceived, or even being eternally lost. Sincerity will be no excuse; not all who claim to speak for Jesus are truly faithful to what he said. The salvation of each member of a congregation is in some sense guarded by his or her pastor, and depends on his faithfulness to his office as a steward of the gospel. An unexamined method that piously rejects being tested is vulnerable to falling prey to false teaching—and may be endangering the souls of countless trusting individuals. Therefore, it is right to take the time and examine one’s method for doing theology. In fact, any theologian who desires to be faithful to Jesus must do it, lest they find themselves in front of the Lord one day hearing, “Depart from me.”

The parameters of this assignment are different from many others. Typically a seminary assignment involves a detached perspective of writing about an outside subject exclusively in the 3^rd person. In contrast, this assignment is not a dry detached exercise in parroting information about a specific outside subject—it is a critical examination of the author of the paper that is very personal. So, from this point on, I will reference myself and my own theological method in the 1^st person.

Theological Resources

What place do I give in my theological method to each of the resources of theology? Scripture, tradition, reason, culture, and experience are all used—whether conscious or not. If one’s method is not examined to see what relationship these factors have to each other, then it is inevitable that the relationship will be determined by his own whim or by seduction from some outside source. Even a critical examination does not remove one from this danger, but it does at least let the theologian know that the danger exists and that he needs to beware of it.

Scripture

My conscious effort is to make Scripture my ultimate authority. It is easy to say that Scripture is the final authority. It is not so easy to live it. Everyone who claims to be an evangelical says that the Scripture is their final authority. In fact, everyone who is a Christian at all would make the claim that Scripture is at least the final authority in matters of faith and practice. So it does not really mean anything at all just to make the affirmation that Scripture should be the final authority.

Everyone has something different in mind when they make the claim that the Bible is authoritative. However, not everyone is going to affirm that the Bible has such authority that if it says that I should pluck out my eye, then I should do it. Not everyone will agree that the Bible has the authority to tell them to sell everything and move to the Sudan. However, that is exactly what the Bible has the authority to do. If one holds to an identity thesis (that the Bible is the Word of God), then one can see what Scripture claims for itself in this regard. The Word of God commanded Jonah to preach to a wicked and violent city (Jonah 1:1). The Word of God commanded Nathan to confront a king who had already murdered one man who stood in his way (2 Sam 7:4).

The Bible has authority to tell the preacher, theologian, or prophet what to believe and what to do. This authority includes matters of theological method. For instance, Jesus spoke of the prophet Jonah saying, “The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here” (Luke 11:32). Here Jesus treats Jonah as a historical figure, who in some ways typified what Jesus would be like. If one rejects Jonah as a historical figure, then one has to say that either Jesus was ignorant of this, or he was being untruthful. If Jesus is really my Lord then I must submit myself to him in all respect, and this means my mind and even my opinions must be submitted to what he says. If Jesus treated Jonah as a historical figure, then I would be sinning against my Lord to adopt a method of doing theology that allows me to deny the historicity of Jonah.

I understand Scripture to be presenting a world that is more real than the one that I live in (though essentially it is the same world). The biblical authors accurately presented mankind and its relationship to God. If I am to consider myself a Christian at all, then I have no place to turn but to the Christian Scriptures to learn about myself, God, and how I am to relate to the rest of His creation. If it seems, because of my experience or culture, that my world is radically different than the world that Scripture presents, then it is not the Scripture that is wrong, but my perception of reality. I live in a culture that immerses me in de facto Darwinism. I do not explicitly accept this Darwinism. In fact, I wholeheartedly reject it. However, it still has a very negative impact on how I view the world—in particular how the world relates to the biblical world. I have to beware of what the author of Hebrews warned: "Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God” (Heb 3:12). Every form of media screams at me to seek my own pleasure in this short life because this life is all there is. However the Bible presents a worldview that says there is a judgment to come and a paradise to be enjoyed that far exceeds anything this world has to offer. The only way to combat the inaccurate perceptions of the world that are presented to me every day (and thus, combat unbelief) is to constantly confront myself with the biblical world in the Scripture. This too is an aspect of theological method as it relates to Scripture. I must not only see the Scriptures as the source for propositional revelation (which it is), but I must also realize that the Scriptures are the source of my own life. I do not believe that this is in any way an appropriation of existential philosophy, but simply taking seriously what the Scripture itself says: “My soul cleaveth unto the dust: Quicken thou me according to thy word” (Ps 119:25).

Tradition

In my own theological method, I have a very positive role for tradition. I am unapologetically a Baptist. In particular, I am a conservative, Calvinistic, confessional, Southern Baptist. Each of these labels reflects a tradition that I am a part of. And there are many reasons why I am not ashamed to claim these labels for myself.

I am a Baptist for many reasons. One reason is that I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church. That is where I was introduced to the gospel. That is where I came to embrace personal faith in Christ. Another reason is that I am forever indebted to the Baptist tradition. This is a tradition that has always been marginalized and even persecuted throughout Christian history. Men and women suffered imprisonment and even execution for the beliefs that have been handed down to me, and I want to honor them by taking seriously what they said. Finally, I am also a Baptist because I agree that what Baptists have traditionally taught accurately reflects biblical teaching.

I am a conservative. I understand this label as it is used in opposition to classic liberalism. I believe the Bible to be God’s inerrant, infallible, inspired, authoritative Word. I am indebted the “evangelical” movement of the 20^th century and its reaction against Protestant liberalism. Protestant liberalism accepted evolutionary views, reduced the Bible to a human document, and reduced the gospel to simple morality. I believe that the reactionary “evangelical” movement is the continuation of the orthodox Protestantism of the Reformation, which in turn is nothing less than restored biblical Christianity. Neo-orthodox theologian, Gerald T. Sheppard, objects to identifying “reactionary groups . . . as representative of the orthodox camp.”[3] While I will affirm that the fundamentalist and evangelical movements of the 20^th century are reactions to liberalism, I contend that they were right to react. Liberalism, and its antisupernaturalism, reduced Christianity to a sociological phenomenon that had very little to do with objective truth. Liberals, while desiring to contextualize the Bible and make it understandable to modern man, abandoned classical Christianity. Therefore, I am not ashamed to say that I identify myself as a conservative, and I aim to do theology within that tradition.

I am a Calvinist. Of course, as a Baptist Calvinist, I reject infant baptism, I insist on immersion as the proper mode, I believe in separation of church and state, and I believe in congregational church government.[4] However, I am a Baptist who feels perfectly comfortable affirming the 2^nd London Confession of Faith (1689), the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, or the Abstract of Principles.

I am confessional. Some would object to the idea that a Baptist could be confessional. “We have no creed but the Bible,” is the rallying cry for anti-creedal Baptists, and this statement has a long heritage in Baptist life as well. However, this statement goes against what Baptists have done in actual practice. As historian Gregory Wills states, “Baptists have adopted creeds throughout their history. They probably have adopted creeds more than any other denomination.”[5] Creeds and confessions have been understood to be a summary of Scripture truth, and have not been binding on the conscience of anyone. No one is forced to be a member of a Baptist church or to call himself a Baptist. Baptists have used creeds because they have recognized their “duty to appoint those only who will teach in accordance with Scripture truth.”[6] Confessions are a means of ensuring that the tradition held to in the church—believed to be handed down by the apostles—is handed down to future generations.

In sum, I believe that the gospel has been passed on from the apostles, through the New Testament, and received by the Church. In some periods that gospel has been understood more clearly than in others, but the fact is it has been received by us today. I have received it in the context of conservative Southern Baptist life, and I have grown to embrace the Baptist tradition, reflected in its confessional history, wholeheartedly. If I thought that Baptist confessions were unbiblical, I would leave them behind and not look back; however, I believe by conviction that what these confessions contain is nothing less than a summary of Scripture truth. Therefore, I embrace my tradition, recognizing that it is historically conditioned, yet believing it to be an accurate summary of what God has revealed in His Word.

Reason

I believe that Christianity is a reasonable faith. God has created His world in a way that is logical, orderly, and for the most part predictable. The universe functions according to a certain set of laws of nature and of logic. God is the one who has established this order and is not bound by it.

I believe it is safe to say that some things that are logically true about humans are logically true about God as well. For instance, the law of non-contradiction is a philosophical proposition that applies to God just as it does to human beings. I have made this statement before, only to be followed by a response from someone that it was arrogant to say such a thing about God. My answer to that criticism is that the charge of arrogance says only how my critic feels about what I said. It may in fact be arrogant to claim such a thing, but that says nothing about the truth or falsity of the claim which I made. Simply put, I believe what the catechism that I am teaching my children says when it answers the question “Can God do all things? God can do all His holy will.”[7] God can do anything that is not logically impossible. But he cannot cease to be God and still be God at the same time and in the same sense. He cannot make a square circle because by definition a circle does not have four corners. Making this assertion does not in any way limit God because it still affirms that God can do anything that he wants to do. What it reveals is that there are some things that we can know about the God revealed in Scripture. He has revealed Himself, and what He has revealed is trustworthy: “God is not a man, that he should lie” (Num 23:19), and “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18), and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever” (Heb 13:8). God is always truthful and He does not change His in His nature or will.

While I do believe that philosophy is necessary, in respect to the logic and order of the universe, I do not believe that Christianity can be bound to any particular philosophical system. Whether idealist or realist, Platonic or Aristotelian, Existential or Common Sense, philosophy is tainted by human finiteness and sinfulness. Rigid philosophical systems will usually end up distorting something about the world presented in the Bible in order to maintain consistency within the system. When too high of a priority is placed on philosophy, it will tend to dominate the Biblical text. The proper relationship between the Bible and philosophy must be that philosophy too, must bow the knee to the Lordship of Christ. Philosophy must be flexible enough to change, if needed, to adapt to biblical revelation.

Culture

Culture affects how I do theology in some significant ways. First of all, as an American, I am influenced by many democratic ways of thinking. The affluence of my country has affected me in ways that I could not begin to perceive. This is similar to the old saying that “a fish does not know what it means to be wet.” I am used to a certain standard of living. I am used to a particular way of life that is common to North America, but rarely found anywhere else. I do not experience the kind of persecution that believers all over the world face every day. This aspect of culture, while beneficial in many respects, gives me a disadvantage as a theologian. I could easily go through my entire life giving very little attention to what the Bible says about poverty, classism, and other forms of suffering. So, it can be very beneficial to experience cross cultural missions in order to have my eyes opened.

The Bible places a high emphasis on these types of human suffering. The Torah states: “If there be with thee a poor man, one of thy brethren, within any of thy gates in thy land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy poor brother”(Deut 15:7). The Psalmist says, “Blessed is he that considereth the poor: Jehovah will deliver him in the day of evil” (Ps 41:1). The Lord Jesus spoke of the basis of the final judgment saying,

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me (Matt 25:41-45).

Jesus thought that the attention that people give to the poor was significant—to the point of being an indicator of one’s eternal destiny.

I place this emphasis in a section on culture because this is a point that the culture which I live in is prone to overlook. Most Americans are comfortable with living the American dream. Get an education. Get a good job. Live in the suburbs with a two story house and a picket fence. Retire at sixty-five and move to Florida where you can enjoy the rest of your life a the beach. This is what my culture values—to its peril. I intend to be aware of this tendency and challenge people to embrace a biblical dream of what life should be. In my theological method, I want to challenge comfortable American Christians to give their lives away in service to Christ up to the moment of death. I want to challenge American Christians to go to hard places and be willing to suffer and die. This is an emphasis that is counter-cultural.

Experience

Experience is what has given me much internal motivation for the theological task. I was saved as a young child, and I’ve been in church all my life. I come from a traditional conservative church, so it is not hard to imagine why I have ended up where I do in other areas of method. One might say that my experience has driven me to the views that I hold on all of life—not just theological method.

Experience is important to theological method for one basic reason. The theologian does not study an exclusively outside subject as an objective observer. The theologian (if he is really a theologian at all) has an interest and a relationship with the subject of his study. The theologian’s quest is not just to know about the forces that explain the universe, but to know the infinite personal creator God who made all things from nothing. The theologian has a vested interest in his study, because he knows that accurately reflecting the truth about reality is essential not just for this life but for eternity.

For example, the theologian does not study original sin as an abstract concept but as someone who has been affected by it. He also does not study sin as a philosophical category, but as his own ultimate problem in life as a sinner. This has been my own quest in theology. I simply do not study theology in order to know more information, but to fight against my own sin and to know the One who can set it all right again—and has in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

It is hard to completely separate any of the resources from one another. Each of the resources in some way affects how I understand all of the others. The parts affect the whole, and the whole affects the parts. With that said, I strive to submit tradition, reason, culture, and experience to Scripture in a way that Scripture submits to nothing. One might say that all the other resources are bound to submit to Scripture, “but the Word of God is not bound” (2 Tim 2:9). I recognize that I am historically, philosophically, and culturally conditioned by my experience, but that is no hindrance to doing faithful theology. God is faithful, and though I am limited in my perceptions, and I will undoubtedly be wrong frequently, it is His revealing—not my grasping for Him—that needs to be trusted.

[1]Fred H. Klooster, “How Reformed Theologians ‘Do Theology’ in Today’s World,” in Doing Theology in Today’s World: Essay’s in Honor of Kenneth S. Kantzer, eds. John D. Woodbridge and Thomas E McComiskey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991), 228.

[2]All Scripture quotations are from the American Standard Version [ASV].

[3]Gerald T. Sheppard, “How Do Neoorthodox and Post-Neoorthodox Theologians Approach the ‘Doing of Theology’ Today?” in Doing Theology in Today’s World: Essay’s in Honor of Kenneth S. Kantzer, eds. John D. Woodbridge and Thomas E McComiskey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991), 440.

[4]Paige Patterson, “Happy Southern Baptists and the Tricky Track,” 1-2 [on-line]; accessed 5 December 2007; available from http://sbctoday.com/files/ trickytrack.pdf; Internet.

[5]Gregory Wills, “Baptists, the Bible, and Confessions: The Need for Statements of Faith,” The Southern Seminary Magazine, November 2000, 13.

[6] Ibid., 14.

[7]Thomas Nettles, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts: The Study of Catechisms in Baptist Life, (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 1998), 86.

Original Sin, Inherited Guilt and Baptism

2007-12-06T13:42:00.000-06:00

Here's my latest paper I've turned in on humanity. I dealt with the relationship between original sin and baptism and I argued that original sin actually provides one good argument for the believer's baptism position.

Since at least the time of Augustine of Hippo, a connection has been observed between original sin and baptism. Augustine argued for the doctrine of original sin on the basis of the fact that infants were baptized.[1] Calvin taught that through baptism the believer has assurance that “this condemnation [of original sin] has been removed and withdrawn.”[2] Charles Hodge, like Augustine, used the “universal” practice of infant baptism as an argument for original sin.[3] However, more recently this connection has been an argument used by some Baptists against original sin.

Steve Lemke, in a paper arguing against the possibility of salvation apart from conscious personal faith in Christ, argued that children under the “age of accountability” should not be considered sinners. While correct in arguing against pluralist or inclusivist notions of salvation outside of Christianity, Lemke seems to error by denying original sin. He states: “By affirming the age of accountability, Baptists deny that children are guilty upon birth, and thus deny infant baptism.”[4] It appears that Lemke claims that Baptists reject infant baptism because they reject imputed guilt. Further Lemke states, “An alternative proposal that is both more biblical and more logical considers one to be saved or lost only after the age of accountability.”[5] Here Lemke asserts that infants are not born sinners—thus it would appear from these statements that he denies original sin. Lemke’s position seems to assume that if one believes in original guilt that that logically implies the necessity of infant baptism.[6]

The argument of this paper is that the doctrine of original sin does not imply the necessity of infant baptism. Rather, only someone who holds to a sacramental view of baptism should even draw that inference. In contrast, Baptists reject the notion of baptismal regeneration—as evidenced by the Cambellite controversy.[7] If one holds that baptism is a confession of something that has already taken place rather than an efficacious act, then the doctrine of original sin cannot imply the necessity of infant baptism. If baptism has no power to wash away sin, then whether or not infants are born with guilt becomes irrelevant to the baptism question. Therefore, this paper will demonstrate 1) that the doctrine of original sin does not necessarily imply infant baptism logically, 2) that the dominant stream of Baptists has not historically rejected the doctrine of original sin, and 3) that original sin is actually more consistent with the believer baptism position.[8] These three points will sufficiently demonstrate that original sin can and should be held to by theologically consistent Baptists today.

Logical Necessity

Nothing intrinsic within the doctrine of original sin contradicts the fundamental tenants of believer baptism. In fact, neither Augustine nor Hodge framed an argument that it did. In contrast, they both argued for a different relationship between the two concepts. Both Augustine and Hodge state infant baptism as a universally accepted fact, and use that given to argue for original sin.

No Contradiction

It may be necessary at this point to define what is meant by the doctrine of original sin. Charles E. Warren does a helpful service by laying out 5 tenants of the historical doctrine:

(1) God created Adam as literally and historically the first human being in whom was the entirety of human nature and from whom the entire race descended. (2) Adam was created with original holiness, which included the potential for biological immortality. (3) Adam sinned by disobeying the commandment of God. (4) God punished Adam by afflicting him with both spiritual and biological death. (5) Adam’s altered human nature, guilty and condemned, is transmitted to every member of the human race by the process of natural generation.[9]

These doctrines contain nothing that should be a problem for the believer baptism position. The first four tenants are essentially affirmed by all Bible believing Christians and have no bearing at all on the current argument. Yet Warren’s fifth tenant is the matter of controversy which this paper will deal with.

Warren has included in his definition of original sin the concept that guilt and condemnation are now connected with human nature in such a way that all of Adam’s posterity inherits both of them by way of “natural generation.” Does this tenant imply that because of this inherited guilt and condemnation, infants must be baptized to remove their original sin? Of course, this paper will argue the negative response. Inherited guilt and corruption could only imply that infants should be baptized if a person holds that baptism has a sacramental efficacy to wash away sins.

Baptists have always rejected a view of baptism that sees it as efficacious. The Baptist Encyclopedia demonstrates this point by saying, “infants are not the friends of Christ’s kingdom, and they never will be unless they are born of the Spirit of God. Baptism has no tendency to produce a new heart, and its bestowal upon unconscious infants is a senseless and unwise abuse of a blessed ordinance intended only for the Saviour’s friends.”[10] This statement can be useful in formulating a definition of baptism from a Baptist perspective.

The definition that will be used here is: baptism is an ordinance of the church, given at the beginning of the Christian life, symbolizing an event in which a person has already been born again, declaring that the old man has died and has been buried with Christ and that the new man has risen with Christ. This definition presupposes (1) that baptism is not efficacious, but demonstrates what has already happened through the efficacious work of the Spirit of God, (2) that baptism is intended for believers, and (3) that baptism is a visual demonstration of the internal working of God in a person’s heart.

A historically consistent Baptist cannot find any contradiction between original sin and believer baptism. Because of the Baptist definition of the ordinance, such an contradiction is not permitted. To argue that inherited guilt implies infant baptism is an example of the logical fallacy of non-sequiter. Two syllogisms will demonstrate this point:

From the perspective of a Roman Catholic:

Baptism has the efficacy of a sacrament to wash away original sin.

Infants are born with original sin,

Therefore, infants should be baptized.

However, from the perspective of a Baptist:

Baptism has no efficacy in the work itself to wash away any sin.

Infants are born with original sin.

Therefore, baptism will have no affect on original sin one way or the other.

The point is, from the Baptist perspective, original guilt does absolutely nothing to promote infant baptism. Only someone who accepts that baptism has any efficacy should draw the conclusion that what Lemke says is a logical inference from inherited guilt. The argument that Lemke makes can only be sustained if one throws out what Baptists have historically believed about baptism. It is hard to believe that a Baptist, such as Lemke, could even draw such a conclusion.

Historic Argument

As was stated earlier, Augustine had argued for original sin on the basis of infant baptism—not the other way around. This traditional argument continued within paedobaptist thought. Augustine’s argument with Pelagius was over original sin. Pelagius and Augustine both baptized infants—this was not a contested practice for them. Augustine also held to a sacramental view of baptism, but this was not the emphasis of the debate. Augustine argued that if Pelagius was to be consistent with his view that infants are born innocent, then he would have to reject infant baptism as well.[11] Baptism was not the issue in question, because neither Augustine nor Pelagius wanted to give up this sacrament. Elsewhere Augustine stated that the fact that infants should be baptized is what, “the authority of the universal Church everywhere cries out.”[12] He also states, “the rule of the Church indicates” that “it includes baptized infants among the faithful.”[13] The baptism of infants was an accepted fact agreed upon by Pelagius and Augustine—it was not up for debate. Augustine used this accepted agreement to argue for original sin.

Charles Hodge used the same argument. Hodge discusses the relationship between original sin and Baptism not under the topic of Baptism, but under the topic of original sin. He argues within the paedobaptist tradition that since infants are baptized, they must be guilty. If they are guilty it could not be their own actions which have made them guilty; therefore original sin must be what has tainted them. Hodge states,

Baptism is an ordinance instituted by Christ, to signify and seal the purification of the soul, by the sprinkling of his blood, and its regeneration by the Holy Ghost. It can therefore be properly administered only to those who are in a state of guilt and pollution. It is, however, administered to infants, and therefore infants are assumed to need pardon and sanctification. This is the argument which Pelagius and his followers, more than all others, found it most difficult to answer. They could not deny the import of the rite. They could not deny that it was properly administered to infants, and yet they refused to admit the unavoidable conclusion, that infants are born in sin.[14]

Here is another paedobaptist arguing from the accepted practice of infant baptism that original sin must be a necessary implication. According to Dale Moody, this method of arguing for original sin from the accepted fact of infant baptism dates back to the time of Origen.[15] In sum, the argument that original sin necessitates infant baptism turns what has been historically argued by paedobaptists on its head.

Baptist History

Original Sin has been accepted historically by Baptists. This is demonstrated by Baptist statements of faith, as well as from the writings of Baptist theologians. Each of these lines of evidence will show that the dominant stream within Baptist life has historically held to original sin—including original guilt.

Confessions

The 2^nd London Confession was the most enduringly popular confession used among Baptists in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. New confessions during this period were usually considered based upon this one.[16] In the statement on the “Fall of Man, of sin, and the Punishment thereof” it states, “They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind; the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath.”[17] This Baptist confession explicitly states that guilt is imputed, along with corruption. Clearly the British Particular Baptists (as well as American Baptists subscribing to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith which was essentially the same confession) must have had no problem reconciling the doctrine of original sin with believer Baptism.

The Abstract of Principles was the first Southern Baptist confession of faith and was part of the charter for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. All professors of the institution, even to this day, are required to pledge to “teach in accordance with, and not contrary to the Abstract of Principles.”[18] In this document, the article on the Fall states that man “fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.”[19] Here again, this Baptist confession does not shy away from the doctrine of original sin. The Abstract of Principles affirms both original corruption and original guilt. Its language affirms that infants are born under condemnation even before they become “actual transgressors.”

While the Abstract of Principles was the first confession for a Southern Baptist institution, the Baptist Faith and Message was the first to be adopted by the convention as a whole. This confession was basically the adoption of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, which in turn was a revision based upon the 2^nd London Confession. The Baptist Faith and Message was originally adopted in 1925 in the midst of the controversy between the fundamentalists and the modernists—the same year as the “Scopes Monkey Trial.” The confession adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention stated almost exactly the same words as the Abstract of Principles regarding original sin. It states in the article on the “Fall of Man,” that man “fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.”[20] Here again, this Southern Baptist confession of faith clearly accepts original corruption and original guilt. Liability to condemnation precedes a person’s “actual transgressions.”

In 1963 there was a significant change.[21] In the midst of controversy again, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted another revision of the Baptist Faith and Message. Here one can begin to see a difference simply by the article title. It no longer said “The Fall of Man,” but rather just “Man.” The language of this article significantly weakened the position held on original sin. It now reads that man “fell from his original innocence; whereby his posterity inherit a nature and environment inclined toward sin, and as soon as they are capable of moral action become transgressors and are under condemnation.” [22] This change no longer says that man is born with a corrupt nature, but instead a “nature and environment inclined toward sin.” This change no longer asserts that man is born corrupt, but only that he has the odds stacked against him. Finally, in this revision liability to condemnation no longer precedes transgression. As the Baptist Faith and Message now reads, there is nothing clearly stating that infants are born guilty.

Though it must also be noted that though this statement is weaker in regard to this doctrine, it does not entirely contradict the older statements. Professors at Southern Seminary still have to sign the Abstract of Principles as well as affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. If these statements were in contradiction, then no one could logically subscribe to both of them—and Southern Seminary would either have to close its doors or make the signing of the Abstract of Principles a mere formal “hoop” to jump through. It would be completely out of character for a group of Baptists, with a tradition of affirming original sin (including original guilt) for nearly 300 years, to suddenly change their minds on the subject and contradict the main stream of all previous confessions. The new statement is merely more ambiguous, but it does not explicitly deny either original sin or original guilt.

Baptist confessions have traditionally affirmed the doctrine of original sin, and until recently have not hesitated to affirm original guilt. From the 2^nd London Confession in Britain, to the original Baptist Faith and Message in America, Baptists have affirmed this doctrine in their confessions. It should; therefore, not be suggested that Baptists have historically seen any contradiction between affirming original sin as well as believer baptism.

Baptist Theologians

Baptist theologians also have a long tradition of affirming the doctrine of original sin. One can begin to see this even with the Arminian, Thomas Helwys. Under influences from the Anabaptists, Helwys rejected his earlier Calvinism. Though Helwys was otherwise an Arminian, Tom Nettles argues that he retained the doctrine of total depravity based on the following: he still affirmed that “‘men are by nature Children off [sic] wrath’ are born in ‘iniquitie [sic] and in sin conceived.’”[23] Also, the confession adopted by his church while in Amsterdam states that man “fel [sic] by disobedience. Through whose disobedience, all men sinned. His sinn [sic] being imputed vnto [sic] all.”[24] These statements also show that Helwys did not reject the doctrine of original sin.

It is also clear that Benjamin Keach also affirmed both original sin and original guilt. He and William Collins drafted a catechism (known both as The Baptist Catechism, and Keach’s Catechism) in about 1693 in which one of the questions concerning the Fall answers as follows: “The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.”[25] Here Keach and Collins explicitly affirm original sin—including original guilt.

John Gill is another Baptist theologian who continued in this affirmation of original sin. Thomas Nettles describes Gills view in these words, “Adam fell, bringing a change in man’s nature and a verdict of condemnation on all his posterity.”[26] Nettles continues by describing Gills view of the federal headship of Adam; he states that Gill taught that the soul became corrupted at the moment when it is united to the body. Gill, one of the greatest theologians among the Baptist ranks, affirmed that corruption and condemnation come not just before actual transgressions, but before an infant leaves the womb.

Andrew Fuller, arguably the most significant figure in Baptist history, also affirmed original sin and inherited guilt. Fuller debated Dan Taylor, an Arminian Baptist, concerning this very issue. In one letter Fuller states,

Original sin, to be sure is a mysterious subject. There is a difficulty attending the existence of evil in the souls of all mankind upon every hypothesis. . . Some, with Pelagius, deny the thing itself, and maintain that human depravity comes entirely by imitation. Others admit the fact, that we “are depraved by Adam’s transgression,” but deny the guilt of such depravity on that account; this appears to be the case with Mr. T[aylor]. Others admit the fact of such depravity, yet, notwithstanding, acknowledge its guilt; this is my sentiment.[27]

Here, Fuller shows that he rejects notions of original sin that deny that Adam’s posterity is counted guilty. Fuller affirms the Augustinian formulation of original sin which affirms that humans are born guilty. Fuller follows this statement with another, “The Scriptures represent God as a just Being, who will by no means inflict punishment where there is no guilt. . . Surely then we might conclude, even though an apostle had never told us so, that death would not have passed upon all men by one man’s sin, if, in that sin, somehow or other, all had not sinned.”[28] Fuller did not hesitate to affirm the doctrine of original sin—including inherited guilt. He saw that it was demanded by the justice of God. Clearly he could not have seen this as contradictory with his own view of believer baptism.

John L. Dagg spoke vividly of original sin and the condemnation that all men deserve in Adam. He states,

There is a moral union between Adam and his descendants. His disobedience unfurled the banner of rebellion, and we all rally around it. We approve the deed of our father, and take arms in maintaining the war against heaven, which his disobedience proclaimed. He is the chief in this conspiracy of treason, but we are all accessories. As to the outward act, the eating of the forbidden fruit, we did not commit it; but, regarding it as a declaration of independence and revolt, we have made it our own, and it may be justly set to our account, as if we had personally committed the deed.[29]

Dagg’s theology was later endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention when it resolved, “that a catechism be drawn up containing the substance of the Christian religion for the instruction of children and servants and that brother John L. Dagg be desired to draw it up.”[30] Dagg was trusted as a representative to write for the instruction of children for the entire Southern Baptist Convention. He tenaciously embraced the doctrine of original sin and thought it sinful to oppose God by denying inherited guilt.

James P. Boyce, founding president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, when dealing with the question of infants had this to say: “Certain passages of Scripture are supposed to refer to young children as though innocent of guilt. . . But these passages do not teach freedom from corruption. On the other hand, corruption in early infancy is plainly taught.”[31] Boyce follows this statement with an even more clear affirmation of infant guilt:

It follows from the facts in these last two statements, that a corrupt nature makes a condition as truly sinful, and guilty, and liable to punishment, as actual transgressions. Consequently, at the very moment of birth, the presence and possession of such a nature shows that even the infant sons of Adam are born under all the same penalties which befell their ancestor in the day of his sin. Actual transgression subsequently adds new guilt to guilt already existing, but does not substitute a state of guilt for one of innocence.[32]

Boyce’s position could be no clearer. Certainly, he held that infants inherited guilt, and were born sinners. He found no contradiction between this and the baptism of believers only.

Augustus Hopkins Strong, a Northern Baptist, also affirmed original sin as well as original guilt. Strong stated, “that no human being is finally condemned solely on account of original sin; but that all who, like infants, do not commit personal transgressions, are saved through the application of Christ’s atonement.”[33] Strong rejects any notion that infants are accepted into heaven on the basis of their innocence, or that they should not be recognized a sinners. He solidly stands in the tradition of other Baptists before him, and he stands in the Augustinian tradition concerning original sin. He could not have seen this as being at odds with his being a Baptist.

Edgar Young Mullins, former president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and contemporary of A. H. Strong, also affirmed the doctrine of original sin. However, he too made it clear that “men are not condemned therefore for hereditary or original sin. They are condemned only for their own sins.”[34] He did affirm the reality that sin is inherited and that infants dying in infancy are saved on the basis of “Christ’s atoning work extend[ed] to them.”[35] It seems that Mullins would have affirmed that people are born sinners. This was not in contradiction to his being a Baptist.

W. T. Conner, former president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, somewhat modifies earlier views of Baptists. The confessional stance of Baptist Calvinism had been eroding for some time. This was already evident with Mullins. Yet Conner seems to show more hesitancy to speak of inherited guilt than most of his predecessors. Though he continued this tradition of affirming the doctrine of original sin in Baptist life, Conner echoes his teachers, Strong and Mullins, in saying,

There is general agreement among evangelical theologians that all disability up to the point of positive transgression and deliberate rejection of moral light is provided for in the atoning work of Christ. . . No man, therefore, will be lost merely because of original sin or race sin. Up to the point of positive transgression or rejection of moral light, the individual is provided for in the grace of God without personal repentance and faith.[36]

Conner, along with Strong and Mullins, demonstrated a concern to say that original sin alone does not finally condemn an infant; however he is clear that infants are saved not because of their innocence, nor because they are not considered sinners. Conner affirms that infants who die in infancy are saved by Christ’s work on the cross. Again, apparently Conner saw nothing in this doctrine that was in contradiction with his being a Baptist.

Exceptions

There was some dissent in Baptist life concerning the doctrine of original sin. This is evident from the early Anabaptist and General Baptist confessions. The Waterland Confession,an Anabaptist confession from 1580, gives one example of this. It states, “The first man fell into sins (d) and became subject to divine wrath, and by God was raised up again through consolatory promises (e) and admitted to eternal life at the same time with all those who had fallen (f); so that none of his posterity, in respect of this restitution, is born guilty of sin or blame (g).”[37] This statement shows that this particular group of Anabaptists rejected the concept that any of Adam’s posterity was born guilty. However, there is no evidence that this rejection of original sin was for the purpose of being consistent Baptists. As has been shown, other Baptist groups did not see any need to reject this doctrine in order to become Baptists.

John Smyth, contemporary of Thomas Helwys, also rejected original sin. In the confession by his church, in 1609, it states, “WE BELIEVE WITH THE HEART AND WITH THE MOUTH CONFESS . . . (5.) That there is no original sin . . . but all sin is actual and voluntary . . . and therefore, infants are without sin.”[38] Here Smyth seems to be concerned about the justice of God—not about any consistency with the Baptist position. He cannot reconcile how God can count people guilty without “actual transgressions.” Smyth’s concern does not seem to be on the basis of a rejection of infant baptism.

Again, the Smyth party of early English Baptists drew up another confession between 1612 and 1614 which states as follows:

18. That original sin is an idle term, and that there is no such thing as men intend by the word (Ezek. xviii. 20), because God threatened death only to Adam (Gen. ii. 17) not to his posterity, and because God created the soul (Heb. xii. 9).

19. That if original sin might have passed from Adam to his posterity, Christ’s death, which was effectual before Cain and Abel’s birth, He being the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, stopped the issue and passage thereof (Rev. xiii. 8).

20. That infants are conceived and born in innocency without sin, and that so dying are undoubtedly saved, and that is to be understood of all infants, under heaven.[39]

Here the Smyth party gives a fairly extensive explanation for their rejection of original sin, and this explanation does not have any tie to the concept of infant baptism.

Fairly recently Dale Moody, at Southern Seminary, vehemently opposed the concept of inherited guilt. Moody may be one of Lemke’s predecessors in arguing that there is a direct link correlating original sin and infant baptism. He wrote that in the early church there was a “primitive idea of purification” which “leads to infant baptism only when perverted by the fallacious notion of original guilt.”[40] Though Moody disdained the concept of original guilt, it does seem that he recognized that if the doctrine is true that it is still not a justifiable basis for the practice of infant baptism.[41] So even though he thought that original guilt lead to the practice, he must not have thought that it was a necessary implication. He quotes the Anabaptists in their own rejection of original guilt, yet he does not demonstrate how they saw any tie between the concepts of original sin and infant baptism.

Baptists have historically not needed to deny original sin in order to remain Baptist. Baptist confessions, and the writings of Baptist theologians both testify to a long tradition of affirming this doctrine. The majority of these documents affirm inherited guilt, and it is only relatively recent that the mainstream of Baptists has weakened their statements affirming this traditionally held biblical doctrine. The exceptions within Baptist life, who have denied the doctrine of original sin, seem to reject the doctrine on the grounds of God’s justice—not because it is inconsistent with the believer baptism position. The historical record is probably the most significant evidence that holding to original sin or inherited guilt does not necessarily imply infant baptism. If original sin did imply infant baptism, one would expect that the dominant stream of Baptist life would have rejected it. But instead, the reverse is true.

Original Sin Implies Believer Baptism

In contrast to those who have claimed that infant baptism is necessary because of original sin, this doctrine might actually be used to support the believer baptism position. This argument may be akin to that of Paul K. Jewett, who argued that “covenant theology implies believer baptism.”[42] It may seem to flow against the stream of ecclesiastical history.[43] However, there is one point that can be made that refutes those who would try to reject original sin on the basis of believer baptism.

As Cathcart had maintained, “baptism has no tendency to produce a new heart, and its bestowal upon unconscious infants is a senseless and unwise abuse of a blessed ordinance intended only for the Saviour’s friends.”[44] Assuming the Baptist view of baptism is correct, and that the proper subject of baptism is a believer only, then original sin may be the very reason for rejecting infant baptism. The doctrine of original sin says that infants are born guilty and under condemnation and in need of Christ. Therefore, infants are born lost. No Baptist would want to baptize those who are by all accounts lost. By logical necessity, for the Baptist, if infants are guilty and condemned they should not be admitted into membership of the church through baptism until they have come to an age where they have expressed faith and shown evidence of regeneration.

Charles Hodge, on the other hand, stated exactly the opposite. He said that baptism can “be properly administered only to those who are in a state of guilt and pollution.”^{^[45]} This is where a fundamental disagreement between paedobaptists and Baptists can be observed. Baptists would say that it is the regenerate that needs baptism; whereas, paedobaptists would say that it is the unregenerate that needs it.

So maybe original sin does not necessarily imply believer baptism. However, for one who presupposes that believers are the proper subjects of baptism, original sin can serve as another argument for why this is the case. The whole issue revolves not necessarily around any supposed efficacy of the baptismal waters, but around the identity of the proper subjects of baptism.

Conclusion
There has historically been a link between the doctrine of original sin and baptism, though the link may or may not be determinative of how it is practiced. There will continue to be debate between Baptists and paedobaptists about who the proper subjects of baptism are, though much may come down to presuppositions. This paper has argued that the doctrine of original sin does not necessarily imply infant baptism. On the contrary, depending on ones presuppositions it may actually be an argument against the practice of infant baptism. Baptists throughout history have typically not had any problem affirming both original sin and believer baptism. Even when there have been exceptions, where Baptists have shied away from the concept of inherited guilt, it has not been on the basis of any contradiction with believer baptism. Original sin is simply not a problem for Baptists because they do not believe there is any efficacy in the act itself. Those who would say that “Baptists deny that children are guilty upon birth, and thus deny infant baptism,”[46] need to reexamine the historical record, as well as reexamine their logic.

[1]Augustine The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones 1.28. ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21^st Century[WSA], part I, vol. 23 (Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 1997), 49.

[2]John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.15.10, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Fort Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 1311.

[3]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:247.

[4]Steve W. Lemke, “Who Can be Saved? Tiessen’s Accessibilism vs. Jesus’ Exclusivism” (paper presented at the annual southwest regional meeting of the Evangelical Society, Fort Worth, Texas, 22 March 2007), 9.

[5]Ibid., 8.

[6]The main argument of Lemke’s paper was against inclusivism. His treatment of original sin was only one part of his larger argument, and he does not treat the entirety of the doctrine. However, what he did say was enough to demonstrate that at least he denies original guilt and denies that infants are born sinners.

[7]Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, 3^rd ed. (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 2000), 274.

[8]“Believer baptism” will be used instead of “believer’s baptism.” The term is in contrast to “infant baptism” rather than “infant’s baptism.” Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980), 226.

[9]Charles E. Warren, Original Sin Explained? Revelations from Human Genetic Science (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002), vii.

[10]William Cathcart, “Baptism, the Scriptural Subjects of,” in The Baptist Encyclopedia: A Dictionary of the Doctrines, Ordinances, Usages, Confessions of Faith, Sufferings, Labors, and Successes, and of the General History of the Baptist Denomination in All Lands (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Louis H. Everts, 1883), 1:70.

[11] Augustine, The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins, 1.58 (WSA, I.23:67).

[12] Ibid., 1.62 (WSA, I.23:71).

[13] Ibid., 1.28 (WSA, I.23:49).

[14] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:247.

[15]Dale Moody, The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981), 462.

[16]Gregory Wills, Readings in Baptist History (classroom lecture notes, CH 26100—History of the Baptists, Spring 2003, photocopy), 2.

[17]William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1969), 258-59.

[18]James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887, reprint ed., North Pompano Beach, Florida: Christian Gospel Foundation), Appendix B.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Committee on Statement of Baptist Faith and Message, Baptist Faith and Message, 1925 [on-line]; accessed 25 November 2007; available from http:// www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp; Internet.

[21]This change was essentially retained the 2000 revision with only changes in punctuation and a conjunction.

[22]William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 394.

[23]Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Lake Charles, Louisiana: Cor Meum Tibi, 2002, 57.

[24]William Lumpkin Baptist Confessions of Faith, 117.

[25]Thomas J. Nettles, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts: the Study of Catechisms in Baptist Life (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 1998), 62.

[26]Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory, 81.

[27]Fuller, Andrew G. The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller: with a Memoir of His Life, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:522-23.

[28]Ibid., 2:523.

[29]John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Gano Books, 1990), 165.

[30] Ibid., Preface to the New Edition.

[31]James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, 243.

[32]Ibid., 250.

[33]Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1945), 596.

[34]Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1938), 302.

[35] Ibid., 286.

[36]W. T. Conner, Christian Doctrine (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1949, 143-44.

[37]William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 45.

[38]Ibid., 100.

[39]Ibid., 127.

[40]Dale Moody, The Word of Truth, 462.

[41]Ibid.

[42]Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, 233.

[43]Ibid., 5.

[44]William Cathcart, “Baptism, the Scriptural Subjects of,” 1:70.

[45] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:247.

[46]Steve W. Lemke, “Who Can be Saved? Tiessen’s Accessibilism vs. Jesus’ Exclusivism,” 9.

Tired of Sissy Attempts at Sanctification?

2007-11-06T11:18:00.002-06:00

John Owen's Mortification of Sin (one of three works by Owen in the new edition edited by Justin Taylor and Kelly M Kapic) is a refreshing change from some of the other things I have read in the last few years on overcoming sin.

Much of the literature on sanctification these days follows a "therapeutic" model where an individual aims at personal healing. Owen's approach offers a different language of describing sanctification. Rather than healing ourselves we need to "be killing sin."

In my estimation, the therapeutic model offers a practically Pelagian form of sanctification. Owen's treatment of mortification constantly brings one back to the gospel in affirming that the actual work of mortifying sin is in looking to the Cross of Christ.

My favorite quote from the work is this:

Set faith at work on Christ for the killing of your sin. His blood is the great sovereign remedy for sin-sick souls. Live in this, and you will die a conquerer; yea, you will, through the good providence of God, live to see your lust dead at your feet.

I long for a day when this truth and this method of fighting sin is embraced more widely.

Review Published

2007-10-12T17:55:00.000-06:00

I also recently wrote a review of a book I read for class for half.com. You can check that our by clicking on the title of this post.

Wall Torn Down: Biblical Theology of Race

2007-10-12T17:37:00.000-06:00

I just got back the first paper I did for my Humanity class. It needed a little more work on proofreading. I barely finished it by the deadline, but still got an A. I will post the text of the article here:

Wall Torn Down: A Theology of Race

When understood in light of the redemption historical scheme, the diversity of data related to the issue of race gives way to a unified theme running throughout both testaments. That goal is that all of the different races would be reunited under the head of a new Adam. The diversity of the biblical witness will be presented in four strands of evidence.

Of course, the first biblical theme begins with the creation of Adam as the biological head of all humanity. This theme demonstrates that all races belong to one big human family. The second theme is the calling out of the Jews as God’s chosen people—beginning with Abraham. This theme is evidence that the Bible also presented a form of racial segregation that was obligatory for His people. The third theme is the Old Testament hint that the Gentiles would one day be included in redemption. Gentiles who, by virtue of the earlier referenced segregation theme, should not have been intermarried with, ended up in prominent places such as the genealogy of David—and ultimately Jesus. Finally, the concept of Christ as the new Adam indicates that in the New Covenant the earlier need for segregation had been fulfilled and humanity was no longer to be divided along ethnic lines.

A Biblical theology of race will by necessity draw from many other areas of doctrine. Creation, providence, ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, and the relationship between the covenants et al. are all necessary doctrinal components to consider when synthesizing and articulating a Biblical theology of race. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that though diversity exists within the biblical teaching on this subject, the overarching teleological goal of God’s plan as revealed in Scripture is that all of the diverse human cultures would be united in the worship of the one creating and redeeming God. The underlining presupposition of this paper is that there is a predominant continuity between the covenants that is marked my specific areas of discontinuity which transforms the way in which Old Covenant ethical obligations are carried out within the New Covenant.

One Common Ancestor

The first theme which will be examined in this argument is the common origin that humanity has in Adam. This is one theme that all evangelicals should be in agreement about. It is clear, if one accepts the Genesis account of creation to be actually communicating something historical about the creation of humanity, that it teaches that Adam and Eve were the biological beginning of the species. It has even been argued that this is one area of biblical doctrine that can be verified by human genetic science.[1] Anyone who accepts the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis should understand that all humans of every ethnicity are all connected as a part of this one biological family.

The Creation Account

In the first chapter of Genesis, the narrator states, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’” (vs. 27-28).[2] This passage is clearly teaching that when God created human beings, he began with one man—as we see from the pronoun “him.” This one man multiplied. It is left to the reader to understand that all further human beings would be a result of that multiplication. This understanding is further supported by the narrative in chapter three: “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living” (v. 20). Of course when the text says “yx lK ~a” (mother of all the living) it would be absurd to take that as “mother of all living creatures.” The only way that it makes sense to understand this phrase is plainly that Adam was stating that Eve would be the mother, and origin, of all the human species.

Table of Nations

The next evidence within this theme is what is known as the table of nations found in Genesis 10. This text gives the genealogy of all of Noah’s sons: Japheth, Ham, and Shem. There is almost a repeated refrain at the end of the genealogy of each son which states, “These are the sons of [X], according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, by their nations” (v. 20). The wording is not exact, but the same phrases close out each son’s genealogy. Then, the section is closed with this statement: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood” (v. 32). The first observation one should make from this is that the phrases “family,” “language,” “land,” and “nation” are each indicators used to define ethnicity or race. The most significant observation one should make about this passage, though, is that the narrator seems to be explaining how every ethnicity of the known world all descended from a common origin. [3] This list of nations should not necessarily be taken as exhaustive, but should be understood to be representative of every race. Biblical theologian Geerhardus Vos says of this passage, “There names are registered to express the principle that in the fullness of time the divine interposition meant to return to them again, and to re-enclose them in the sacred circle.”[4]

Tower of Babel

On the heels of the table of nations comes the narrative of the tower of Babel in Genesis eleven. Though the tower narrative comes later, it seems that it must have served as an explanation of what is given in the table of nations. Verse 1 states, “Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.” Yet in just the preceding two verses the narrator made reference to various languages. On this basis it seems that the table of nations and the tower of Babel should be taken together as a whole. Noah’s posterity intended to make a name for themselves. Therefore they united in a project which God foresaw would destroy them. It seems that God’s action here had aspects of both punishment and grace. The dividing and scattering of peoples throughout the earth and the confusion of language was a matter of God making things more difficult for people—in this sense the tower seems to have been a curse. Yet as God often saved through his very acts of judgment, that appears to have been the case here. Gerhard von Rad notes in this regard, “[T]here is also to be seen, mysteriously associated with this punishment, a saving and sustaining activity on the part of God which accompanied man.”[5] The diversifying of humanity into various ethnicities served the purpose of God’s electing Israel—safeguarding the seed of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15.

A Segregation Theme in Electing Israel

The next theme which will be examined is the fact that Israel was commanded not to intermarry with the surrounding Gentile nations. Though Israel had a common origin with all the rest of humanity, God’s purpose of salvation required the election of one nation to be separate.

The Life of Abraham

Abraham’s initial call is recorded in Genesis 12, where it records that Yahweh said to Abram,

Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed (vv. 1-3).

What is significant to the issue at hand is that God chose Abram to leave all of his relatives in order to establish a separate nation. As one traces the narrative of the patriarch’s this separateness is highlighted by a prohibition of intermarriage with the surrounding peoples. In chapter 24, the narrative illustrates this separation with Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. He says to his servant, “you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live” (v. 3). The same prohibition is given when Isaac speaks to Jacob in chapter 28. It seems clear that this prohibition was given for the purpose of preserving the elect “seed” from being washed away into being indistinguishable from the gentiles.

Mosaic Law

This theme of segregation continues from the patriarchal narratives to the giving of the law at Sinai. For one who accepts Mosaic authorship, it would seem that Moses recorded the earlier narrative prohibition from intermarriage with the Canaanites in order to prepare the congregation of Israel to live by the same obligation upon entering the land. Moses warns the people in Deuteronomy 7,

and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly (vv. 2-4).

From an examination of the reasons associated with this text it seems the purpose for this prohibition was religious. God prohibited intermarriage in order to keep his people from being turned away from him into false belief. Therefore, this prohibition is primarily more about belief than it is about ethnicity.

This prohibition within the Mosaic law is carried on throughout the Old Testament. The sin that so many of Israel’s kings fell into was that of marrying foreign wives. So that when the return from exile is recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah one of the specific sins that the people repent of is that of intermarrying with the surrounding nations. Ezra 9:2 states, “For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands.” A high priority for Israel was maintaining ethnic purity because this was the means that the people of God would remain loyal to him for the preservation of His plan to save.

Conclusions Arising from Segregation

This pervasive theme of the separateness of Israel is set in stark contrast to the other biblical themes presented by this paper. Here a few conclusions will be given which will help make sense of how this data can cohere in unity with the rest of Scripture. The diversity of races within the Bible can be reduced to merely two—Jew and “the nations.” Distinct races certainly existed within the group labeled “the nations,” yet it does not even seem that the Bible even addresses intermarriage between different people groups outside of Israel. This demonstrates the second point: that the distinction of Israel as separate from the nations was for a religious purpose. It was to ensure and preserve Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh. Third, it will be noted that the ethnic separateness of Israel corresponds to the “Holiness Code” of ethical obligations for God’s people—it’s purpose is to maintain the purity of a people set apart for Him.

Inclusion of Gentiles

In contrast to the segregation that was presented above, the Old Testament also expresses the concept that God’s teleological plan of redemption is intended for the entire human race. This theme will be observed in Abraham’s initial call, in exceptions to the prohibition against intermarriage, and in the prophetic anticipation of Gentile inclusion.

Abraham’s Call

Despite the fact that Abraham’s call is a movement toward segregation, even within that narrative there is language which presents God’s concern for all the nations. The segregated aspects were mentioned above. Here God’s purpose for the nations will be examined. In Genesis 12, the last phrase within the Abraham’s call quoted above states, “And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (v. 3). Here we see that from the beginning, the purpose of Abraham’s being set apart was that he might be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. Though God was calling Abraham to be the founder of a distinct race, his purpose was the blessing of all races.

Significant Exceptions

Within the storyline of the Old Testament, it is apparent that some gentiles intermarried with Israel—yet it is spoken of positively. If the emphasis upon segregation was monolithic, one would expect all marriages to foreigners would be pointed out as sinful, but this is not the case. The first such example that will be pointed out is that of Rahab. Rahab the prostitute was a Canaanite resident of Jericho. God had commanded the Israelites to devote the city entirely to the ban—to wipe out every living thing. Yet because of Rahab’s faith (as the author of Hebrews points out) she is spared. Not only is she spared, but she finds her way in to the genealogy of David and of Christ (Matt 1:5).

The next noteworthy example of this type is Ruth. She was of all things a Moabite. Not only were Israelites not to intermarry with the surrounding peoples, but particularly Moabites were not to be allowed in the assembly for worship—even to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3). Yet David was only three generations removed from his Moabite heritage (Ruth 4:21-22). There are other examples of this phenomenon in Scripture, but these two will demonstrate the point sufficiently. The only logical implication that one can draw from this apparent inconsistency is that God’s purpose was concerned more about religious loyalty to Him than about ethnic purity.

Prophetic Utterance

Various prophets also heralded a message of salvation which would not be exclusive to Jews, but would also include the nations. Though this theme exists in other prophets, for space considerations, only Isaiah will be considered here. Page after page, when one reads through Isaiah he finds the term “nations” time after time in reference to their being included. A paper of this brevity cannot begin to deal with every instance. Yet two examples of this language are found in chapters 2 and 66:

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it (2:2).

For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory (66:18).

These two examples demonstrate that part of the prophetic expectation of the Old Testament was the bringing in of the Gentile to the worship of Yahweh. [6]

A New Humanity

Finally, the emphasis of the New Testament concerning race is that in the cross, Christ became the head of a new humanity, tearing down ethnic barriers and uniting all believers in one family. This is demonstrated in the Gospels, Acts, and the epistles as well.

Gospels

The most significant racial tension at the time was between Jews and Samaritans. In three places in the Gospels, Jesus had significant interactions with Samaritans. First in Luke 10, Jesus gives a hypothetical case of a Samaritan who cares for a man who was beaten and robbed. Here Jesus shocked his listeners by demonstrating that such ethnic barrier crossing actually pleases God. Next, in Luke 17 Jesus cleanses ten lepers. One came back to thank him, and the text points out that the one who came back was a Samaritan (v. 16). Once again, the text presents the Samaritan in a good light in contrast to the chosen Jewish people. Finally, in John 4, Jesus stops to talk at a well with a Samaritan woman. Again, this ethnic barrier crossing shocks even his disciples and demonstrates that Jesus came to break down those walls.

Another significant observation in the Gospels is that occasionally Jesus would complement the faith he sees in Gentiles. In Matthew 15:28 Jesus said that a Canaanite woman had great faith. Then in Luke 7:9 Jesus says of a centurion that he had greater faith than Jesus had seen in all of Israel. These Gentiles of great faith stand in stark contrast with Jesus disciples who were said to have little faith (Matt 17:20).

Acts

The first evidence in Acts of this them of a new humanity is in chapter 2 with the day of Pentecost. People from all different nations were gathered together in Jerusalem, and when the Spirit was sent each heard in their own language (vv. 8-11). John Stott notes that since the time of the church fathers, interpreters have understood that a connection exists between Pentecost and Babel.[7] Babel divided a unified people into many. In contrast, at Pentecost, diverse nations were united together “speaking of the mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11).

Another significant matter in Acts is when, in chapter 10, Peter has a vision and is told to eat something that he initially thought was unclean. Peter is corrected by a voice that says, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (v. 15). Certainly, the vision must have meant more than just that the food laws were repealed. This vision was intended to teach that Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean, but to be united within the Church.

Paul’s Teaching

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles also had many things to say that are relevant to the issue of race. Two texts will be examined here. First, Christ tore down the barrier separating the races. Ephesians 2:11-16 says,

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through he cross.

Here Paul demonstrates that through the cross, the barrier that divided Jew and Gentile—and by extension all races—was broken down. Jesus died to create a new humanity that was reconciled to God.[8]

Next it will be noted that all believers share as fellow heirs equally as Abraham’s descendants. Galatians 3:28-29 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise.” Once again, it is clear that union with Christ unites all people who are His into one new humanity.

Implications for the Church

Three major implications of this doctrine now follow. First, all believers, as a part of the new humanity, are to be united as one family. This obligates believers to love their brothers and sisters of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds because we were all born again from an imperishable seed (1 Pet 1:22-23) that is more enduring than our natural biological heritage—all forms of racism are morally wrong. Second, in heaven one day, all races will stand together worshiping and it appears from Revelation 5:9 that racial distinctions will still exist. Yet they will serve the purpose of magnifying the glory of the one who purchased those men with His blood.[9] God will be glorified in that diversity. Finally, there is a continuity that exists between the covenants on this issue. Just as in the Old Covenant, God’s people were called to be separate; in the New Covenant the Church is still called to be separate. However, this segregation is no longer based upon ethnicity, but it calls believers to clearly distinguish between believers and unbelievers. The wall between Jew and Gentile was torn down, yet a new basis was established for distinguishing this new humanity—faith in Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Piper, John. Brothers We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2002.

Stott, John R. W. The Spirit the Church and the Word: the Message of Acts. Downers Grove, Illinois: 1990.

von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. vol. 1. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1967.

Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983.

Warren, Charles. Original Sin Explained? Revelations from Human Genetic Science. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002.

[1]Charles E. Warren, Original Sin Explained? Revelations from Human Genetic Science (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002), 1-2.

[2]All Scripture references will be from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, California: Lockman Foundation, 1995).

[3]The idea that associates the sons of Ham with black people and understands black slavery to be fulfillment of that curse is untenable, and will not be dealt with in the main argument of this paper. It is more persuasive that “the curse was a prophecy. It’s main purpose was to predict the subjugation of the Canaanites by the children of Israel.” T. B. Maston, The Bible and Race (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1959), 116.

[4]Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983), 59.

[5]Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 163.

[6]It may also be significant that the references are scattered throughout both halves of Isaiah. Thus, giving support for a unity of authorship.

[7]John R. W. Stott, The Spirit the Church and the Word: the Message of Acts (Downers Grove, Illinois: 1990), 68.

[8]John Piper, Brothers, We are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 205-206.

[9]Ibid., 207-208.

School Has Begun

2007-09-08T18:42:00.000-06:00

Well, I've gotten off to a good start with the new school year. I found out what I was reading at the beginning of the summer, and I finished all but two books for one class, and one for the other (I read 6 in all this summer). I'm only a few weeks in, and I have one of those two finished, and the other nearly finished. Then for the other class I'll just read a little at a time through the semester. But anyway, things are going well.

Amy recently got a promotion at work. She's no longer in dining services. She is now working in the Provosts office. Her title is "Administrative Assistant to the Associate VP of Academic Administration." It goes without saying, she's now making almost three times as much as me when you include her benefits package. But my job is nice. I get to spend a lot of time reading. I don't think I would survive this load without a job where I could study while I'm at work like this.

Summer Work

2007-06-15T00:30:00.000-06:00

I've been working a lot so far this summer. Trying to get in more than 40 hours when I can. I've written two articles to be published in an Old Testament Survey Study Guide. I've got my doubts about their being good enough, but we'll see.

I've tried to spend good amounts of time with my family as well. We went on a trip to San Antonio, and Amy and I got to spend a night in a McKinney bed and breakfast while the kids stayed at her brother's. It was nice to have that night alone for our 7th anniversary.

That's right. Amy and I have been married 7 years. It has gone by so fast. I can't believe we already have a child that is almost three. It seems like our lives are getting away with us, and we have barely even got started. We've been out of college and married for 7 years, and I'm still in school working on yet another Master's degree, working a job that just doesn't get it done well enough, so that she is forced back into the workplace--away from our kids where she really wants to be.

The Lord has a plan for all of this. I'm not sure what it is yet, but He will bring something good out of it.

End of Semester Blues

2007-05-08T10:02:00.000-06:00

I'm having a hard time doing anything. It's the end of the semester. I really don't have a lot to do, but I just don't feel like doing anything. I have been so bogged down all semester long that I feel very tired and I don't want to do the little that I have left.

Prayer:
"Oh Lord, help me. I'm weak and frail. I suffer from evil desires and indifference of feeling. Fill my heart with passion for you, your truth, your holiness, and your ways. Guide my steps as my spirit desires what my flesh shuns. Help me to be obedient, and passionate for your name, and your glory, as it is exhibited in my life.

Why Did Jesus Suffer?

2007-03-19T19:49:00.003-06:00

I preached at my home church. Click on the title to hear.
It was my first time using power point in a sermon, and it really made things difficult for me. I had way too much information on the power point and it really distracted from my delivery. Other than that, I'm happy with my content.

The Gospel in Six Minutes

2007-03-13T01:24:00.000-06:00

After 2 decades of walking with Jesus, I still need the Gospel--I'm still a sinner in need of grace.

What is Sin? And What It Isn't?

2007-02-17T15:54:00.000-06:00

If anyone at all is reading this blog, then you know that I have interacted with some of the discussion on a blog by a feminist theology student. She is self professedly influenced by Mary Daly, a radical feminist at Boston College. Mary Daly has her own ideas about what "sin" is. Here is a quote from the New Yorker, from February 1996, that shows what she thinks that word means:

EVER since childhood, I have been honing my skills for living the life of a Radical Feminist Pirate and cultivating the Courage to Sin. The word "sin" is derived from the Indo-European root "es-," meaning "to be." When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a woman trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, "to be" in the fullest sense is "to sin."

Now it is obvious that I disagree. I of course hold to what would be a "traditional" view of the definition of sin; however, let's take a look at what she has to say, and try to understand her method of hermeneutics, and see if this is anything close to what the Bible means when it uses the term "sin."

First of all, let's look at her use of etymology: She says that the word "sin" comes from the "Indo-European root 'es-,' meaning 'be.'" Well, this just may be true. I've never studied Indo-European language roots. So I grant that this is quite possible. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The Bible wasn't written in Indo-European, or English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. Why in the world, would we want to know about the origins of words used in a translation, when they have nothing at all to do with the original languages to which they refer. This is merely the fallacy of etymology at work. Don't be fooled.
Second, is it that usage determines the meaning of a word in a statement. Is it the etymology of a word? No one seriously thinks this is true. The meaning of words is determined by their usage in sentences. When I say, "the milk in the refrigerator is 'expired,'" do I intend the meaning of the term expired that is derived from its etymology--that it 'breathed out?'" Of course not, I mean it the way all native English speakers would understand it. The milk has gone bad and needs to be thrown out before it stinks. Which is what we should do with interpretations that are obviously violation of the intention of the author. Either this is willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what at text is saying, and undermines the ethical requirements of the social contract of human language, or it is an extremely naive attempt at scholarship.
Third what does the Greek word for "sin" mean? While, more extensive documentation could be done, I will use Thayer's Greek Definitions, simply because I have it in electronic form on a free bible software program.

1. ἁμαρτία
hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
Part of Speech: verb

These make up the word translated sin in the New Testament in its noun and verb forms.

4. Now, how does Hebrew use the word. For Hebrew the lexical information will be abbreviated for space and time considerations. I will not be looking up all the cognate uses. This data will come from the free version of BDB (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon):

חטּאת / חטּאה
chaṭṭâ'âh / chaṭṭâ'th
BDB Definition:
1) sin, sinful
2) sin, sin offering
2a) sin
2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin
2c) punishment for sin
2d) sin-offering
2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness
Part of Speech: noun feminine

חטא
châṭâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to miss
1a2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty
1a3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to bear loss
1b2) to make a sin-offering
1b3) to purify from sin
1b4) to purify from uncleanness
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to miss the mark
1c2) to induce to sin, cause to sin
1c3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way
1d2) to purify oneself from uncleanness
Part of Speech: verb

אשׁמה
'ashmâh
BDB Definition:
1) guiltiness, guilt, offense, sin, wrong-doing
1a) doing wrong, committing a trespass or offense
1b) becoming guilty, guilt
1c) bringing a guilt-offering
Part of Speech: noun feminine

שׁגה
shâgâh
BDB Definition:
1) to go astray, stray, err
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to err, stray
1a2) to swerve, meander, reel, roll, be intoxicated, err (in drunkenness)
1a3) to go astray (morally)
1a4) to commit sin of ignorance or inadvertence, err (ignorantly)
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to lead astray
1b2) to lead astray, mislead (mentally)
1b3) to lead astray (morally)

These first two of these are the typical words used when the English translations use the word sin. The other two were a used much less frequently where we find the word sin. There may be others, and this is not the place for comprehensiveness. I'm just trying to demonstrate a point. Even if the "Indo-European root 'es-,'"does mean "to be" surely the English translators aren't stupid enough to think that's what was meant when they were reading the original languages.

The fact is, encouraging people to have the "Courage to Sin" is exactly what the last of the Hebrew definitions that I gave implies--to lead astray (morally)." Which makes me think of what Jesus said about those who lead others astray: Luke 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.

I hope that this encourages anyone reading this to pray for Ms. Daly and anyone whose ear she has captivated. Deconstructing the definition of a word for the promotion of an anti-biblical agenda, is a dangerous thing. Let us pray that their eyes would be opened to see the light of the gospel of truth.

Oops!

2007-01-17T23:38:00.000-06:00

I've recently found that I need to be a little more careful on what I post. I've only been doing this for a little over a month, so I'm still learning about the "blogosphere." I recently found that it is not polite to post someone else's public words without asking them first. I had already known from reading other people's blogs that it was very problematic to post the content of private emails without permission. I didn't realize that it could also be offensive to post content that was already publicly accessible. I apologize to MasonDixon for posting the interchange from the last blog that I did, and in the future, anything more than a short quote will appear as a link rather than in the primary text. I didn't even know that anyone anyone read my blog!

Are Liberals Really More Tolerant Than Conservatives?

2007-01-15T16:38:00.000-06:00

It has been interesting to watch that feminist blog that I had mentioned earlier. The author of the blog has been very nice to me in allowing me to dialogue with those on her page. And others have been equally polite. But just recently I have been blasted by one poster who basically told me to "buzz off." Click the title to link to the full conversation.

I had originally posted the conversation here. But since there was concern over me posting it without MasonDixon's permission, I decided to remove it, and you can just click the title of this entry to see for yourself.

Like I said, an interesting interchange. Quite ironic. I'm being told that I have an opinion that is not open to being challenged so I should buzz off, because he doesn't want to hear my opinion. I'm glad that I saw the irony in this situation or it might have angered me. Instead, I had a little fun with it.

Reflections on Sin and Grace

2007-01-02T20:02:00.000-06:00

Reading Calvin's Institutes has been helpful for my own soul. I have found him to be very pastoral, and everything is connected to how it is used in the encouragement of our faith.

I am an unworthy sinner. I do not deserve God's gracious favor. I deserve to be cast into eternal torment this moment. I do not deserve even the grace that would sustain me through the writing of this post. By God's righteous justice, I should have been stricken dead long ago, and I should have been suffering the fires of Hell for the past 28 years.

That is enough to begin rejoicing. I'm not in Hell right now. God has been immeasurably kind to me in spite of my callous rebellion against His holiness. For 28 long years I have provoked His wrath against me. I have treated His kindness as if it were license to mock Him. I have lied, cheated, stolen, hated, and I have been idolatrous. I can find no reason for God to think me worthy of any of his kindness. Yet He has been kind to me.

He has given me every breath that I breath. He has given me every bit of nourishment that I have ever used to sustain my body. He has placed me in a country where the hostility toward His people is mild. He has given innumerable opportunities to hear His Gospel proclaimed--week after week--year after year--decade after decade. He has given me an inclination to desire to please Him--albeit weak and tainted. He has given me the opportunity to study His Word and His truth at an intensely deep level--though I am uncertain about how much it has changed me--stubborn as I am.

I have never suffered any kind of abuse that is common to many today. I have never gone hungry. Though I have been poor throughout my adult life, I have never gone without the ability to pay my bills--a grace that I certainly do not deserve.

God is good, and He has been good to me. Though I continue to struggle, fail, and despair--I have not lost hope. He has sustained a seed that He planted in me--however small the fruit--it is still fruit.

Yet I do not deny what I stated above: that certain interruptions of faith occasionally occur, according as its weakness is violently buffeted hither and thither; so in the thick darkness of temptations its light is snuffed out. Yet whatever happens, it ceases not its earnest quest for God. --John Calvin. III.II.24

My Comments on a Feminist Theology Student's Blog

2006-12-19T18:28:00.000-06:00

Here are my comments from the blog that I had mentioned before. I am continuing in dialog, and if you would like to see the full conversation you can follow the link that is provided.

I read this post, and found it very interesting. I could not resist commenting. But first let me just come out and admit my perspective. I'm one of those who you might call a fundamentalist. Actually there is quite a spectrum even within this label, and I'm probably toward the middle of the spectrum of those willing to take the name. I'm currently working on a Master of Theology, and read Tillich this semester. What you had to say sounded much like him. I really only have one question: What place does the Bible hold in what you call Christianity?

Just trying to engage in dialog,

JFile

jfile said...
You said, "Bible is foundational; it is our primary text and a cornerstone of our tradition" If I'm not reading into what you said, I think this reveals something about where we would differ.

For you the Bible is foundational--I assume this means that it is a starting place. It is what we build on. I differ here. I would say that the Bible "defines" what it is to be Christian. It is not only where we must begin, but it is where we live and where we end. You say that it is our "primary" text--a primary text might just be the texts which come from the beginning of the movement. Written by people who were involved in its founding. Rather than primary, I believe that the Bible is our "authoritative text." It has the right to make demands on us, if we are to call ourselves Christians.

Also, you said that it is "a" cornerstone of our tradition. (I guess that may depend on how one uses the term cornerstone.)I don't see how there can be any other cornerstone but the one that was laid by the apostles and the prophets and ultimately by Jesus Himself.

I don't think that our differences are because you are using philosophical language either. They are much deeper than etymology or nomenclature. Our differences hinge not on the language we use but on the epistemology we employ and the way we see the nature of ultimate reality.

9:36 PM
jfile said...
I wouldn't claim to have it all figured out. I recognize that I have my own presuppositions--just as you have yours. No one comes to the text of scripture objectively. We all read it through the lenses of tradition. I concede that. We will always see things differently, but there are certain presuppositions that can help or hurt a person's understanding. Does a person come to the text to receive or to critique? Do we come to the text willing to accept it, or do we come with the presupposition that is hostile? Do we think that the Bible's message is clear enough so that people have fairly well understood it throughout the years, or is it only since the enlightenment that people have been able to understand it correctly, or is it something else altogether?

And then there is the philosophical presupposition: Is there objective truth that exists outside of us? In what way does our perception of the world match its ontological reality, and does the universe even have an ontological reality?

The answers to these questions are the presuppositions that determine our interpretation of Scripture.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think that there really is such a thing as an objective truth that is true for everyone. I may be delusional, but I think that I'm at least reasonably consistent, and that my understanding of things is at least coherent.

11:27 PM
jfile said...
Please forgive me for coming across as if it is my intellectual understanding of things that is superior. I cannot even begin to make that claim.

It has nothing to do with me at all. I am not the one who is consistent and coherent--truth, particularly Christian truth, is.

If I may, I have another question to provoke further discussion if you are willing: How are we to get our data that makes up the picture of who Jesus is? Where does it come from?

8:37 AM
jfile said...
I have to admit that I'm no scholar of Wesley. I'm much more comfortable with Calvin and Edwards.

I would have to agree that we do know God in some sense through reason and tradition, but these other means I would understand to be inferior to Scripture. Sin (the traditional definition) clouds our minds so that we do not understand rightly through reason, tradition has also often been simply wrong (the most indisputable example of this would be on the church's response to slavery in the early American experience). And experience is hardly an adequate means to know what the ultimate truths are. Experience is so varied, and human beings are so "finite" and frail that we are poor interpreters of it without aid of Scripture.

I admit my presupposition here. I accept that the Bible "is" God's revelation to man. It does not merely testify to it, nor does it merely contain it, but it is God's very word breathed out by His Spirit. I presuppose this because it seems to be the Bible's own estimation of itself. Paul said that all Scripture is God breathed. Peter said that Scripture was written as the spirit moved men to write. This is only a small sample, but if it is true, then it should be true of the whole.

With this presupposition, I would say that reason, tradition, and experience must all be governed by Scripture.

12:23 PM
jfile said...
tls,

Then do you admit in the above statement: "I don't believe that God has ever given direct revelation to humanity." That your view is in conflict with the Bible's statements about itself? 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21; et al.

Are you not saying that the Bible is wrong in its own estimation of itself? If that is the case, why should a person trust it in any respect?

The fact that there is a language barrier to the original languages is not an insurmountable hurtle. It may be a little more work, but it is possible to know what it says just as well as you can understand the words that I am typing.

Also, when you say that you don't believe that God has ever given direct revelation to humanity, do you mean in a written form, or do you mean in any form at all. Even Schliermacher speaks of an immediate experience of revelation when one realizes his feeling of absolute dependence. In my estimation this is not sufficient, but if even that is excluded--then God has not spoken at all, and we are left with merely man's reflections on a God that might or might not even exist. If God has not revealed himself then he is unknowable--so we might as well give up on it all because it is pointless anyway.

6:07 AM
jfile said...
tls

"The Bible was written by pre-modern communities of faith who did not yet have a developed understanding of epistemology."

Interpretation: The people who wrote the Bible were not that intelligent.

Then why should we care what they say?

"BECAUSE it is an honest account of particular communities' of faith understanding of and relationship with God."

Interpretation: The people who wrote the Bible were delusional.

Again, this really inspires my confidence.

"I am claiming that it is evidence of the interpreted nature of Scripture and all human experience."

Interpretation: If something has to be interpreted then we really cannot truly understand it.

On this basis all communication breaks down. Maybe this is because we disagree about what interpretation is. For me, interpretation is trying to understand what a text means. It seems that for you interpretation is to find what a text really means, because what it appears to be saying on the surface cannot possibly be what it actually means because that perceived meaning is in conflict with your world view.

Yes. All human language is interpreted, but it is nonsense to say that on that basis we cannot truly understand one another. You, yourself are working on the assumption that the words that you write make sense, and you have something that you intend to say. You would probably be quite offended if I treated your words the same way that most liberal scholarship takes the Bible. I know I'm going against the intellectual tide to say that a texts true meaning is based in what the author intended to communicate--but honestly we all know this is true. It cannot be lived out practically to treat language with such skepticism.

"Where I differ from Schliermacher is in understanding this affective experience as universal, that is the same from person to person, context to context."

This I can agree with--that is, our experiences differ from context to context. Schliermacher was unjustified in making this assumption. However, we do live on the same planet. There is some kind of objective reality that this experience testifies to; however varied our perceptions may be. I would argue that if God exists at all then God must have some objective essential nature.

Of course I know this goes against the existentialist hesitancy to say anything that predicates God for fear of objectifying Him. This whole concept destroys any idea that anything can actually be known about God.

"YES...but isn't that what faith is all about? How little is one's faith in God that they need a complete instruction book, without any ambiguity or complexity?" And might I add, without any objective reality.

That's not faith--at least not in the Biblical sense. Faith in the Biblical sense has an object. The Bible never asks anyone to make a leap of faith against all possible reason. The evidence for this is that it actually gives reasons to believe. Of course there is ambiguity and complexity, but there is also something real. Otherwise the whole matter of faith is just soap bubbles.

"The Bible is not to be read for content alone."

This is true as well. I'm sure that is why God revealed it in so many different genres. I'm not particularly a proponent of Barth, but I think he is right when he speaks of speech-acts. The Bible is not "just" revealing propositional statements--it is doing something. It is commanding, it is encouraging, it is teaching, it is rebuking, it is nourishing, it is penetrating, and it is breathing life into those who read it and have their ears open to hear what it says.

7:19 PM

I'm sure that there will be more dialogue to come. Stay tuned, and if you like, respond to what I have said.

Jerad

The Necessity of the Whole Bible

2006-12-16T18:49:00.000-06:00

I was browsing through some of the other blogs with the same interests as I have, and found one by a student in Massachusetts who openly holds to feminist theology. I read her most recent post, and commented to her with one question: What role does the Bible play in what you call Christianity?

You may find her blog at http://marydaly.blogspot.com/.

In this article she explained her view of what Christianity is, and she used much language that you might hear in evangelical circles. However, this language had been redefined to fit her purposes. Is this a legitimate way to claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ? The only access that we have today to any historical knowledge of who Jesus is, is through the Bible. One might be tempted to look only to the gospels to find this picture. However, this is assuming that there is some contradiction between the gospels and the epistles--or the rest of the Bible for that matter.

And what historical arrogance we display when we think that we can judge who Jesus was better than those who knew him, and who knew his followers at the time that he walked this earth!

My point is this, if we do not agree with those who first called Christians about essential questions such as the nature of God, Sin, Humanity, and Reality, we have no business calling ourselves by the same name as them.

The theology that I read on that post is really merely giving new application to what Freidrich Schleirmacher began a few centuries ago--which gave birth to classical liberalism. In an attempt to make Christianity more reasonable to modern people, Schleirmacher rejected the historic Christian message and redefined his terms. Classic liberalism, in an attempt to then get something out of the Bible that they could accept redefined Jesus in to their own image. In a paraphrase, as Albert Switzer said all liberalism did was to look down into the well of history looking for Jesus, but all they saw was their own reflection looking back. This is the definition of idolatry--making God in man's image.