|
|
Post by iconoclast on May 5, 2023 12:24:19 GMT -5
*This post is the latest in a series looking at the Sabbath. Previous posts include:Pre-Puritan Sabbatarians?
Henry Bullinger on the Sabbath
(Part 1), Where is the Sabbath in the Early Church
(Part 3), Where is the Sabbath in the Early Church?
(Part 2), Where is the Sabbath in the Early Church?
(Part 1), Ecclesiological Implications of the Sabbath
(Part 2), Ecclesiological Implications of the Sabbath
(part 1), Sabbath Typology and Eschatological Rest, Paul and the Sabbath, Jesus and the Sabbath, The Sabbath and the Decalogue in the OT, a look at God’s Rest as Prescriptive, an examination of the Sabbath as a Creation Ordinance.
In the previous post I introduced Henry Bullinger’s sabbath theology in order to demonstrate that the puritans were not novel in their understanding of the doctrine of the sabbath. Below is a further look into Bullinger’s view of the day of rest:
The Sabbath is Universal. Related to the notion of a creation based Sabbath, Bullinger believed that it is good for everyone to observe the Sabbath, not just believers. Commenting on Jesus’ statement that the Sabbath was made for man, Bullinger writes that we “very well know that God ordained the Sabbath for the preservation, and not the destruction, of mankind.”
[1] Indeed, after citing Constantinian regulations for Sabbath work, the Swiss reformer shows that “the countrymen, as well as of the townsmen, are looked for due honor done to God, and the keeping of the fourth commandment.”
[2] Furthermore, he argued that it was the responsibility of Christian magistrates to ensure that the Sabbath was upheld. After describing how the people of Israel stoned a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, Bullinger writes: “Why then should it not be lawful for a Christian Magistrate to punish by bodily imprisonment, by loss of goods, or by death, the despisers of religion of the true and lawful worship done to God, and of the sabbath day?”
[3] Bullinger believed that the Sabbath has been observed by “natural and divine law, every from the first creation of the world, and is the chief of all other holy days.”
[4] Hence, according to this reformer, the command to observe Sabbath rest is universally incumbent upon all men and women.
The Sabbath is perpetual. Related to the universality of the 4th commandment, Bullinger argued that the command for Sabbath rest is perpetual: “In respect that on the Sabbath-day religion and true godliness are exercised and published…it is perpetual” (259). Because the worship of God is a perpetual obligation, the sanctification of one day a week specifically for rest and worship is a perpetual necessity. While he did not argue that the Lord specifically mandates Sunday as the day of rest (more on that below), he did argue that one day a week should be set apart for preaching, prayers, sacraments, and alms for the poor.
[5] Without a perpetually binding command for Sabbath observance, these congregational necessities might be neglected; however, according to Bullinger’s interpretation, the perpetual nature of the Sabbath prevented such neglect.
The Sabbath is Moral. Sabbath rest was not only perpetual. Rather, the acceptance or rejection of Sabbath rest has moral consequences. Those in authority are urged to ensure that the Sabbath is not profaned. Indeed, “it is the duty of a Christian magistrate, or at least likewise of a good householder, to compel to amendment the breakers and contemners (sic) of God’s Sabbath and worship.”
[6] Bullinger even lists abuses of the Sabbath: “They transgress this commandment, that cease not from evil works, but abuse the Sabbath’s rest to the provoking of fleshly pleasures.” After then listing many different vices to be avoided on the Sabbath day, he then warns, “Whosoever do contemn (sic) the holiness of the Sabbath-day, they give a flat and evident testimony of their ungodliness and light regard of God’s mighty power.”
[7] Clearly, for Bullinger the Sabbath is a serious weekly event whose observation carries equally serious moral consequences if profaned.
The Sabbath Command is partly ceremonial. However, for Bullinger, while the Sabbath certainly still contains morally binding status for New Testament believers, he does admit that the fourth commandment was not entirely moral. He writes that “the sabbath is ceremonial, so far forth as it is joined to sacrifices and other Jewish Ceremonies, and so far forth as it its tied to a certain time: but in respect that on the sabbath-day religion and true godliness are exercised… therein, I say, it is perpetual, and not ceremonial.”
[8] Bullinger does admit that the change of the Sabbath day to Sunday is not explicit in the New Testament; however, he argues that believers are still bound by the fourth commandment: “in this fourth precept of the first table, we are commanded to have a care of religion and the exercising of godliness.” Because there remains a command to tend to the things of religion, because “of the Lord’s glorious resurrection upon” Sunday, and because “the outward worship of God cannot consist without an appointed time of space and holy rest,” believers are now to sanctify Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.
Being one of the most widely read of the continental reformers, Bullinger’s influence was far reaching. In England, the impact of his Decades was felt on generations of pastors and theological students. Bullinger’s sabbatarian theology introduced many themes that are clearly repeated throughout the works of many English Puritans. However, before looking at an English Puritan, we will next examine the thought of another Reformer that had a lasting impact on Puritan theology: Martin Bucer.
[1]Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 2.4.265.
[2]Ibid., 2.4.266.
[3]Ibid., 2.4.262.
[4]Ibid., 3.5.163.
[5]Ibid., 2.4.261.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 10, 2023 16:32:54 GMT -5
Feet and Inches: Christ Rules Over All Things
DAVID SCHROCK
Reintroducing George Smeaton and Abraham Kuyper
Writing on different subjects, in different language, but at roughly the same period of time, George Smeaton and Abraham Kuyper used synonymous language to describe Christ’s reign over the earth. In our first post, we introduced them; today we will compare and combine their statements to give a more full-orbed understanding of Christ’s universal dominion. But before doing that, let me supply their quotes again.
First, in 1871 in Christ’s Doctrine of the Atonement, Smeaton wrote concerning John 12:31 and Christ’s universal reign,
On the contrary, this testimony shows that every foot of ground in the world belongs to Christ, that His followers can be loyal to Him in every position, and that in every country and corner where they may placed they have to act their part for their Lord. The world is judicially awarded to Christ as its owner and Lord (p. 300).
Ten years later, Kuyper in a speech concerning “sphere sovereignty,” Kuyper make the famous statement,
There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine!“
Clearly, the resonance between Kuyper and Smeaton is unmistakable, but there are a number of differences in context and nuance that make it worthwhile to take up both statements as we consider Christ’s universal dominion. Let’s consider three that develop this truth.
Feet and Inches: Smeaton and Kuyper on the Universal Reign of Christ
First, Christ Rules Over Satan and Scholars. In Smeaton, Christ’s rule over the earth is contrasted with that of Satan. While Satan stole possession of the earth from Adam and Eve, and ruled as the god of this age for generations; Jesus Christ came and dethroned the serpent of old. Thus, while he still flails, Jesus is the one resting on the throne and delegating his Spirit and his Church to have dominion over the whole wide earth.
At the same time, one of the areas in which this dominion ought to occur is in the academy. Kuyper, a brilliant theologian, author, educator, politician, and spokesman for a Reformed worldview, advocates the need for the disciplines of law, medicine, science and so forth to be undertaken not in disjunction from faith or from the reign of Christ, but rather in connect with him. The reason? Just as Christ reigns over Satan and in the church, so he is the creator, sustainer, and inventor of all life. Thus, to rightly understand anything in creation demands that a person sees how that individual theory, molecule, or bacteria strain relates to the whole. Only with Christ reigning on the throne can such a vision of research be conceived.
Second, Christ Rules Over Space and Studies. In Smeaton, we find biblical proof of the fact that Christ died for people from every tongue, tribe, language, and nation. At the same time, his death defeated the cosmic reign of Satan. Therefore, every square foot has now been reclaimed, officially, by Christ, and in time all creation will be re-made and re-seeded as Christ brings the New Creation. At the same time, Kuyper rightly sees Christ rightly seeds his world with thinkers and thoughts that benefit all of humanity. These come not only from Christian scientists and philosophers, they are also developed by unbelievers. Nevertheless, Christ rules over the nations and their various schools of thought in order to effect all of his purposes in the world.
One example of this would include the political theory that permitted Israel to dwell in the land of Palestine under the auspices of the Roman Empire. While not apparent to the Romans or even the Jews, God permitted the toleration of the Roman Empire to provide a way of life in Israel that facilitated the coming of Christ (cf. Gal 4:4). All the orchestrations and political machinations were at one level governed by various thinkers and philosophies, but at another level, God used them in order to effect his causes. In this way, God is sovereign over the geographic nations and the way they run. Smeaton points to the former, Kuyper more the latter.
Third, Christ Rules As Redeemer and Creator. In Smeaton’s work, he is insistent on Christ’s atoning work. Because of Christ’s death, he defeats Satan and redeems or reclaims the earth. In this way, he is functioning as a Redeemer who has authority over all the earth. For Kuyper, it seems that his sphere sovereignty is more connected with his role as creator and sustainer. While not denying the special work of redemption, in any sort of way, he emphasizes Christ the Creator.
Truth be told, both of these things are truth and should not be set against one another. Rather, they work in tandem and rightly relate Christ to all the earth. As John 17:2 mentions, Jesus has authority over all flesh, but he only gives eternal life to the ones who have been given to him (i.e. the elect).
In the end, Smeaton’s statement balances Kuyper’s statement and gives added texture and depth to the beautiful reality that Christ reigns over all things. Christ reigns over all the earth as Creator and Redeemer, as the one who has subdued Satan and who subverts scholars. He rules space and time, measurement and rhyme. He is God over all, and in the works of Smeaton and Kuyper, one can find an excellent pair who help us think through the way Christ governs his universe.
A Final Curiosity
Smeaton published his words before Kuyper proclaimed his. While it would be natural for Smeaton to assimilate Kuyper’s well known words–at least well known today–it seems more odd that Kuyper would have borrowed his most famous utterance from another. And it probably is unlikely. The contexts in which the statements occurred and the provenances from which they were written, accompanied by the difference in languages, makes it unlikely that these two statements had any organic relationship.
It is more likely the case, that the allusive echo found in their statements are simply the product of two men studying the same Scriptures, influenced by the same Spirit–coincidentally, both men produced mathom works on the Holy Spirit (Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; and Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit), living under the same king whose rule is seen in Edinburgh and Amsterdam.
While Smeaton measured Christ’s reign in feet and Kupyer marked his off in inches, the reality for both of them, is that Christ rightly possess all his inheritance and is reigning over it all today. This glorious truth bears repeating, and as often as we quote Kuyper, perhaps we should also cite Smeaton, who not only precedes the Dutch theologian and prime minister, but who also connects the universal reign to the cross of Christ.
Thoughts? If anyone does have any connections between Smeaton and Kuyper, I would love to know. If not, it will remain an interesting coincidence, another example that there is nothing new under the Son.
David Schrock (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as pastor of preaching and theology at Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, Virginia. He is an Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology (Indianapolis Theological Seminary, Boyce College, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; previously, Crossroads Bible College). David and his wife, Wendy, have three sons and one daughter. He blogs at Via Emmaus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 25, 2023 9:27:23 GMT -5
Divine Forgiveness Admired and Imitated
Colossians 3:13
Charles Spurgeon
MTP, May 1885 Sermon number 1841
Taken from Spurgeon’s Expository Encyclopedia 7:401, 402, 405, 406.
When He forgives He forgives the whole of our faults, follies, failures, and offenses. There is a certain solidarity about sin, so that it makes up one lump. I read the other day of a certain theologian speaking of Christ having put away original sin while He left actual sin. Nonsense! Sin is one and indivisible. Iniquity is not to be done up in separate parcels. The sin, the iniquity of men, is spoken of in the Bible as one thing. Although we sin multitudes of times the various streams all flow into one sea of evil, when sin is forgiven all sin is put away, not a shred, nor fragment, nor particle remains. The Lord Jesus drowns all the hosts of sin in the depths of the sea, and the whole of our guilt is swallowed up forever. This is great forgiveness, indeed. Glory be to Him who gives it! Let us follow Him in His truth and heartiness. This forgiveness, again, is given by the Lord Jesus Christ in the completest possible manner. He keeps no back reckonings; He retains no reserves of anger. He so forgives that He forgets. That is the wonder of it, He says, “I will not remember your sins.” He casts them behind His back; they are wholly and completely gone from His observation or regard. Alas, such is poor human nature, that even fathers, when they have forgiven a wayward child, will, perhaps, throw the offense in his teeth years after, when he again offends, but it is never so with Christ. He says, “Your sins shall not be mentioned against you any more forever.” He has done with the sins of His people in so effectual a way that not a whisper concerning them shall ever come from His mouth so as to grieve them. They will themselves remember their sins with deep repentance, but the Lord will never challenge them on account of their past rebellions. Blessed be the name of Christ for such complete forgiveness as this. The Lord Jesus Christ forgives His people in a continuous manner. He forgave us long ago, He still forgives us. He does not forgive and afterwards accuse, His forgiveness is eternal; it is not a reprieve He gives to you, believing ones, but a free pardon, under the King’s hand and seal, which shall effectually protect you from accusation and punishment. “In those days, and in that time, says the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve.” He has finished transgression, made an end of sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness. Send to hell a pardoned sinner! It is a contradiction to the very nature of God. Condemn those for whom Jesus died! Why, the apostle mentions that death as a conclusive answer to the challenge, “Who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died, yes rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” How shall He intercede for us and yet accuse us? It is impossible for Christ to be both Redeemer and Condemner to the same persons. So perfect is His pardon that our sin has ceased to be, He has put away sin forever by the sacrifice of Himself.
…
In urging you to this copying of Christ, let me notice that this forgiveness of those who offend against us is gloriously ennobling. We are not asked to perform a duty which will in the least degrade us. Revenge is paltry, forgiveness is great-minded. Was not David infinitely greater than Saul, when he spared his life in the cave, and when he would not smite him as he lay asleep on the battlefield? Did not the king humble himself before David when he perceived David’s forbearance? If you would be the greatest among men, bear injuries with the greatest gentleness; if you would win the noblest of conquests, subdue yourself. To win a battle is a little thing if it is fought out with sword and gun, but to win it in God’s way, with no weapons but love, and patience, and forgiveness, this is the most glorious of victories. Blessed is that man who is more than a conqueror, because he inflicts no wounds in the conflict, but overcomes evil with good. In the process of such a conquest the warrior is himself a gainer. A nation in fighting, even if it wins the campaign, has to suffer great expense and loss of life, but he that overcomes by love, is the better and stronger man through what he has done. He comes out of the conflict not only victor over his adversary, but victor over sin within himself, and all the readier for future war against evil. He glorifies God and himself becomes strong in grace. Nothing is more glorious than love. Your Master, who is King of kings, set you an example of gaining glory by enduring wrong, if you would be knights of His company, imitate His graciousness.
Notice that this imitation of Christ is logically appropriate to you all. Brothers and sisters, if Christ has forgiven you, the parable we read just now shows that it is imperative that you should forgive your fellows. If our Lord has forgiven us our ten thousand talents, how can we take our brother by the throat for the hundred pence, and say, “Pay me what you owe”? If we are indeed members of Christ, should we not be like our Head? If we profess to be His servants, are we to pretend to a dignity greater than our Master, who washed His disciples’ feet? If He forgave so freely, how dare we call ourselves His brethren if our spirit is hard and malice lingers within us?
I say, to conclude, that this copying of Christ is most forcibly sustained by the example given in the text. We are to forbear and to forgive. “Even as Christ forgave you, so also do you.” I have heard it said, “If you pass by every wanton offense, and take no notice of it, you will come to be despised, and regarded as a person of mean spirit, your honor demands vindication.” When Christ forgave you, did His honor suffer by that forgiveness? You transgressed most wickedly, and yet He forgave you, do you regard Him as less honorable because of that readiness to pass by offenses? Far from it, it is His glory to forgive. The hallelujahs of saints and the songs of angels are sent up to His throne the more heartily because of the richness of His grace, and the freeness of His mercy. Dishonor indeed! What pride it is on the part of such poor creatures as we are to talk about our honor! Where is the honor of revenge? It is a dishonorable thing to put yourself on the level of him who injures you. A heathen philosopher used to say, “If an ass kicks you, is it necessary for the maintenance of your honor to kick that ass again?” That speech looks like a noble one, but yet it is too much flavored with contempt. When you speak, or even think, of another who has wronged you as though he were only worthy to be regarded as a beast, you are not right in spirit, a degree of evil remains in your heart. Think of the offender without contempt, as well as without resentment. Believe that he is a brother worth winning. Say, “If he does me an injury, for that very reason I will do him a double service. My only vengeance shall be double love. I will not allow myself to even think harshly of him. I will put the best possible construction on all that he does, and thus show that the spirit of Christ is in me, conquering the spirit of fallen humanity both in me and in him.”
CHARLES SPURGEON, FORGIVENESS
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 7, 2023 20:37:08 GMT -5
Why I Am Still a Baptist
ROBERT GONZALES JR.
Why I Am Still a Baptist
Founders Journal 87
CONTENTS
DOWNLOAD PDF
Some of my best friends and my most admired heroes of the Christian faith believe in the practice of baptizing infants and bringing them into the membership of the church apart from any profession of faith. My love and respect for these dear brothers and venerable men of God has on more than one occasion inclined me to reconsider whether they’ve got it right and I’ve got it wrong.
But after “revisiting” the issue several times, I’m still a Baptist. I could offer several reasons. But one reason involves the teaching of a text that’s often overlooked in the Infant Baptism (Paedobaptism) vs Believer Baptism (Credobaptism) debate. That text is John 1:12–13. I’d like to make three observations on this text and explain why I believe it doesn’t support the idea of baptizing non-professing children of believers and bringing them into the membership of a New Covenant church.
Conferral of covenant sonship status under the New Covenant is limited no longer to the Jewish nation and is predicated no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus the Messiah. This is the point made by the apostle John when he writes, “But to as many as received Him, He granted the legal warrant to become children of God, even to the ones who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the decision of a husband, but of God (John 1:12–13; author’s translation). Consider the following three observations and their implication for infant baptism and church membership.
A Shift in the “History of Salvation”
The reader should note that the primary theme of John 1:1–18 is the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among men. This is obviously a historical event and it marks a new epoch in the history of redemption. The apostle notes this epochal shift when he asserts, “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” John’s reference to Moses alludes to a great event in redemptive history, viz, God redeeming His people from Egypt mediated through Moses and later revealed in the Law. That great redemptive event, however, would pale in comparison to the second great redemptive event. Indeed, the first great event was merely a shadow of the second great event. Now God would redeem His people from their sins by the hand of one greater than Moses (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15ff.; Hebrews 3:1–7). The Son of God would come and ratify a New Covenant with His own blood.
So what we have here are two mediators, two covenants and two canons! The “law” is the Old Testament canon completed. “Grace and truth,” refer to a New Covenant canon, not yet completed but anticipated and presupposed. Moreover, John’s purpose in this passage is to highlight the superiority of the New Covenant and its Mediator. The Old Covenant contained grace and truth (Exodus 34:4–7). That grace and truth, however, was promissory in form. God’s people could not look directly at His glory, but they could only see it as it was reflected from Moses’ face. Even then there was a veil over his face, because God’s people were not ready for the full revelation of God’s glory (Exodus 34:29–35).
But in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son, the Word. Now the veil will be taken away from the Law of Moses. Now God’s people are ready to see God’s glory in all of its fullness. Note verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Now grace and truth are no longer in the promissory form of the Old Testament. Now they’re in the fulfillment form of the incarnate Son of God—the Mediator of a better covenant. Instead of sending Moses down from the mountain in order to reflect His glorious grace and truth, God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, has come down from the mountain. Note the declaration of verse 18: “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [i.e., revealed] Him.” Jesus Christ Himself is the New Covenant Word from God.
What, therefore, verses 10–12 describe are human responses to this redemptive-historical event. “The world did not know Him” (v. 10), “His own people did not receive him” (v. 11), and “but as many as received Him” (v. 12) refer primarily those historical human responses that have followed in the wake of this new and greatest of all redemptive events—God become flesh in the person of Christ. Thus, verses 12 and 13 are not merely rehearsing God’s way of grace throughout the ages (e.g., God’s work of grace in Abraham, Moses and David) but are concerned primarily with a new state of affairs introduced by the coming of Christ and inauguration of the New Covenant. Now what once characterized only a remnant within God’s Old Covenant family will now be the rule characterizing the members of the New Covenant family. Unfortunately, as William Hendricksen notes, “The Jew was very slow to learn that in the new dispensation there are no special privileges based upon physical relationships” (emphasis added).1 Therefore, when a Paedobaptist (i.e., one who advocates infant baptism) asserts that John’s teaching in 1:12–13 “was true in the Old Covenant; this is nothing new,” it seems to me that he betrays an insensitivity to the clear redemptive-historical emphasis of John’s doctrine.
Accordingly, the passage is not simply explaining the “way of salvation” (ordo salutis), that is, God’s method of saving sinners at all times; it’s primarily highlighting a shift in redemptive history (historia salutis), that is, God’s manner of administrating the paradigm of redemption (commonly called the Covenant of Grace) in history.
Adoption: Legal Covenantal Status
The rendering of the Authorized Version, “to them gave he power to become the sons of God,” has suggested to some that verses 12–13 are dealing exclusively with regeneration. The Greek term translated “power,” however, is ἐξουσία (exousia), not δύναμις (dunamis). The later would connote revivification and be consonant with the grace of regeneration. The former denotes legal authority and/or privilege. This is noted by Leon Morris who writes, “John does not speak of power, as in the sense of power of sin (though in fact they receive that too). His thought is that of status. They have received full authority to this exalted title. He does not say ‘to be’ but ‘to become.’ Not only is there a status, but there is a change of status.”2 Albert Barnes argues similarly and prefers to translate ἐξουσίαν as “privilege.” He then identifies this privilege as the legal status of adoption.3 Barnes is not without support from other commentators. John Calvin uses the term “adoption” at least four times in his exposition of verses 12 and 13.4 Professor John Murray lists John 1:12–13 among “the most important passages in the New Testament bearing upon adoption.”5 He argues,
In John 1:12 he speaks of giving authority to become sons of God. Sonship, he indicates, is instituted by the bestowment of a right and this is to be distinguished from the regeneration spoken of in verse 13. When we apply John’s own teaching elsewhere to this passage we are compelled to discover the following progression of logical and causal relationship—regeneration (v. 13), the reception of Christ, the bestowment of authority, and becoming thereby children of God (v. 12)…. In a word, the representation of Scripture is to the effect that by regeneration we become members of God’s kingdom, by adoption we become members of God’s family.6
One should note how Murray connects the blessing of adoption with membership in God’s covenant family. Robert Peterson builds on Murray’s insights and remarks,
Adoption and regeneration are two ways of describing how we enter the family of God…. In regeneration, [God] begets his children, giving new life to those who were spiritually dead. In adoption, the Father places adult sons and daughters, former children of the devil, in his family. Adoption is a legal action, taking place outside of us, whereby God the Father gives us a new status in his family.7
So the grace bestowed in verse 12 is “adoption” in contrast with the grace effected in verse 13, which is “regeneration.”8 Of course, as the writers above note, John ties both salvific blessings together. This new covenant family status is conferred on believers (v. 12) whose very faith is itself the fruit or evidence of a supernatural work of God’s regenerating grace (v. 13). Thus, this newly conferred covenant status is not the product of human merit but of divine bestowal.
Nevertheless, since verse 13 stands grammatically in subordination to verse 12, the emphasis is not so much upon God’s inward work of regeneration but rather upon God’s subsequent conferral of legal status upon regenerate believers. And if John is not merely alluding to the ordo salutis but rather to a new stage in redemptive history, then his emphasis on a circumcised heart expressed by faith in Christ as the condition for the divine conferral of a new covenant-familial status suggests a qualitative difference between the constitutional makeup of the Old Covenant people of God, with the most of whom God was not well-pleased (1 Corinthians 10:1–5), and the New Covenant people of God, who, as a rule, are truly “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession,” marked by the fact that God has not merely called them out of Egypt to Canaan but “out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Consequently, the passage is not merely referring to the divine causation of a moral change in individuals, that is, regeneration; it’s primarily highlighting a divine conferral of legal covenantal status, that is, adoption.
Legal Basis of Covenant Status: Supernatural Descent
If, as argued above, John’s focus is not merely on the ordo salutis but primarily on the historia salutis, then verse 13 takes on new significance. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in the promised Offspring. More specifically, God has always called for a circumcised heart that gives rise to faith and genuine piety (Genesis 15:6; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4, 14). But one might lawfully belong to Abraham’s “seed” and to the nation of Israel via the circumcision made with hands without the new birth. Hence, God confers upon the nation of Israel as a whole and indiscriminately the status of sonship (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Hosea 11:1; Romans 9:4).
This redemptive-historical state of affairs, however, has changed with the coming of Christ, says John. Not only does God convey His grace and truth through a better mediator than Moses (see above). Now God will limit the conferral of legal covenant status to those upon whose heart His law is written, who know Him, and whose sins He has forgiven (Jeremiah 31:31–34). To use the language of John, “To as many as received” the Son of God incarnate (v. 12). Hence, natural descent, the pride of the Jewish people, no longer counts. As Calvin observes,
The universal term ‘as many’ implies an antithesis: the Jews were carried away by a blind glorying, as if God were restricted to them alone. So the Evangelist declares that their lot has changed; the Gentiles have succeeded to the place left empty by the disinherited Jews. It is just as if he transferred the rights of adoption to strangers.9
So the legal right of entrance into the covenant family of God is no longer predicated on physical descent or outward circumcision. Instead, “‘Whosoever’ received Him,” notes Ryle, whether “Pharisees, Sadducees, learned or unlearned, male or female, Jews or Gentiles, to them He gave the privilege of sonship to God.”10 Hence, with the coming of Christ, God has reconstituted His covenant household. He has indicated through the pen of His inspired apostle that warrant for inclusion within His “covenant household” (see Ephesians 2:19) is predicated no longer on natural descent on faith and the new birth but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Implications for New Testament Baptism and Church Membership
What are the implications for the New Covenant rite of baptism and church membership status? According to one Paedobaptist pastor,
The passage teaches nothing concerning ‘baptism,’ the sign, but is concerned with the grace, or what is signified. Paedobaptists teach that the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe. Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense.
I agree that “the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe” and that “Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense.” I would also concede that John does not directly refer to water baptism (which would be a bit premature at this stage in his Gospel presentation). Nevertheless, I’m inclined to think, in light of my exposition above, that this passage does carry implications regarding the recipients of baptism and membership in New Covenant churches.
Under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations, the “way of salvation” (ordo salutis) was preached primarily through shadows and was not, as a whole, realized in the “people of God.” Under the New Covenant, however, God’s redemptive program has advanced. Now the history of redemption (historia salutis) and way of salvation (ordo salutis) will more closely coincide. (Note: perfect coincidence will await the eschaton.) To achieve this result, God demands faith in Messiah as the warrant for inclusion within the New Covenant community. Natural descent and outward circumcision served their typical purposes under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. But blood-ties to Abraham and removed foreskins failed to effect the kind of changes in the covenant community God ultimately desired. Therefore,
Finding fault with His people, He says: “Look, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Because they did not continue in My covenant, I disregarded them,” says the Lord. “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says the Lord: “I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their wrongdoing, and I will never again remember their sins.” By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear [emphasis added] (Hebrews 8:8–13, HCSB).
In keeping with the redemptive-historical shift portended by the prophet Jeremiah, highlighted by the author of Hebrews, and reinforced by the teaching of John 1:12–13, I would argue that those who have divinely conferred legal warrant to enter into God’s newly constituted covenant family are those who give evidence of the new birth though a credible profession of faith in Jesus the Messiah. The fact that unregenerate men and women are sometimes baptized and brought into the New Covenant community on profession of faith that later turns out to be false does not contradict or invalidate the Credobaptist argument. Even the Paedobaptist predicates adult baptism on a credible profession of faith.
Hence, “the proverbial elephant sitting in the Credo-Baptist living room,” as one Paedobaptist brother put it, is in his living room too. The question is one of divinely bestowed legal warrant (John 1:12). What the Credobaptist avers is that this demand for a credible profession of faith as the warrant for inclusion within God’s New Covenant family is not a substantial continuation of the state of affairs under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants with, of course, a few minor changes, like the switch from circumcision to baptism and from the Passover to the Lord’s Supper. It is, rather, a new state of affairs from a redemptive-historical standpoint. Hence, the church and her leadership are no longer warranted by God to include physical seed in the covenant by virtue of mere blood-ties to believing parents. To those who receive Christ and to those alone does God grant de jure the privilege of New Covenant member status.
In closing, I acknowledge that some of my Paedobaptist brothers may affirm most of what I have said and acknowledge its validity as a general rule. They will, however, quickly remind me of a handful of New Testament passages that, in their minds, provide biblical warrant for an exception to the rule. They will point to Jesus’ receptive disposition toward children (Acts 18:1–10; Mark 10:14–16), Acts 2:38–39; household baptisms (Acts 16:15; 31–34; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16), and the children made “holy” text (1 Corinthians 7:14). But these passages are hardly conclusive and undisputed. It should also be noted in that in all the New Testament polemic against the Judaizers’ attempt to foist the continuing demand of outward circumcision upon the New Covenant community never once do the apostles settle the confusion with the simple observation that circumcision has been superseded by baptism. Colossians 2:11–12 does not replace outward circumcision with water baptism. Rather, it replaces outward circumcision with inward circumcision (Philippians 3:3), i.e., regeneration, which in turn is evidence by faith (John 1:12–13) and symbolized in water baptism (Colossians 2:12). So, with all due respect and appreciation for my Paedobaptist brothers, I do not believe that the Credobaptists argues in a “void.”
Well, this is one reason why I’m still a Baptist. There are others too. But I still love and respect my dear friends and esteemed heroes in the faith who see things differently. In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things charity.
Notes:
1 William Hendricksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1953), 1:81.
2 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 98.
3 Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1962), 265.
4 See Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 4:16–19.
5 John Murray, Collected Works (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:226.
6 Ibid., 2:228–229.
7 Robert Peterson, Adopted by God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001), 105.
8 See also J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1957), 3:16–17.
9 Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 4:16–17.
10 Ryle, Expository Thoughts, 3:22.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2023 22:53:26 GMT -5
What we find on the pages of the New Testament concerning the true humanity of Christ and the concerns stated by the Apostles concerning those that deny it continued into the second and third centuries in a variety of forms of Gnosticism. Among other problems presented by Gnosticism, two embrace all the others. One, salvation comes through intuitive knowledge resident within certain spiritual persons. Two, the world of matter is intrinsically evil and was generated by an inferior deity. Implications include a denial of the final authority of the written word of the apostles and a denial of the full humanity of Christ, particularly the redemptive work accomplished in his flesh. In short, they denied all that Paul included in his admonition to “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of a seed of David, according to my gospel” (2 Timothy 2:8).
In response to the insidious influence of this dualistic mysticism, the post-apostolic church developed the “rule of faith.” The various recensions of the rule of faith eventually were synthesized into a statement that most succinctly, clearly, and economically expressed universally received Christian truth known as the Apostle’s Creed. The finalized text of the Apostles’ Creed appeared in the work of Pirminius (d ca. 753) in A. D. 750. Pirminius used the succinct outline of biblical assertions to give instructions in Christian doctrine and morals to recently baptized Christians. Its twelve articles, according to pious legend, were given in order by the twelve apostles beginning with Peter and ending with Matthias. The creed is trinitarian.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: the third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, the life eternal. Amen.
One can see the immediate significance, in light of the claims of Gnosticism, of phrases such as “the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh.” What claims our energy presently are those early numbered 3 through 8, beginning “And in Jesus Christ,” and ending with “judge the living and dead.” Its affirmative sentences give a simple reflection of the facts of redemptive history as presented in biblical revelation. One can see in the focus on Christ’s incarnation and redemptive labors in the human nature as of central concern. As we found it in its incipient stage in the New Testament, Gnosticism in its denial of the true humanity of Christ had come to full flower.
Likewise, in the letters of Ignatius at the end of the first decade of the second century, we find a deep and clear commitment to Trinitarian doctrine, the real humanity as well as true divine sonship of Jesus Christ, the efficacy of his true bodily suffering and resurrection, the person of the Holy Spirit, and the necessity of unity of doctrine in the church. He warned the church at Trallia, to “partake only of Christian food, and keep away from every strange plant, which is heresy.” “There is only one physician,” Ignatius insisted, “who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.” [ Holmes, 88.]. Again, focused on the false teachers that presented Christ as a phantom-like creature, Ignatius proclaimed, “For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.” [Holmes, 92] In writing to the Trallians, Ignatius gives evidence of a confessional formula similar to this creed. His language shows that he understood the trickery of the verbal circumlocutions used by heretics in seeming to exalt Christ while in truth they denied both his true humanity and his eternal deity. Note how Ignatius seeks to cut through their façade. “Be deaf, therefore, whenever anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, who was the son of Mary, who really was born, who both ate and drank, who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was crucified, and died while those in heaven and on earth and under the earth looked on; who, moreover, really was raised from the dead when his Father raised him up, who—his Father, that is, in the same way will likewise raise us up in Christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life.” [Holmes, 100].
Throughout the writings of Justin Martyr (ca. 150) we find doctrinal assertions and phrases that show his familiarity with an early development of the “rule of faith” and his ability to apply those doctrinal principles in a variety of situations. For example, in his first Apology, Justin argued, “From all that has been said an intelligent man can understand why, through the power of the Word, in accordance with the will of God, the Father and Lord of all, he [the Word, or Son] was born as a man, was named Jesus, was crucified, died, rose again, and ascended into heaven.” [Apology, 46] Scattered throughout his Apology, we find these phrases “Jesus Christ our Savior was made flesh through the word of God, and took flesh and blood for out salvation.” Another says, “by the will of God he became man,… he came as a man among men.” In showing the truthfulness of the prophets, Justin narrated, “In these books, then, of the prophets we have found it predicted that Jesus our Christ would come, born of a virgin, growing up to manhood, and healing every disease and every sickness and raising the dead, and hated, and unrecognized and crucified, and dying and rising again and ascending into heaven, and both being and being called Son of God.” [Apology, 44] In his second Apology, Justin wrote, “For next to God [the Father], we worship and love the logos who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming partaker of our sufferings, he might also bring us healing.”
So it is in the writings of Irenaeus (ca. 180), who in writing Against Heresies, said, “The church . . . received from the apostles and their disciples the faith in one God, the Father almighty, ‘who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,’ and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Ghost, who preached through the prophets the dispensations of God and the comings and the birth of the virgin and the passion and the resurrection from the dead, and the reception into heaven of the beloved, Christ Jesus our Lord, in the flesh, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise up all flesh of all mankind, that unto Christ Jesus our Lord and God our Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in the heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ him, and to execute just judgment upon all.” In describing how in the person of Christ we discover both god and man, Irenaeus wrote, “His word is out Lord Jesus Christ who in these last times became man among men, the he might unite the end with the beginning, that is, Man with God..” Later Irenaeus again summarized a discussion in saying “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” Irenaeus’s description of Christ’s incarnation includes a description as to how each stage of human life was sanctified by him from infancy to adulthood. This led to his statement on recapitulation in which the unity of his person in both natures, God and man, is essential. “Therefore the Lord confesses himself to be the Son of man, restoring in himself that original man from whom is derived that part of creation which is born of woman; that as it was through a man that our race was overcome and went down to death, so through a victorious man we may rise up to life; and as through a man death won the prize of victory over us, so through a man we may win the prize of victory over death. … He has been united with his own handiwork and made man, capable of suffering. …. He existed always with the Father; but he was incarnate and made man.”
Tertullian (ca. 225) in his Prescriptions Against Heretics put much confidence in the reception of “The Rule of Faith” given, at least in its essential content, by Christ himself and proclaimed in the apostolic teaching, preserved in Scripture, and retained in the teaching of the apostolic churches. He wavered not in his conviction that “Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification, and which we must seek precisely in order to believe it when we find it.” He went on to report that the Rule of Faith is “that by which we believe that there is but one God, who is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced everything from nothing through his Word, sent forth before all things; that this Word is called his Son, and in the name of God was seen in divers ways by the patriarchs, was ever heard in the prophets and finally was brought down by the Spirit and Power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, was born of her and lived as Jesus Christ; who thereafter proclaimed a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles, was crucified, on the third day rose again, was caught up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father; that he sent in his place the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers; that he will come with glory to take the saints up into the fruition of the life eternal and the heavenly promises and to judge the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both good and evil with restoration of their flesh.”
Augustine (ca. 421) used the order of the creed in writing his Enchiridion probably alternating between the version of Hippo and the version of Milan for precise wording. The Creed served as the basis for several other writings and sermons. He pointed to the Lord’s Prayer and “the Creed” as easily memorized and constituting the sum of faith, hope and love. “Because the human race was oppressed with great misery because of sin, and stood in need of the divine mercy, the prophet foretold the time of God’s grace and said Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Jl 2:32). That is the reason for the prayer. But when the apostle quoted this testimony of the prophet in order actually to proclaim God’s grace, he immediately added But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? (Rom 10:14). That is why we have the Creed.”
Having its basis in the biblical revelation of the Trinity and the focus on the work of Christ in his incarnation, these teachers shared the truth of the apostolic revelation that had Christ not been truly like us in all things pertaining to our humanity, the corrupting power of original sin excepted, he could in no sense be a redeemer of this race. While Gnostics such as Valentinus sought to deny the true humanity of Christ and Marcion sought to destroy the unity between the God of creation and the God of redemption, biblically sound Christian teachers found these synthesized assertions helpful in exposing the faulty steps of heresy. They focused on the unity of Scripture, the unity of God, the truth and necessity of the incarnation, the reality of Christ’s fully redemptive death and resurrection accomplished in his human nature in indivisible unity with his eternal sonship. The presence of the Holy Spirit, the unity of the church, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the reality of eternal states of each gave biblical symmetry to the whole of the truths confessed. In order to defend, teach, and confess the truth as well as test its existence in others this creed served the cause of orthodoxy well and still stands as one of the truly ecumenical expressions of biblical faith.
Those who saw the “Rule of Faith” as faithful to Scripture, who served in the development of this rule into the Apostles’ Creed did so in obedience to the Pauline admonition, “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of a seed of David, according to my gospel.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2023 20:59:11 GMT -5
Rethinking “Vision Casting” Nomenclature In Missions: An Exercise In Clear Speech
KENNETH HAYWARD
Rethinking “Vision Casting” Nomenclature In Missions: An Exercise In Clear Speech
On the field we often hear a missionary say something like, “We’re meeting with a few pastors today and want to cast vision.” Or maybe at a yearly training meeting, a leader might remark from the pulpit, “Meet with your disciples and cast vision for soul winning to them.” I don’t know the history of the phrase but know it’s popular in various circles. Christians from different backgrounds and theologies use the phrase. In a 2004 sermon, John Piper said, “Another example of Romans 12 shaping the way we build budgets and cast vision for Treasuring Christ Together is that the staff and elders know that verse 2 is absolutely essential for what we are doing” (link). And it’s not surprising to hear John Maxwell use it: vision is the ability for a leader to look out and see what is ahead of us (link). Apparently, those in the business sector use it a lot too: “Vision casting is a term used in leadership and strategic planning that refers to creating a compelling and inspiring vision for an organization or team. This vision provides the group with a clear direction and purpose and serves as a roadmap for achieving long-term goals and objectives” (link).
Thus, it’s normal for Southern Baptist missionaries to use it readily. It’s not exclusively used by those fond of Church Planting Movements strategies, but they employee it often: “At the same time, you hunt for saved believers (prioritizing same or near culture partners) that will work alongside you to reach this people group. You bridge into them by casting vision to them of what God can do in and through them and then to train them” (Smith). I imagine that many of us missionaries with other methods use the phrase as well. So maybe we could explore its meaning a bit here, and then perhaps recalibrate.
What the phrase conveys
What in fact do we as missionaries mean? If we were not allowed to say vision casting, what words would we use? Would we say teach, or emphasize, or help them understand? For example, “Meet with your disciples and teach the importance of soul winning to them.” Or “Emphasize to these leaders that they need to disciple their people.” What about good biblical words like preach, reprove, rebuke, or exhort? “Preach to them today and exhort them to share about Jesus.” This little replacement-word exercise can at least help us make sure we convey a biblical message when we tell other missionaries to cast vision. In fact, if one uses vision casting phraseology on the mission field or in the church, it might be good to make sure it’s really grounded in Scripture. Perhaps the closest example of someone in the Gospels doing something like vision casting might be when Jesus said, “I will make you fishers of men.” Maybe. Or when Jesus says in John 4, “Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest.” Perhaps.
Nevertheless, let’s suppose for a moment that the concept is biblical, yet let’s still use a different word to test clarity. What precisely is it that we’re teaching other Christians to do or become? What “vision” are we wanting others to catch? This is where I think we could do better. Some missionaries stop short; they say cast vision and merely mean, teaching others to share their faith, who will in turn teach Christians to share their faith; or they mean: to teach believers to disciple others who will also disciples others. But this “vision” is less than glorious, less biblical than it could be because it shoots for less than where Scripture points. If some have reduced vision casting (or teaching) to mean simply “go witness,” then that concept is only part of a good focus for a team or church or individual, but it’s lacking. There’s something better than mere witnessing or training others to witness. What is better? God himself.
The Best Focus
Right, the Lord himself is a better aim–or, shall we say, vision. “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul….” A robust approach would therefore be, teach others to cherish God and his glory. His glory shines in his authority and power. “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness” (Psalm 115:1)! We can teach disciples the fine details of the end of Matthew 28, too. His glory sparkles here: “All authority…given to me”, “I will be with you always…”. The end of Matthew isn’t merely about disciple making, but about the One true God with all authority, who will never leave his disciples.
This article is not a call to always avoid vision casting terminology. Who has time to be the word police? I use discipleship even though the word isn’t in the Bible. But hopefully we can all agree that words matter. (Note how often people say, “meet online” when they really mean “connect online.” Or “I feel that…” when they mean “I think that…” Missionaries themselves are bad about overusing “Great Commission” when quoting the biblical text would be better: “…going, make disciples, teaching them….” How we use words matters especially in cultures where man can now sometimes mean woman.) So, I’m urging cautious reflection, that is, rigorous biblical reflection. If your convictions lead you to conclude that vision casting is biblical, then please use it sparingly, and use it properly: to point people to the greatest of all visions–God’s supremacy, his bigness. “For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the LORD made the heavens” (Psalm 96:4-5).
We all need verbal shortcuts sometimes, but they can have weaknesses, like breeding ambiguity. Because we’re people of the Book, we have tasks for the church and the mission field that derive specifically from the Bible. Often, we ought to go to His Word to see that we’ve got it right, and often we should use its language to help us stay on track. Otherwise, we might become businesspeople and merely baptize our marketing ideas with Christian words or sprinkle our biblical words with business-rich concepts and verbiage. Sometimes our lingo, and use of, so-called best practices might hinder us–and also indicate that our trust in the sufficiency of Scripture is waning. I can’t imagine that using business language and concepts will help us stay biblical; it may not cause a derailment either. But it might.
A Stunning Reality
Nonetheless, if there’s anything in vision casting that connects to holding on to something hopeful in the future, as Jesus did when he endured the cross, “for the joy that was set before him…”, then what could be more glorious than seeing all of us bowing the knee and confessing to our great king as it says in Isaiah 45, Philippians 2, and Romans 14? That’s a beautiful picture.
So, if its vision-language we are compelled to use, then let’s choose a vision that all Bible-loving missionaries can embrace. “For I am God, and there is no other,” records Isaiah. Let’s make sure it drips with excitement and passion about the God of the Bible: “Those who have glimpsed the greatness, the grandeur, the majesty, and the excellence of our Triune God through the eyes of trust in Jesus never get over that vision (Philippians 3:8). An obsession with God and His glory is the hallmark of true knowledge of God” (Foundations).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2023 0:48:15 GMT -5
Why God Sent His Son: Part 1 – Our Slavery
JOHN DIVITO
Why God Sent His Son: Part 1 - Our Slavery
Like many families in our country and around the world, my family is busy preparing to celebrate Christmas. Our Christmas tree has been decorated, Christmas music regularly plays on the radio, and my wife and I are in the midst of buying Christmas gifts to give to our children. But in the midst of all of our busy-ness, this is also a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the incarnation of Christ. So let me ask: Why did Jesus come? Why did God send His Son? How well do we understand why Christ came into the world? How well do those in our churches understand why the Word became flesh?
To answer this question, I want to offer a few meditations on the birth of Christ from Galatians 4:1-7. In these verses, the Apostle Paul leads us to see the glories of the Son of God becoming man. My prayer is that this place in Scripture will help us to gain a fresh appreciation and awe for our Savior’s birth and let us to rejoice in the miracle of the incarnation.
As we begin, Paul reminds us in verses 1-3 that God sent His Son because of our slavery in sin.
Bondage Before Christ
Paul wrote this letter to the churches of Galatia. They had come together as churches throughout this region of the Roman Empire because of their common faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. But false preachers had come in among them and were distorting the gospel of Christ. These preachers were teaching that those who believe in Christ must become Jewish by receiving the sign of circumcision and by keeping the law that God had revealed to His people through Moses.
Here is the question that the Galatians were wrestling with: Who are the children of Abraham? Since the gospel of Jesus Christ is His announcement of receiving the promises that God made to Abraham, if you want to inherit the blessings that God promised to Abraham, then you need to be Abraham’s children.
The Judaizers say, “We are the children of Abraham!”, because they had received God’s covenant sign of circumcision given to Abraham and were following God by obeying His law. But the gospel declares that Abraham’s true children are those who share Abraham’s faith in God Himself providing His blessings to us through the promised Seed of Abraham.
By believing in Abraham’s Seed—Jesus Christ—we become Abraham’s seed in Him. Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female. We are the ones united to Christ by faith who are heirs of God’s promised blessings of justification and eternal life.
Therefore, Paul begins this chapter by writing to these Christians as those who will inherit God’s promised blessings to Abraham. Previously, Paul explained that God’s law is like a jailer or a pedagogue which rebukes us and punishes us for our sins so that we will yearn for the freedom that God promised to come in Christ. You see, we are all inmates imprisoned for our sin. The law keeps us locked up in our cell as we wait to receive the punishment we deserve for our sin.
A pedagogue was a slave used by parents to care for and discipline their children. They were generally demanding and severe, correcting the children they were supervising by whipping or caning them, by flicking the ear or slapping the face, or by other strict punishments. Their discipline would be used to train a boy to become a man. The law is a hard punishment God uses for us to recognize our sinfulness and discipline our disobedience.
Here in chapter 4, Paul makes a slightly different comparison by looking to the inheritance laws of the day. If a man was wealthy, then he would leave the family estate—including all of his money and possessions—to his son. But while his son was a child, the estate would be entrusted to guardians and stewards or trustees while they cared for his son. On the one hand, his son is the master of all. He is the heir and will inherit all of his father’s estate. But on the other hand, he is really not different from a slave. He doesn’t yet possess his inheritance, and he is under the authority and control of his guardians.
While he was a child, he had no rights to his family estate and was kept under discipline by his guardians. The guardian would tell him what to do, where to go, what to wear, and how to behave. This would continue until he matured and the time came for him to finally receive his inheritance of the family estate.
Bondage Under the Elements
The same was true for these Christians in Galatia. Before Christ came, they were spiritually children in bondage under the elements of the world. What are these elements? Throughout the centuries, Christians have struggled to know what Paul is referring to as elements. Three main views:
First, these elements could be referring to God’s Law. After all, Hebrews 5:12 speaks of God’s Law as “the first principles of the oracles of God.” So God gave His Law as a basic education of religious principles to instruct His people and to prepare them for Christ. God’s Law provides the education that children learn in school until Christ comes to bring them to maturity.
Second, these elements could be the physical elements that make up the world. For centuries the ancients believed that everything in the world came from four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. So Paul may be referring to the elements of the world in order to describe this fallen creation which has been corrupted by sin.
Third, these elements could be demonic powers. Then Paul is writing that these Galatian believers have been under bondage to Satan and His demons. This would be consistent with verses 8-9, where the weak and beggarly elements seem to be pointing to those which by nature are not gods. It could also be combined with the previous physical elements since the demonic powers rule over the elements of this fallen creation.
Whichever view is taken, Paul teaches in Romans 3:9-20 that everyone—Jew and Greek—are under the bondage of the law before Christ. In Ephesians 2:1-2, Paul has also written that before Christ we lived under the course of this world under the power of Satan. So there is a sense in which all of these views are true. His main point is that all were living in slavery to sin until Christ came. Apart from Christ, we are all under slavery to sin. God’s Law condemns us all, and our sin enslaves us to a life of wickedness under the control of Satan following a sinful world opposed to God.
What have we seen so far? Ever since our first parent Adam fell, we are all born as sinners living in rebellion against God. So we are under the bondage of the world, the flesh, and the devil. We will all face the wrath of God that we deserve for our sins when He punishes us eternally in hell. There is nothing that we can do to free ourselves from slavery to sin. But we must never forget the promise that He gave to humanity in the midst of our sin. This is our Christmas hope! In my next meditation from Galatians 4, we will take a closer look at God’s gift to us in our slavery to sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 31, 2024 21:05:37 GMT -5
Biblical Contentment in an Age of Dissatisfaction
COREY SMITH
Biblical Contentment in an Age of Dissatisfaction
We are living in an age of discontentment in 21st century America. However, you could argue this should not be so. America is one of the wealthiest countries in the history of the world. We are living in a time where access to information and knowledge is unlimited. In addition, we are the most socially connected generation ever. If 21st century Americans have the money, the knowledge, and the relationships, then why are they so dissatisfied? The problem of discontentment is as old as humanity, and the solution is an ancient one.
The First Discontented Human
The first record of human discontentment is found in the hearts of the very first humans. After being created, Adam and Eve enjoyed a sweet and rich relationship with their Creator. While in the garden, the first couple had everything thing they needed. They had a place to live, food to eat, and a spouse to love and cherish. Most of all, they had God, Himself. They were truly content.
Then, disruption slithered into paradise. Satan tempted Eve to disobey the command of God by eating the forbidden fruit. What was so tempting about the fruit that led to Eve’s discontentment? It was not so much the fruit, but the so-called reward of eating it. Satan promised her if she ate of it, she would then have her eyes opened and become like God. In a short matter of time, Eve went from complete contentment to sheer discontentment.
The Opposite of Contentment
What caused this great shift in Eve’s heart? To answer this question, we must ask another question. What is the opposite of contentment? You may answer, “Discontentment.” Though there is truth in that response, there is a better answer. The answer is found in God’s moral law, the Ten Commandments. More specifically, the answer is found in the 10th commandment: You shall not covet. What is the relationship between contentment and the 10th commandment? The Baptist Catechism is of aid to us here. The Baptist Catechism Q 85: Asks “What is required of the 10th commandment? It requires full contentment with our own condition.” The 10th commandment could read: You shall be content.
The opposite of contentment is covetousness. Covetousness is the desire to want what one does not have. It may include money, possessions, popularity, romantic relationships, and prestige. To covet is to focus on one’s circumstances, and primarily on what one does not have.
At the heart of true contentment is trusting and resting in God’s providence.
In the garden, Eve coveted the thought of being like God. She became discontent because she believed God was holding her back from true joy. Discontentment began with believing the lie of Satan. It began by doubting the truthfulness of God’s word and the trustworthiness of God, Himself. In her desire to eat the forbidden fruit, Eve transgressed God’s moral law by coveting.
True Contentment
Though it is helpful to know the opposite of contentment, it is even better to know the definition of contentment. It is difficult to improve upon the definition written by the Puritan, Jeremiah Burroughs, from his book, The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment: “Christian contentment is that sweet, inward, quiet, gracious frame of spirit, which freely submits to and delights in God’s wise and fatherly disposal in every condition” (19). Jeremiah Burroughs’ definition of contentment is rooted in the Scriptures.
At the heart of true contentment is trusting and resting in God’s providence. True contentment is inward because it is not focused on our external circumstances. Jesus’ disciples struggled with contentment by being anxious and by worrying. Worrying about the future led them to being discontent. Jesus responded by teaching them, “For the gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you” (Matthew 6:32-33). True contentment is when our eyes are on God and the inward work of his Spirit rather than our external circumstances.
True contentment is quiet. It is a quietness of the heart that leads to a quietness of the tongue. Murmuring and complaining about the present circumstances of life lead to discontentment. One of the saddest stories of God’s people in the Old Testament is that of the wandering Israelites in the wilderness. They had just experienced the miraculous deliverance by God from bondage to the Egyptians which included the parting of the Red Sea. They grumbled and complained because they were bitter about not being in the Promised Land yet. They believed they deserved better than the wilderness. True contentment is a quiet spirit which acknowledges your neediness rather that what you deserve.
The Only Completely Contented Person
Biblical contentment can only truly be found in the Contented One, in Christ Jesus. Unlike Eve, Jesus trusts in God’s Word. Unlike Eve, Jesus obeys God’s law. Unlike Eve, Jesus is content. Of all people, Jesus had the best reason to be discontent. His external circumstances were an unjust death of crucifixion on the Roman cross. He is the only person who actually did not deserve what he received, God’s wrath for sin. He lived the perfect life (including keeping the 10th commandment), died the death deserved for us, and rose from the grave defeating death, sin, and Satan. True contentment is only found in Christ through faith. The way Christians can battle the sin of covetousness is by joyfully resting and delighting in God’s providence by the means of joyfully trusting and treasuring Christ’s sacrificial provision.
BIBLICAL CONTENTMENT, CHRISTIAN LIFE, DISSATISFACTION, GOSPEL, LAW AND GOSPEL, PRACTICAL THEOLOGY
Corey is married to his high-school sweetheart, Hope. They are blessed to have two children, Penny and Conrad. He serves as Senior Pastor at Heritage Baptist Church in Shreveport, Louisiana. In addition, he is also a member of the Steering Council of the Conservative Baptist Network. He received his MDiv, and is currently pursuing a PhD in Preaching, from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.
AUTHOR ARCHIVE
RELATED CONTENT
Get Founders
in Your Inbox
A weekly brief of our new teaching resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2024 23:02:18 GMT -5
The Confession of 1689 and Covenant Theology
JEFF JOHNSON
Historically, Reformed Baptists are covenantal. Though they differ from their Presbyterian brothers on a few key issues, according to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Baptists were equally committed to a robust covenantal framework of the history of redemption. In fact, every chapter of the confession is built on a covenantal matrix. Though chapter 7 is devoted entirely to the covenants, the chapters on creation, providence, the fall of man, Christ, justification, repentance, the gospel, good works, and perseverance are explained from a covenantal perspective.
For our Baptist forefathers, an alteration of the doctrine of the covenants is an alteration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel, in its broader context, includes the fulfilling of the covenant of works by the Second Adam, Jesus the Christ, that was broken by the first Adam; the Second Adam endured its curses and established its blessings for all those who are chosen by God to be represented by the Second Adam in the covenant of grace.
With this in mind, chapter 7 of the confession stresses three essential truths relating to its covenantal framework. Paragraph 1 confesses a prelapsarian covenant of works. Paragraph 2 confesses a postlapsarian covenant of grace. Paragraph 3 confesses an eternal covenant of redemption.
The Covenant of Works
Paragraph 1 confesses a prelapsarian covenant of works. Though the phrase “covenant of works” is located in 7:1 of the Westminster Confession, but is missing in 7:1 of the 1689, it is not because the 1689 denies that God’s pre-fall arrangement with Adam was a covenant of works. This is made clear in 20:1, where the 1689 calls it “the covenant of works.” Moreover, in 19:1, the 1689 explains that this prelapsarian covenant was based on works:
God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it.
Adam, in his state of innocence (7:3), was to merit eternal life through obedience to God’s moral law. Anything short of perfect obedience would result in death. And, as Nehemiah Coxe reminded us, this covenant did not include “the least iota of pardoning mercy.”1
The Necessity of the Covenant of Works
Moreover, the 1689 states that the covenant of works was necessary for eternal life to be promised to man. As 7:1 says: “Although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.”
This implies that the quality of life that God promised to man was of a greater value than what man possessed in his innocence and of a greater value than that which God was obligated to reward man for his obedience. Without this covenant, according to the confession, eternal life couldn’t have been offered to man.
The Perpetuity of the Covenant of Works
Of course, the confession states that the covenant of works was broken (20:1). A broken covenant, however, does not mean an abrogated covenant. Though the covenant of works was broken by Adam, the 1689 teaches that it remains binding on all of Adam’s posterity. That is, the same covenant of works that was established with Adam before the fall continues to be enforced on all of Adam’s unredeemed posterity after the fall.
First, the covenant of works continues after the fall because its curses continue to plague the human race after the fall. The confession teaches that the first Adam was the federal head of the human race and that he brought universal condemnation and death to all his descendant by his failure to keep the covenant of works (6:1, 2, 3). Because universal condemnation and original sin continue, the covenant of works continues.
Two, the covenant of works continues after the fall because its legal demands continue to bind the human race after the fall. The terms of the covenant of works consisted of more than just refraining from eating from the forbidden tree; it required complete obedience to God’s moral law that was written on Adam’s conscience (19:1). And though it is impossible for Adam’s descendants to eat of the forbidden tree, they are able to violate God’s moral law that is equally written in their conscience. As the confession states: “The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall” (19:1).
Three, the covenant of works continues after the fall because man’s moral inability does not nullify man’s moral culpability. Though the confession clearly teaches that fallen man is unable to keep the demands of the covenant of works: “The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life” (20:1), it states that the terms and promises/threats of the covenant of works continue to all of Adam’s children. For instance, according to the confession, Israel was reminded of the terms of the prelapsarian covenant of works in the postlapsarian covenant that was established with them at Mt Sinai. The “same law” that was written on Adam’s heart, according to the confession, was “delivered by God upon Mount Sinai” (19:2). So even though fallen man cannot obey, they are still required by God to obey.
Four, the covenant of works continues after the fall, as 19:6 strongly implies, because the only way to be free from the demands of the law “as a covenant of works” is to be justified by Christ and brought into the covenant of grace by faith. Unlike our Presbyterian friends, Baptists do not believe in any dual covenantal membership. According to the 1689, Adam’s descendants are either under the covenant of works or they are under the covenant of grace. It is one or the other: for it is impossible for those represented by the first Adam (i.e., the natural seed of believers) to be members of the covenant of grace. Moreover, just as it is impossible for those represented by the first Adam to keep the covenant of works, it is impossible for those represented by the second Adam to break the covenant of grace. This is a major Baptist distinctive that is confirmed by the 1689.
In summary, the covenant of works consisted of God’s promising Adam and his children eternal life for perfect obedience, and threatening eternal death for a single act of disobedience. Though Adam broke the covenant of works and brought death and condemnation on all his seed, the demands and curses of the covenant of works continue to be enforced on all of Adam’s seed who are outside of faith in Jesus Christ.
The Covenant of Grace
Because the covenant of works leaves sinners hopeless, sinners need the gospel. Because of this, paragraph 2 introduces the gospel by introducing the covenant of grace: “Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ” (7:2). The union between the covenant of grace and the gospel is reaffirmed in chapter 20: “The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance: in this promise of the gospel” (20:1).
The Covenant of Grace is the Only Means of Salvation
Though the confession teaches the perpetuity of the covenant of works throughout the Old and New Testament dispensations, it strongly affirms that salvation in both dispensations is by grace and grace alone. The continuation of the covenant of works was not to drive sinners to the law, but to drive them to their knees. Because the law is unable to bestow eternal life to covenant breakers, God revealed the gospel immediately after the fall (20:1). Adam and all his fallen offspring were given hope of eternal life through the proclamation of the gospel, and through the proclamation of the gospel alone.
What is interesting about paragraph 2 is the absence of the main distinctive of Presbyterian covenant theology: that the Old and New Covenants are two different administrations of the same covenant of grace. The Westminster Confession states: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (7:6). This allows for Presbyterians to incorporate unbelieving children into the covenant of grace. This phrase was removed from the 1689, and for good reason. The 1689 does not claim that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. Rather, it simply says that the covenant of grace was innately revealed in the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15), and then with greater clarity it was revealed throughout the progression of the Old Testament dispensation until it came to its fullest manifestation in the New Testament: “This covenant is revealed [not established] in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by further steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament” (7:3).
More explicitly, the 1689 says that the covenant of grace, which was established by the blood of Jesus, was retroactive during the Old Testament dispensation: “Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages” (8:6). This is in agreement with Benjamin Keach who said: “All believers, who lived under the Old Testament, were saved by the covenant of grace, which Christ was to establish.”2
This implies that the covenant of grace is identical to the New Covenant. So rather than the covenant of grace being established through various administrations of the different covenants of the Old Testament (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic), it was established by Christ in the New Covenant. Therefore, Old Testament believers were saved by faith in Christ, in the same way New Testament believers are saved by faith in Christ. Or as paragraph 3 states: “It is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality” (7:3).
And, if membership in the covenant of grace is by faith in Christ alone, then only believers alone, and not their unbelieving children, are in the covenant of grace. In fact, this is one of the main distinctives of Baptist covenant theology: only believers, in any dispensation, are members of the covenant of grace. This formation of covenant theology makes the 1689 distinct from the covenant theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The Covenant of Grace is the Fulfillment of the Covenant of Works
Moreover, according to the 1689, Christ established the covenant of grace by fulfilling the legal demands of the covenant of works: as the 1689 says, “[the Lord] was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil it” (8:4). Not only did He obey the same demands of the covenant of works that we were obligated to obey, He “underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us” (8:4).
This is why we are saved by works, but the works that save us are the imputed works of Christ that come by faith alone and grace alone. The covenant of grace is the fulfillment of the covenant of works, or it could be said that the New Covenant is a covenant of works for Christ, but a covenant of grace for believers. As Benjamin Keach stated:
As it refers to Christ…it was a conditional covenant. Christ receives all for us, wholly upon the account of His own merits. But whatsoever we receive by virtue of this covenant, it is wholly in a way of free grace and favor, through His merits, or through that redemption we have by His blood.3
In this covenantal framework we see the unity of the Scriptures and a single plan of redemption throughout the Old and New Testaments. Adam’s children are either condemned by the first Adam, or they are justified by the second Adam. They are either under the covenant of works or under the covenant of grace—and this depending on who is their federal head. Again, this separates Baptists from Presbyterians, as it does not allow for either unbelieving children or covenant breakers to be members of the covenant of grace.
The Covenant of Redemption
The last paragraph of chapter 7 explains why the history of redemption does not depict God as adjusting his plans on the fly. The covenant of grace was established by Christ enduring the penalty of the covenant of works in His death and by His meriting the reward of the covenant of works in His resurrection. Yet, all this was in accordance with God’s eternal plan that was established between the Father and Son before the foundation of the world (7:1). Or as chapter 8 explains it: “It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man” (8:1). Thus, the history of redemption, including the prelapsarian covenant of works and the postlapsarian covenant of grace, is the outworking of the eternal covenant of redemption.
Conclusion
The covenant theology of the 1689 is brilliantly laid out. It clearly states the main distinctives of Baptist covenant theology. There is (1.) a prelapsarian covenant of works that was broken by the first Adam and condemns all unbelievers, (2.) but that was fulfilled by the second Adam who established the postlapsarian covenant of grace for only believers, (3.) and this was in accordance with the eternal covenant of redemption.
With a clear distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, and with a clear distinction between unbelievers and believers, the 1689 presents a distinct covenant theology that is thoroughly baptistic.
NOTES:
1 Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 49.
2 Benjamin Keach, “The Display of Glorious Grace” in The Covenant Theology of Benjamin Keach (Conway: Free Grace Press, 2017), 110.
3 Ibid., 157.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 13, 2024 10:07:52 GMT -5
Why Do ‘Baptist’ Missions?
ALEX KOCMAN
Why Do ‘Baptist’ Missions?
Although the church’s global mission forces us to think beyond our tribes, baptism matters deeply in missions.
Everyone wants to defy labels; few are willing to be defined by them.
Christians and non-Christians alike share an underlying suspicion of institutions and structures. As a result, denominationalism has fallen on hard times. After all, why commit yourself to a single theological system or organizational hierarchy?
And with technology making communication and networking easier than ever, isn’t “going it alone” as an independent pastor, church planter, or missionary the better option?
Missions is hard enough on its own, yet in this cultural climate, doing missions as Baptists is even harder. I’ve had dozens of conversations along these lines:
Person A: “I want to serve as a missionary, but I don’t know if I’d fit with a Baptist agency. I’m not a Baptist.”
Me: “Does your church baptize infants?”
Person A: “No.”
Me: “Then chances are you’re probably a Baptist; you just don’t know it.”
The global scope of the Great Commission forces us to think beyond our own tribal identities and realize that God is building his kingdom in and through any community of Christians who hold fast the gospel. And because all of God’s people in the world belong to one invisible church, the potential for partnerships across denominations and movements is vast (and yet startlingly untapped).
So why should we do “Baptist” missions in a culture increasingly averse to denominational labels?
Definitions Matter
It’s not surprising why evangelicals want to avoid labels. Sola Scriptura means that we regard Scripture as the authority over even our own creeds and confessions. For those who have not studied in depth the history of Protestant denominationalism or traced the streams of thought that flowed out from the Reformation, all that is left to shape perspectives is personal experience.
Still, definitions matter. God in his wisdom has ordained that distinct denominations would arise within his church. We might attempt to write the history of church differently, but we aren’t sovereign, and we are not God.
So rather than treat this providence as a divisive curse, we must appreciate what God has done in our Baptist movement and conduct missions in a way that accords with what we distinctively hold as biblical convictions, even while we seek to partner with the whole church globally when appropriate.
Theology matters, too. Historically, to be Baptist is not just to require water-immersion upon credible profession of faith. It is also to preach a robust and biblical gospel, value local church autonomy, stress the sovereignty of God in salvation, prize the exegesis of Scripture, emphasize the unity of redemptive history, rely upon the ordinary ministry of the Word and ordinances, and underscore the necessity of personal conversion.
Baptists stand squarely in the Reformation tradition as those who hold unwaveringly to sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, and soli Deo gloria. We also have our own heritage of willingness to endure marginalization and opposition, even from other Christian institutions, to contend for our right to worship according to conscience and Scripture.
And to focus on the defining issue from which we derive our name—credo baptism may not be a gospel issue on par with penal substitutionary atonement or the virgin birth, but it is not insignificant. Since our Lord commanded baptism, it matters to him. We cannot be indifferent about it.
Instead of being ashamed of the label “Baptist,” we ought to appreciate the rich theological history it represents, all the while acknowledging that the kingdom of God spans beyond the borders of our tribe.
Water is a Witness
Baptism is indispensable to missions. It’s embedded in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). It is not a mere side issue; rather, baptism is inextricably caught up in what it means to make disciples.
The baptism of believing adults has a profound evangelistic effect. The ordinances are wordless sermons, and public baptism is a new convert’s first-ever open-air message. Baptism is a visual drama declaring the good news, openly portraying our union with Christ in his death and resurrection (cf. Romans 6:3-4).
In much of the world, bodies of water are public venues. In many countries, to confess Christ in baptism is treason against one’s ancestral religion, and the willingness to undergo this risk draws a stark line between fair-weather followers and true converts. But baptism ceases to function as a handmaid of evangelism when extended not only on the basis of profession but also parentage.
Baptism is also inherently missional. The washing of water is a public witness sociologically hardwired to multiply gospel impact.
Consider the household baptisms recorded in the New Testament (such as those of Lydia in Acts 16 and Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1). As Baptists, we do not believe these texts furnish evidence that baptism should be administered indiscriminately to whole families, including infants or unbelieving adults, nor do we take these texts as implying that the new covenant includes unbelievers (cf. Jeremiah 31:34).
But what cannot be denied is that the Spirit of God is often pleased to open hearts and bring about conversion in groups as friends and family members behold the redemptive drama of baptism. This is less common in the West’s highly-individualistic culture but is a recurring theme both in Acts and in more communal societies today on the mission field, including the Islamic world.
By contrast, consider the missiological implications of including unbelieving infants and other household members into the new covenant and extend to them the right of baptism. Does paedobaptism not risk diluting the church or missionary team’s testimony to the importance of personal conversion? At the very least, there is great risk of misunderstanding, particularly in contexts where nominal Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is prevalent.
Of course, none of this implies that credobaptists and paedobaptists cannot cooperate in evangelism on the mission field. But what about everything that comes after evangelism?
Church Planting Requires Unity
What makes a good missionary is not only his or her attentiveness to theology, but also to praxis. So, practically speaking, agreement over baptism is a critical part of church planting and day-to-day ministry life.
If the church is the focal point of the Great Commission—and it is (cf. Matthew 16:18b, 2 Timothy 2:2)—then local church fellowships cannot tactically afford to be neutral on baptism. This includes issues of baptismal mode and church membership.
Churches will inevitably experience difficulty if the planters, pastors, elders, national partners, and other core leaders cannot agree on such questions as:
Must all believers originally baptized as infants be re-baptized (or truly baptized) before joining the church?
Will the church extend membership to those who hold differing convictions on baptism, even if they have not been rebaptized? Who can be a member in the church?
How should the mode of baptism be treated in situations where physical disability or circumstantial restraints make immersion difficult or impossible?
On doctrinal issues of salvation, the gospel, and the core mission of the church, Baptists stand arm-in-arm with our Presbyterian paedobaptist brothers. And even convinced credobaptists answer these secondary questions listed above along a wide spectrum. But at a practical level, for any church plant to cohere, decisions must be made. There must be some baseline level of unity on practical issues touching church life.
The pastors and elders will either baptize infants, or they won’t. Of course, unity doesn’t necessarily mean conformity. Some healthy churches’ elder teams have slightly differing convictions over baptism. But the real test will be trajectory of these churches.
Can unity be maintained in the long-term? Which elders’ views of baptism will the next generation of church leadership inherit? When no consensus can be reached, who outvotes whom? Which set of viewpoints will be enshrined in the documents of the church?
Hybrid church models allow credobaptist and paedobaptist believers of differing convictions to enjoy fellowship, but in terms of church polity there is really no neutral “third way.”
Conclusion
Ultimately, we look forward to the consummation of Christ’s kingdom in which the church will truly be holy and catholic—one. And in the new heavens and earth, all Christians will agree on baptism! But on this side of eternity, we are to walk according to the maxim: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Let us regard the history of our Baptist movement as a badge of honor, not a scarlet letter. Our convictions on baptism, covenant theology, and church government are a sacred trust from our Lord. Baptism matters in the local church, and it matters even more so on the mission field. By God’s grace, let us seek to faithfully do missions as Baptists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 14, 2024 9:19:06 GMT -5
Pastoral Lessons from Galatians
JOHN DIVITO
Pastoral Lessons from Galatians
One of the central blessings of pastoral ministry is saturating your mind with the Word of God. Pastors have the privilege of devoting ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the Word. Over the last several months, I have been renewing my mind through studying the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians as I preach through this critical book. What I have found often has direct application to my own ministry. Here are four key insights that I have learned from Galatians:
The Message of Our Ministry: The Gospel
Paul had originally traveled to the region of Galatia preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. He came to those who were enslaved to Satan in sin and announced their freedom through Jesus Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice. Christ lived the righteous life they refused to live and then suffered the condemnation of death they deserved to die. In taking the place of His people, Christ triumphed over the curse of sin through His resurrection from the dead. We share in this eternal life through our faith in Him as our Savior and Lord. We are justified by faith alone, declared righteous by God because we receive Christ’s righteousness in exchange for our sinfulness.
It is this hope in Christ that we freely offer to all as we preach the gospel of Jesus Christ! God has raised us up as pastors to proclaim this message of good news to our communities and to the nations. So we are constrained to deliver this message and no other. We are not in ministry to share our own spiritual insights or to coach others with practical tips for living. We are called to preach Christ and Him crucified!
The Challenge of Our Ministry: Opposition
But we also face challenges in our ministry. Once Paul planted the churches in Galatia and continued his mission work, professing Jewish Christians came in with a false gospel. They taught that Paul’s gospel of grace was incomplete. While you need to believe in Jesus to stand justified before God, you must also become one of God’s people by receiving the covenant sign of circumcision and keeping the law God revealed to His people through Moses. So these false teachers undermined Christ’s work on the cross and led these Galatians to trust in their own obedience in order to satisfy God.
These Judaizers are just one example of those who oppose the gospel ministry. There are false teachers outside of our churches who will twist Scripture and use slick speech to try to reverse our congregation’s faith in Christ. But there are also false teachers who will rise up from within our churches and seek to persuade the flock to join with them on their own spiritual journey away from the cross of Christ. And because of the remaining sin in a believer’s life, it is natural for them to follow these false teachers with their pursuit of works-righteousness. So we must not only preach the gospel in our ministry, but we must also defend the gospel against opposition. This defense comes through reminding our churches of the gospel that saves by giving instruction in sound doctrine as well as rebuking those who contradict it. Pastoral ministry is not easy. It is a hard life of sacrifice and trials against opposition.
The Motivation of Our Ministry: Love
Paul could not simply stand by while the Judaizers were marching these churches to their destruction. He had to act! So he writes this letter with urgency and passion. As you read it, you quickly see how much love he has for the Galatians. This is a man distraught over the dangerous situation that has developed among them. He pours out his heart to them through this letter so that they will wake up from their spiritual slumber and recognize their need to repent of their sin and return to their Savior.
Paul’s love for them comes through most clearly when he writes: “My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you” (4:19). He pictures himself as their spiritual mother who gave them birth in the gospel. But now he fears they have returned to their former slavery to Satan by looking to God’s law and circumcision for their justification and salvation. So he feels like he must go through the birthing process again so that they will once more experience the freedom that Christ has purchased for us through His shed blood. Let us think about this imagery for a moment. Laboring to give birth is incredibly painful. But what mother is not willing in love to endure the suffering for her child to be born? She bears the curse of sin in childbearing in order for her children to have life. This is the kind of sacrificial love that all pastors should have for those God has entrusted to our care!
The Goal of Our Ministry: Christlikeness
We also see from this verse the goal of pastoral ministry. Pastors serve the church until Christ is formed in our people. Therefore, our work is not complete until Christ is formed in them. The goal of ministry is not conversion but Christ-likeness! So our work isn’t complete when an individual believes in Christ and joins the church—our work has just begun! This is a long term ministry that will continue through our lives. Our goal is the sanctification of all of the members of our congregation, and it is through our prayer and our preaching the Word that they will grow in Christlikeness. By faithfully shepherding their souls in love, Christ will be formed in them.
Why do we continue in pastoral ministry? Because Christ has not been fully formed in them. What hope do we have to be faithful in this awesome responsibility? That Christ is at work in us as well. In our own strength, we would fail. But through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit in our lives, God’s sanctifying work in His people will be successful. The gospel that we preach is also the gospel that we rely on for our ministry. As Christ promised His church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. As a result, we minister with our confidence in Christ and knowing that He will accomplish the renewal of His people. What a privilege it is to serve our Savior as a pastor!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2024 7:49:09 GMT -5
Five Reasons for Considering the 1689 Confession of Faith
RYAN DAVIDSON
Five Reasons for Considering the 1689 Confession of Faith
Huddled together in 1644, representatives of 7 churches gathered to summarize their common confession, and to distinguish themselves from the Anabaptists and the Arminians. It was a time of turmoil, and the river of the Reformation had swept across the shores of England. This was one of the first of several non-Anglican groups in that century to put pen to paper and confess their faith. Two years later, the Westminster Assembly would produce its own confession (WCF), and then in 1658, the Congregationalists would follow suit (Savoy Declaration). That original group of 7 churches was the Particular Baptists. Amid threats of persecution, and to show their solidarity and theological agreement in many ways with the Presbyterians and Congregationalists that had since written their own confessions, a larger crop of Baptists would draft the 1677 Baptist Confession with great reliance on the WCF and Savoy, however, this confession would be put forth by a General Assembly of Particular Baptists ultimately in 1689, giving it the name that it is known by today: “The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith”, often called the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. This Confession was classically theist in its view of God, covenantal in its view of Biblical Theology, “Calvinist” in its soteriology, and would show alignment with the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Ordinary Means of Grace and the Law. I grew up Baptist, became Calvinistic in my soteriology in my teen years, and have found a wonderful home in the confessional roots of Baptist theology as a pastor in my mid-thirties. To me, this Historic Confession, similar to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration, is worth considering for at least five reasons:
1. For Baptists influenced by the ‘New Calvinism,’ it is helpful to see that for Baptists, Calvinism is not “new.” Many Baptists, myself included, embraced Calvinism and became ravenous for the writings of the Reformed tradition. We discovered that past the “5 points”, a covenant theology existed, but we assumed it really belonged to the Presbyterians. Yet, if we study our own history, we would see that the large, world-wide Baptist movement across the globe today really came out of a group of solidly Calvinistic, and even covenant theology-holding Particular Baptists. But from the 1800’s until the mid 1900’s, we lost our Confession. Baptists have a strong, soteriologically rich heritage. If you read the original forward to the confession, the heart of the signatories is brimming with a desire to find common ground with their Presbyterian and Congregationalist brethren. They write in their original letter to the reader, “…contention is most remote from our design in all that we have done in this matter.” A helpful history is found here.
2. There is value in saying more sometimes. In a day when statements of faith in many churches can be a minimalist endeavor, it is good to have a comprehensive summarized Systematic Theology. I once heard a dear brother say that the Confession is like a wonderful English garden, where Calvinism is only one set of beautiful flowers contained therein. The early Baptists were not content to have a Calvinistic soteriology alone. They viewed the pieces of systematic theology as fitting together–rising and falling together. If we adopt an historic confession, will this increase our need to teach new believers, or spend ‘extra’ time with new church members unfamiliar with a lengthier confession? Yes, but isn’t this ultimately a fruitful fulfillment of our commission to make disciples?
3. Historic confessions ground us. What would Biblical or Systematic or Exegetical Theology be without the aid of Historical Theology? While not inspired Scripture, historic confessions help us to work through doctrine in connection with saints who have gone before us. For Baptists particularly, we have vacillated across a wide expanse of theological understanding since the days of the late 1600’s, even since the days of Spurgeon, and this expanse includes several movements that had no real historic connection prior to their sudden development. Historic Confessions serve as a guide rail against much post-enlightenment theological novelty that has swept Evangelical Protestantism. What if a renewed interest in our own confessional heritage is what we need as we continue to grow and minister for and towards the glory of God?
4. Believer’s Baptism has much of its roots in a Covenant Theology. My many Presbyterian friends may wince, laugh or want to take me to task on that statement. However, for early Baptists coming out of the Church of England, two things drove their view of Baptism in my opinion (and it was not to be ignorantly petty, pesky, or contrarian, nor was it alignment with the Anabaptists from whom they had already expressed distinction). They believed in the Regulative Principle of Worship (observing in public worship only that which we see in the Scriptures). This, combined with their understanding of Covenant Theology led them to refocus on the practice of baptizing those who come to the promise of the Covenant of Grace in faith, not those who come due to a connection of flesh (infants with parents). This is not to say that one cannot believe in Believer’s Baptism without a Calvinistic or covenantal theology, but only to show what the original roots were regarding the early, Puritan Baptists and their Credobaptist practice. Although not monolithic, Particular Baptist Covenant Theology was essentially the idea that the Covenant of Grace is synonymous with the New Covenant and was only revealed in the previous biblical covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, etc.) but that the Biblical Covenants were not the Covenant of Grace in substance. They were each steps of the unfolding revelation of the ultimate Covenant of Grace, but the substance, the actual ratification of the covenant, was not until the New Covenant. This leads to a full-fledged conviction of Credobaptism. If one views the substance of the Covenant of Grace as synonymous with or being in substance the same as say the Abrahamic Covenant however, then paedobaptism is the logical conclusion. The early Baptists believed in giving the sign of the Covenant of Grace (New Covenant) to those whose interest in it was faith versus flesh since fleshly covenantal connection ended with the Abrahamic Covenant. Much more could be said, but Baptists also have their place historically among the Confessional Reformed. I am so thankful for my many Paedobaptist brothers, both awake and asleep, who have guided my theological development in Reformed Theology. I just rejoice that my early Baptist brothers held to it as well…
5. It contains a wonderful vision for the Christian life. Early Baptists were convinced of the Ordinary Means Grace. They agreed with their Presbyterian Brethren that the Lord’s Supper was more than a memorial. They embraced the God-given rhythm of 1 in 7, and valued Sabbath rest each week. They held that the Moral Law, summarized in the 10 Commandments, while not a means of earning righteousness, was a guide for the believer along the Christian road of joyful gospel obedience. And they valued, with their Protestant counterparts, a strong Word-Centered Christian life. In fact, this vision for the Christian life is one that I often turn to as a Pastor in the counseling of others. In my work with people in the counseling setting, I have found that proper systematic theology is crucial for growth in Christian life. I have also found that the vision for the Christian life laid out in this biblically-accurate Confession is one that can aid the believer in their journey. For instance, many shorter statements of faith do not mention a weekly rhythm of one in seven–a creational pattern given by God which benefits us. Nor do they mention a robust view of the ordinary means of grace, through which our faith “is increased and strengthened” (2LCF 14.1). Every Christian needs this vision, but it is especially important for person wrestling with fear, anxiety, depression and/or bereavement to be reminded of these God-given patterns.
Consider the 1689. The theology found therein, systematized from the Bible, has great and helpful implications for biblical counseling, and we will explore some of these in a few posts to come.
1689 CONFESSION, CALVINISM, CHURCH, CONFESSIONAL BAPTIST, CONFESSIONS, SECOND LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH
Ryan serves as the Pastor of Grace Baptist Chapel a Reformed Baptist congregation in Hampton, VA. He is married to Christie and they have four wonderful children, Micah, Lydia, Shaphan and Magdalene. He holds degrees from Samford University (B.A), The College of William & Mary (M.Ed.), The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Th.M.), and is a Ph.D. candidate (Patristic Pastoral Theology) at the Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He is the author of “A Covenant Feast: Reflections on the Lord’s Supper (Ichthus, 2016) and Thinking Through Anxiety: A Brief Christian Look (Ichthus, 2017) and teaches adjunctly at several institutions, including being an adjunct instructor in Pastoral Theology/Counseling at the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 8, 2024 12:46:01 GMT -5
The Amazing Grace of God’s Providence
ERIK SMITH
CONTENTS
DOWNLOAD PDF
The Lord has promised good to me,
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be
As long as life endures.
When John Newton penned his classic hymn in 1772, first sung in January 1773, the autobiographical reflections of his life to that point were clearly at the forefront of his mind. He had experienced more misadventures in his first few decades than most men, and the grace of the Lord had marvelously saved him from spiritual death as well as severe earthly danger.
In his fourth stanza Newton shifts his focus to the future, and he declares that the goodness of God which had thus far followed him through 46 years was his certain expectation for the remainder of his days. Indeed, believers should commemorate God’s previous acts of kindness and deliverance, and Newton reminds us we should also entrust ourselves to the goodness of God for all our future days. Christians should expect God’s perpetual goodness towards us. We should hold a posture of what one might call “Christian optimism,” rooted in the character and the sure promise of God.
The Truth of God’s Promise
God has promised good to his children. The reality of this statement is enough to make one marvel forever. The supreme Lord over all, who created the heavens and earth and is Himself majestic beyond comprehension, has condescended not merely to notice man, but to care for man and to devote himself to the good of man (Psalm 8). In God’s act of creation, he makes for man a good world full of blessing and wonder. When he calls Abraham, he states that his purpose is for Abraham to be blessed and to be a blessing to humanity (Genesis 12:2). Indeed, throughout redemptive history we see God dealing with his people with the design of goodness and blessing in view (Exodus 19:6, 34:10; Deuteronomy 26:18-19; 2 Samuel 7; Jeremiah 29:10-14, 31:31-34). Paul declares to us who believe in Christ that God is actively at work in our lives to bring about our good and his glory (Romans 8:28-39). We shall say more about the substance of the good that God has promised, but may we first believe this promise, embrace it, and wonder at it.
There is a danger for us who want to resist popular and pervasive caricatures of God found in modern Christian teaching, music, and subculture, which emphasize the goodness of God and his “friendliness” to the neglect of presenting his holiness, sovereignty, and righteousness. That danger is that in our efforts to champion these latter traits we can become myopic and fail to cherish and celebrate the kindness and genuine goodness of God and his delight in his people, “For the Lord takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with salvation,” (Psalm 149:9; cf. Zephaniah 3:17).
Instead, we must not lose sight of the consistent theme of scripture that God intends to bless his people and do good to them. True, God is not a cosmic Santa Claus, but neither is he a cold and indifferent potentate; he loves his children. Calling upon God as our Father is an act of faith in his benevolent disposition toward us. Hence, Jesus compares our love for our children with that of the Father for us: “Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him,” (Matthew 7:9-11). Christians ought to be the most hopeful, the most optimistic people because we know that the God who superintends the universe has a loving heart. Furthermore, the goodness of God is not a generalized intention but a personal promise; each believer can rightly say, “The Lord has promised good to me.” Believing that God is good and intends to do good to us is a matter of believing his Word.
The Surety of God’s Promise
As Newton asserts, our hope in God’s promise is a certainty because it is grounded in his Word and his character. The author of Hebrews makes this same connection in reference to Abraham’s hope and our own as heirs of the promise:
So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus as gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. [1]
Our hope is for that which is certain and yet presently unseen, namely God’s future goodness towards us in this life and ultimately in the final resurrection (Romans 8:20-25; 1 Corinthians 15:19). The Word of God is the basis for our hope; we believe the promises God has communicated to us. God’s Word is also the means by which this hope is secured or brought to pass in our lives and in human history. When the Lord speaks, he is acting; unlike the mere words of a man, God’s Word accomplishes purposes and has tangible effects on his creation. God’s Word secures our hope because it is his Word that produces saving faith and repentance, and his Word is the very power of God to direct the course of human events (Romans 10:17; James 1:21; Isaiah 55:10-11; 1 Corinthians 1:18). Though Peter was an eyewitness of Christ’s glory, he asserts that the prophetic word of the Scriptures was more certain than his own firsthand experience (2 Peter 1:16-20). Hence, when we do not see firsthand that God is being good to us, we can nevertheless believe it.
The Substance of God’s Promise
God has promised good to us, but what is meant by “good?” Is it the “good” that is peddled by prosperity gospel hucksters, Word of Faith teachers, and even misguided evangelicals – namely physical health, material prosperity, and an abundance of self-esteem and self-affirmation? Does God’s word promise a life of comfort and ease to believers? Or is there a higher good which we should expect from God, one that transcends our own experience, emotions, and even existence? Newton answers this by directing our attention heavenward and insisting that essence of God’s promise for good is the promise that God would give himself to us – “He will my shield and portion be.”
Scripture declares that God himself is both the source and the substance of our good. As John Piper helpfully summarizes, “The best and final gift of the gospel is that we gain Christ… the highest, best, final, decisive good of the gospel, without which no other gifts would be good, is the glory of God in the face of Christ revealed for our everlasting enjoyment.”[2] So, what is this good that God has promised to us? It is nothing less than God himself. God calls, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies us for our good because these are the means by which we will know him, the ultimate treasure.
The world and the enemies of the gospel define “good” based upon human sensory experience: an attractive spouse, an expensive car, an adventurous vacation, a clean bill of health, successful children, worry-free existence, political power, and the list goes on. The good which God will bring about in our lives certainly permeates our human experience and is delightful to us, but it is not centered on us; it is anchored in and defined by him. This is the sense in which God is our portion. The reward of believing the gospel is that we gain Christ, and there is no possible higher reward.
We ought not expect the world to understand that supreme gladness is found only in knowing the Lord, and yet do we believers not also sometimes seek to find our chief happiness in those things which cannot ultimately satisfy us? Even good and commendable things can usurp God’s rightful place on the thrones of our hearts, individually and corporately. In Jeremiah 2:13 the Lord upbraids his people for such an exchange:
For my people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken me,
The fountain of living waters,
And hewed out cisterns for themselves,
Broken cisterns that can hold no water.
The Lord declared himself to be the shield of Abraham (Gen 15:1), Israel (Deuteronomy 33:29), and David (Psalm 3:3; 5:12, 18:2), depicting himself as the one who protected them from trouble and calamity. Each of us could undoubtedly recount myriad ways in which the Lord had delivered us from hardships, and yet the Lord has most certainly protected us from unknown and unexperienced trials about which we know nothing simply because he spared us and shielded us from them. We can be sure that God will not permit anything to penetrate his shielding except that which he designs to afflict us for our good. This is why in the face of profound loss and unfathomable suffering, those who know God can say that such afflictions are themselves good (Job 1:20-22; Philippians 3:7-11).
The Duration of God’s Promise
If the Lord were to promise us good only in this lifetime, we should be thankful for his mercy even in that short span of time. Yet God’s promise extends through the end of our days on earth and beyond, “as long as life endures.” As Jesus declared to Martha, so he promises to us, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26). To believe this promise is to echo the praise of David, “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever,” (Psalm 23:6).
The comfort that is ours in knowing the promise of God to do good to us, for us, and in us is a cause for great rejoicing when we see and experience this in our times of blessing. The birth of a child, a plentiful harvest, and seasons of spiritual growth and refreshment are tangible proofs of God’s promises and his faithfulness. But it is in the valley of the shadow of death, the periods of drought and famine, and the times of spiritual despondency when we most need to be reminded of God’s promises of goodness that will ultimately prevail over the trials we experience. When our temporal vista gives way to the perspective of eternity, we shall see that all along the Lord was doing everything for our good, just as he promised. As Newton’s friend William Cowper[3] penned,
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense, But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour:
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower. [4]
In his summary of Newton’s life and theology, biographer Josiah Bull places a special emphasis on Newton’s optimism towards God’s providence, “But here we would especially speak of Mr Newton’s faith in the overruling providence of God. In all circumstances his soul stayed itself upon the Lord. Thus in the perils of the deep he possessed his soul in peace.”[5]
Newton saw that even the sufferings of life are part of God’s plan to bring about good, both in his own life and in the lives of others. In his deepest sorrow following the death of his wife, he remarked in his journal, “I acknowledge that it was well worth standing awhile in the fire for such an opportunity of experiencing and exhibiting the power and faithfulness of His promises.”[6] Newton looked externally to God for his support, and he was sustained through his trial by considering that others who saw both his afflictions and his steadfast trust would have reason to look to God and be comforted when their own trials came. Newton preached the funeral service for his wife, and he remarked in his journal that he expected this to bear fruit, stating, “I have reason to hope that many of my hearers were comforted and animated under their afflictions by what they saw of the Lord’s goodness to me in my time of need.” Thus, our trust in God amidst the darkness may be used to be a blessing to others if we will but have eyes to see beyond ourselves in our travails. The good purposes God has for him who is suffering extend beyond the sufferer himself (Philippians 1:14, Colossians 1:24-25).
The Christian is not called to be a Pollyanna, willfully oblivious of the troubles that beset us and blindly optimistic about happiness lying just around the corner. Neither should Christians be like Eeyore, the old perpetually pessimistic donkey, incapable of finding contentment due to an expectation of inevitable hardship. Instead, we ought to trust the promise of God, that he intends good for us and that “He who calls you is faithful. He will surely do it,” (1 Thessalonians 5:24).
[1]Hebrews 6:17-20
[2]John Piper, God is the Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 13.
[3]For a concise account of their friendship, see George Ella, “John Newton’s Friendship with William Cowper, www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/john-newtons-friendship-william-cowper.
[4]William Cowper, “God Moves in a Mysterious Way.”
[5]Josiah Bull, The Life of John Newton (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2007; reprinted 2020), 317.
[6]Bull, 262.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 13, 2024 20:04:36 GMT -5
Amazing Grace in the Return of The Lord
JOE NESOM
Amazing Grace in the Return of The Lord
CONTENTS
DOWNLOAD PDF
The sun shall soon dissolve like snow,
the moon forbear to shine;
but God, who called me here below,
will be forever mine.
Newton’s Collage.
Long before twentieth artists like Pablo Picasso began to use the technique of collage, employing a collection of objects in their work, and long before Charles Ives wrote his Second Symphony, incorporating quotations from America’s history like Columbia the Gem of the Ocean or the folk hymn Bringing in the Sheaves, John Newton gave us a theological collage in the hymn “Amazing Grace.”
While most hymns keep the thematic boundaries close that is not the case with Amazing Grace. It is true that the grace of God is the overarching theme. But Newton makes clear that this grace of God had confronted him with his wretchedness and that implies the preaching of the law and the conviction that comes from it. His heart would know fear because grace had caused him to see the perfection of the righteousness of the Lord. He takes us from this convicting work of God to the awakening of his soul, and leads us to see where that the journey of sanctification leads. His collage honors the word of God in the fourth verse and the sureness of the promises of the Lord to protect us in this life. In verse five he reminds us of our mortality but like Paul sees that day as a doorway into the very presence of Christ. It is a little strange that, with this doctrinal variety, Newton would not have celebrated the death and resurrection of Christ in an explicit way.
But like the book of Esther which never mentions the name of the Lord directly, apparently for literary effect, Newton gives us a hymn that does not mention the cross but honors it as many others fail to do. He has set us on the pilgrim journey and assured us that the Lord is trustworthy. Many Christians having sung the words hundreds of times, “When we’ve been there ten thousand years bright shining as the Sun, we’ve no less day to sing God’s praise than when we first begun,” would be surprised to discover that Newton did not write them. What Newton wrote about the future is usually not sung and that is a shame because Newton’s verse is glorious. Here is how it reads, The sun shall soon dissolve like snow, the moon forbear to shine, but God who called me here below will be forever mine.
The sun shall soon dissolve like snow, the moon forbear to shine.
The End of the Present Order and the Beginning of the New
John Newton, writing over a millennium and a half after the crucifixion of our Lord, speaks about the “soon” destruction of the present order. How can Newton speak in this way? The apostle Peter tells us that scoffers will come who question the second appearance of the Lord. But Peter reminds us that the example of the flood should cause us to understand that the end of time will be like Noah’s day. The flood came and took them all away. Only Noah and his family were saved. It is the same with our blessed hope for the resurrection of the body and the removal of the sin touched order. With the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. That day will come, but as a thief in the night. The Lord Jesus Christ will appear without warning. When the apostles asked about the destruction of the temple (Christ had said that not one stone would be left standing) the Lord gave them several signs to look for before the destruction of the temple and the horrible conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But of the final day of judgement the Lord prophesied no signs. He told his disciples “That day” would catch many by surprise. Like the flood in Noah’s day many would be taken away to judgement.
Nothing that happens at the coming of the Lord will overshadow the accomplishment of his first advent. When the Lord first appeared on the earth almost two thousand years ago, he came to establish God’s kingdom in perfection. He came to bring righteousness to the earth in a way that had never been known before. He came to bring God’s eternal life to the people of God. All these things were accomplished by his death and resurrection. He is reigning above and interceding for his own. The battle for the souls of God’s elect people is proceeding and Christ is going forth to conquer the foe. Satan’s doom is sure. The return of our Lord will bring to fulfillment all the things that were won by his death and resurrection. But the time of the Lord’s return is unknown.
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36)
When you hear of someone who claims to be able to predict the time of the Lord’s appearance, you may write them off as a charlatan, or at best a very confused person. No one knows the time of Christ’s return. You may say, “but didn’t the Lord speak about earthquakes, and famines, and wars and rumors of wars that would take place just prior to his return?” “Aren’t there signs that we can look for?” The Lord did speak of such things but specifically warned us not to be alarmed. These were signs of the beginning and of the sure proclamation of the gospel to all the nations. (Matthew 24:1-14)
The Lord will come at an hour which will be characterized by its normalcy. He taught that the time of his return would find the people of this world doing the things that they were doing when the flood of Noah came upon them and took them all away. (Matthew 24:37-40) They were eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage (normal human behavior). They did these things right up until the time that Noah and his family boarded the ark. They did not expect the judgement of God to fall on them. They would go on doing the things that human beings do and there would be no accountability for sin. Or so they thought.
Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. (Matthew 24:41)
Just as the wicked people of Noah’s time were “taken away” to judgment by the flood so the coming of our Lord will divide humanity into two parts, those who are taken away to judgment and those who are not.
Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. (Matthew 24:42)
The Bible teaches the imminent return of Christ. He may not come today, but we do not know that. We must not think that there are so many things to be fulfilled, before his return, that we may rest a while. We must be ready. The Lord taught several parables which emphasize this truth. He spoke about the master of a house that went away to a wedding banquet. His servants were expected to be alert and ready to open the door immediately on his return. (Luke 12:35-40) On another occasion he spoke about the owner of a house who would in time close the door of the house. Those outside would knock and plead with him, but he would tell them “I don’t know you or where you come from.” (Luke 13:22-30)
The Lord will return in bodily form. Luke gave us an account of the ascension of the Lord after his resurrection from the dead. The Lord was taken up into heaven before the eyes of his apostles and hidden from their sight by a cloud. Two “men” dressed in white appeared and spoke to the apostles in this way,
“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11)
The clear teaching is this. Our Lord ascended bodily and was concealed from sight, one day he will be revealed again in bodily form and will descend from above.
And the second coming of Christ will also bring about a union of the church militant and the church triumphant. One of the oldest confessions of faith speaks of the communion of saints.This is not merely a reference to the fellowship of living Christians, but includes the common experience of salvation through Christ, which is shared by the living and the dead. Thousands who came to faith in Christ while living here on the earth are now with the Lord. They live in heaven with him and are far better off for it. They have traditionally been called the church triumphant while those who are still here in this world are thought of as the church militant, the church on the march against the forces of evil here below. The Bible teaches us that the church triumphant will return with our Lord.
We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up with them to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17)
This very important passage teaches us that the return of Christ will not be a hidden event. There will be a loud command, the voice of the archangel will be heard, and the trumpet call of God will sound. The second coming will be a noisy event. One cannot miss it. All people will know that Christ our Lord has returned. Christians will rejoice, but the lost will be terrified because of their sins and the judgement to come. As we have seen, the dead will be raised. This is true of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will come out–those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. (John 5:28-29)
The Lord did not call the experience of the resurrected unbelievers “life.” Only the righteous really “live.” The wicked exist in a state of eternal torment. Hell becomes their dwelling place forever. But all the dead shall be raised. The Bible does not give us much information concerning the bodily existence of those who are eternally lost. But there is quite a bit of information concerning the future state of the redeemed. Since we will be “like Christ,” it is instructive to remember that he even ate with his disciples after he had been resurrected from the dead. Our existence will not be a shadowy matter but the reality of our life, in that new day, will be, if anything, far more real than life in this world. And our new body will be one that is designed for perfect fellowship with our God. All sin and mortality (which is the result of sin) will now be past. The immortal life of God will be ours in truth. As Paul said,
. . . we shall bear the likeness of the man from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:49)
The return of our Lord will also bring in the final judgment of God, which will be a judgment based on principles of righteousness. The Scriptures teach us that all must face this judgment.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10)
Those who try to stand before the righteous judge in that day, without the grace of God to shield them, will only know the wrath of the Lamb of God. Their sins will be judged, and their “righteous acts” will be shown to be nothing more than filthy rags in the sight of God. Those who know Christ will also be judged on principles of righteousness but will have the continuing intercession of the Son of God. They will be shown mercy for their sins, and their works which were done as the result of the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit, will be recognized as pure and acceptable in the sight of God.
The return of our Lord will mean the end of the present creation and the revelation of a new heaven anda new earth. The old creation has been spoiled by Adam’s fall and the sins of subsequent generations. It must and will be replaced. A new creation has already come in Christ. The death and resurrection of our Lord brought in a new and perfect order. That new order has been advancing against the forces of evil for many years. One day the Lord himself will return and we will see the unveiling of Christ’s perfection and the glorious character of his kingdom. That kingdom will displace all others. We may love the country in which we were born. We may be strongly patriotic. But the mature Christian comes to understand that we are first and foremost citizens of God’s kingdom, and it is the only kingdom that will endure for all eternity.
And there will no longer be a great divide between heaven and earth. (Revelation 21:1) In other words, the dwelling place of God and the dwelling place of man will have been brought together by the graciousness of our God. In a sense, we will dwell on the earth forever. Earth, our dwelling place will have been created new, and there will be no essential difference between heaven and earth. But the significant thing is that we will be able to live in the very presence of our God because we will have been brought to perfection ourselves. We were once justified before God despite our sins because of God’s grace given us in Christ. We were sanctified by the continuing work of God in us over the years of our lives. But on that day, we will be glorified. We will know the perfection of absolute holiness. We will truly be righteous as our Lord is righteous. There will be no more tears. (Revelation 21:4) There will be no more sin. (Revelation 21:8) The same passage teaches that Christ will have made his church splendid in holiness. The figures of this passage do not describe the literal streets of heaven; they set before us the splendors of the church in all her redeemed glory. We are told that we will have entered an eternal day. Light is a symbol of truth and righteousness in scripture. There will be no need for the sun. We will have the light of God’s presence forever. And there will be perfect joy and satisfaction. We will drink the water of life.
And then, at the end of this most famous hymn, Newton reminds us of God’s call to undeserving sinners.
But God who called me here below will be forever mine.
The General Call
The children of God have heard the call of God. The apostle Paul tells us that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. The proclamation of the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection for our sins is the heart of Christian experience. We must hear that we are sinners who have broken the laws of God and deserve hell. And we must hear that we should look away from ourselves to Christ and his perfect righteousness. He alone has the perfect obedience that we need.
And so, the church preaches Christ. We preach Christ with the truth of holy scripture. We preach the gospel events and with Paul say that these truths are the things of first importance. As individuals we preach Christ when we are baptized. Without a spoken word we say to those who are present, “Christ died for me to take my sins away and he was raised for me to give me eternal life.” And when the church gathers around the Lord’s table, we preach Christ. There we see the Lord’s body and blood, and together with all our brothers and sisters in the Lord we remember his death as our atonement. And we eat the bread and drink the cup. Thus, we preach his sustaining life. As we are nourished by his body and blood, we preach again the resurrection life of the Lord.
But there is another work of the Lord, another calling of God that Newton had experienced. That work of God is the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit.
Effectual Calling
Which comes first —the new birth or repentance and faith?
The order is this, first comes regeneration or the new birth by the Spirit. Then repentance and faith in Christ come as the result of the work of God. The Baptist Faith and Message puts it this way,
Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Notice the order. First there is the new birth. Then repentance and faith appear. They are “inseparable experiences of grace.” If you have been born again, you will repent. If you have been born again, you will believe in Christ. These things have come to us because of the grace of God. He has given us new life. He has given us the ability to repent when others do not. He has given us faith in Christ when others do not believe in him. On one occasion the Lord even told some of his enemies that the reason they did not believe in him was because the Father had not enabled them to do so. (John 6:60-65) One might say, “But I thought that God gives us new life because we repent. Isn’t repentance the condition for being born again?” Not according to the Lord Jesus Christ. He told Nicodemus,
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John3:8)
Can you and I control the wind? Do we arise each day and decide how fast the wind will blow or from what direction the wind will come? Can we stop a tornado from creating havoc as it passes through a defenseless town? Of course not. The wind blows where it pleases. Do you see the point that the Lord is making? We cannot control or direct the Spirit of God in his work of imparting new life to sinners. He regenerates. He resurrects to new life. He causes us to be “born again.” The wind of the Spirit must blow. That is why we pray for the Holy Spirit to come to our friends and relatives who do not know the Lord. We ask God to save them. We know that if they are to come to Christ, they must be drawn to him by the work of God. The Lord Jesus said,
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. (John 5:24-25)
The Lord was not speaking about the last day when the dead will be raised from their graves. That is clear because, just after he spoke these words, he began to talk about that day.
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out . . . (John5:28-29a)
We are dead in our sins. We cannot help ourselves. God must come to our rescue. He has done that by sending his Son to die in the place of sinners on the cross. But that atoning work must be applied to us individually, and that is the work of God’s Spirit. The Father chose us in eternity. The Son died for his people in time and history. And the Holy Spirit brings the benefits of Christ’s death to us. He brings with him the resurrection life of Christ. With the same power that raised the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead he touches us as we lie spiritually helpless, dead before God. Suddenly we rise from our spiritual grave. We believe the gospel. We believe in Christ. We depend on him to save us. In our dead state we did not love God. Now we love him because he first loved us. We did not love our fellow man. Now we love even those that we once hated. All this is the miraculous result of the new birth. The Lord has touched us with resurrection power. We are truly alive for the first time. We have been born again! We must make clear that the Holy Spirit, in accomplishing this work of God, uses the word of God. The preaching of the gospel is an essential part of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work.
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. (1 Peter 1:23)
There must be a presentation of the truths of the gospel if a sinner is to come to Christ for salvation. But the external call to receive Christ as Lord and Savior cannot save if it stands alone. There must also be an internal work of God. The Holy Spirit must hover over us as surely as he hovered over the formless void. Just as the voice of God said “let there be light” so the Holy Spirit brings light to our dark world. He says to each of our dead souls, arise! It is like the Lord Jesus Christ appearing before the tomb of Lazarus and shouting for the dead man to come forth. And, just as Lazarus was called from death to life by the power of God, so we are raised by God’s powerful work for us. But Lazarus died again. Not so with those who are born again. The life that began with the new birth will never end.
John Newton had heard both the external call and he had “heard” the precious call that comes from the Spirit of God. He could look forward to the blessings of heaven, when the earth dissolves like snow because he had been called by the Lord to an amazing salvation by grace!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2024 20:49:18 GMT -5
founders.org/articles/george-smeaton-and-abraham-kuyper-on-the-universal-reign-of-christ/
Solomon advises us that there is nothing new under the sun. Indeed, in the history of Christian thought, one would expect that under the Lordship of Christ and his church, the essentials of the gospel would remain consistent over time. Thus, while they need repeating in every generation because slippage is always a threat, there remains a kind of harmony that exists among theologians who make the Bible first order. Likewise, as one dives into reading pastors and theologians from different eras and different places, one can expect to find echoes. Sometimes these are organically related, sometime they are not but cause for curiosity how it is possible that two statements made by independent thinkers could be so similar.
George Smeaton on Christ’s Universal Reign
Such an occasion happened a few months ago as I read George Smeaton’s eminently helpful book, The Doctrine of the Atonement As Taught By Christ Himself (Edinburgh, 1871) now retitled and republished as Christ’s Doctrine of the Atonement. In it, Smeaton gives his final exhortation from the text John 12:31, which reads, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.” In his thorough exegesis, the nineteenth-century Scot shows how Satan’s overthrow means simply, that Christ is the sole possessor of all things. He has stripped the god of this age of his title to this world, and he now rightly possesses the earth (cf. Matt 28:18). Therefore he writes,
This text [John 12:31], important in many aspects, is capable of being viewed in many applications. It throws a steady light on the great and momentous doctrine, that the world is, in consequence of the vicarious work of Christ, no more Satan’s, and that Christ’s people are now to be far from the impression that they are only captives in an enemy’s territory, and unable warrantably to occupy a place in the world, either as citizens or magistrates.
Moving from Christ’s substitutionary cross to the the universal themes of victory and dominion, Smeaton makes this final, global and glorious statement,
On the contrary, this testimony shows that every foot of ground in the world belongs to Christ, that His followers can be loyal to Him in every position, and that in every country and corner where they may placed they have to act their part for their Lord. The world is judicially awarded to Christ as its owner and Lord (p. 300).
This is a glorious truth that deserves time for consideration and meditation. Yet, in first hearing it, I could not help but think of Abraham Kuyper, who said something almost identical. Yet, as it will be shown, Kuyper’s context is different than Smeaton, and Kuyper actually spoke his word’s later.
Abraham Kuyper on Christ’s Universal Reign
In his lecture on “Sphere Sovereignty” delivered on October 20, 1880, Kuyper uttered what is today his most famous quotation. It reads:
There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine!“ (Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 488).
In context, Kuyper’s statement comes at the end of a long list of academic sciences–medicine, law, natural science, letters– which the great educator of the Netherlands argued should be brought underneath the rule of Christ. Since all wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ (Col 2:3), all mental disciplines should find their origin and telos in Christ. In full context, he states,
Man in his antithesis as fallen sinner or self-developing natural creature returns again as the ‘subject that thinks’ or ‘the object that prompts thought’ in every department, in every discipline, and with every investigator. Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’ (488).
This concluding statement has been repeated again and again. It is a favorite of Reformed thinkers and others too. It is wonderful thought to realize that all things have been and should be put in submission to Christ. But interestingly the application of Kuyper’s words (as I have used them and have heard others use them) are slightly out of context.
Often Kuyper’s turn of phrase is used in spatial, geographical ways, as if he was explaining Psalm 2 which says that all the nations have been given to the Son. Since the Lord possesses all the earth, he has a right to put his finger on it and exlaim “Mine!” However, in context, Kuyper’s statement is more specific. He is speaking more exactly of the “mental world,” not the spatial world. I doubt he would deny the broader application, but to read Kuyper closely, we find that his statement is more narrow. This point does not mean that we need to abandon the use of Kuyper’s quote, so much as perhaps we should include Smeaton’s, too.
In the next post, we will pick up how and why we should incorporate Smeaton’s quotation into the discussion of Christ’s universal reign.
|
|
