Thanks to Herb Raker stumbling across my post on the nature of a free church, I have ended up in a good-natured and well presented disputation with Nathan Wells on his blog review of Leonard Verduin’s The Reformers and Their Stepchildren.  Please read the transcript there.  I will be working on a post next week to put here as well as formatting my paper on the church from last semester.  (Just for you, Michael.)

I would love to see some comments/ideas for developing my argument.  Or, if you disagree, please let me know why.  Peruse the rest of Nathan’s blog; I have enjoyed it.

I have Joshua C. Brown (not to be confused with Joshua Mathan Brown) to thank for this post whose original comments can be found in the comments under “Individual Discipleship?” from a few months back.  Here is a part of his comment (edited for style):

I agree with you totally on discipleship.  But I also have a thought about the way we as Baptists do church government and view church.  Sometimes it is said that the pastors and deacons are the ministers, and I will give it to them that deacons can be ministers or servants, but the Bible makes it very clear that pastors (or elders) are the equippers of the people, and if we view our purpose as a church as equipping rather than just feeding and entertaining, we would do church in a totally different way.

How do you feel about the “congregation rule” form of church government?  I think church democracy is unbiblical because the Bible always shows the elders making decisions, NOT the congregation.  I’m not saying that we should let them be untouchable, but we need to let wise men govern and equip the church rather than let the congregation guide it and sway the church wherever it would go.

First of all, thanks to Josh for weighing in and being bold enough to share his opinion.  In the interests of full disclosure, Josh and I have some ideological differences regarding Reformed theology, but we have thus far had a few good discussions together, and I consider him to be “becoming” a friend.  (Does that make it Platonic?  LOL, I am such a nerd!)  Those things said, I think there is good and bad to Josh’s argument.  On the positive side, I agree wholeheartedly elders are to lead the congregation and that many Baptist churches have a problem – not with being “purpose-driven” but with realizing what that purpose is.  I will, however, disagree with Josh when he says that congregations in Scripture did not make decisions.  That is not to say that I believe in “congregation rule.”  Scripture teaches rather clearly a four-point view of church polity:

A scripturally governed church is

• Ruled by Christ,
• Governed by the Congregation
• Led by the Pastor, and
• Served by Deacons

There is much leeway within this model.  For instance, a congregation may elect committees or handle everything corporately.  Churches may choose to follow the model of multiple elders.  Deacon boards may serve every physical need of the body or the church may opt to have no deacons at all.  All of these (and many others) are permissible by Scripture.  Let us now briefly look at each of these points and the germane Scriptures associated with them.

Ruled by Christ

                That Christ is Lord of the local church is an indispensible doctrine of the highest order.  He is her foundation (Mat 16:18; I Cor 3:11), her groom, head and savior (Eph 5:22-33).  He dwells in her midst when she comes together (Mat 18:20), and her simple confession is that Jesus Christ is Lord (Mat 16:16; Phil 2:9-11).  Consider also Colossians 1:15-20:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  And he is the head of the body, the church.  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.  For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

                This speaks straight to the heart of Josh’s correctly ascertained problem with congregationalism as it has come to be in 21^st century America.  The church is not a democracy (in that she does not have the right to decide her direction or her beliefs).  She is a Christocracy.  Christ has commanded her doctrines and laid out her form and structure.  Holy Spirit God has been sent from the Father through the Son to guide the Lord’s churches in the paths they should walk!  Woe to anyone who, reading the above passage, considers himself to be “head” of the church – be he pastor, deacon, or founding builder’s great grandson.  Christ – and only Christ – is head of the church.

Governed by the Congregation

                Scripture clearly shows that the congregation has the right of self-governance within the bounds of Christ’s commands.  This is the true meaning of autonomy: not that a church has the right to act contrary to Christ’s teachings and commands, but that she is accountable only to Christ for her decisions as she follows him.  To whom else would the bride answer but the bridegroom?  Get out a Bible because there is no way I can individually list all the Scriptures that prove this point, but I will reference them quickly:

• Matthew 18:15-20 – the congregation – not elders or an episcopacy – is to settle personal disputes and mete out discipline if necessary.
• Acts 6:3 – the congregation was instructed by the apostles to choose her own deacons.
• Acts 13:2-3 – Holy Spirit God instructs the church to set aside Saul and Barnabas for his work and to ordain them.  This is one of the strongest passages in favor of congregationalism.  God does not set Saul and Barnabas apart and then inform the church; He instructs them to do it.
• Acts 15:22 – Notice that throughout this passage relating what many have come to see (wrongly) as the first ecumenical council that the churches decided to send messengers and chose those messengers.  Later, when the messengers reported back, the church accepted the saying.  This is a far cry from the forced decisions of the ecumenical councils from Nicaea on.
• I Corinthians 5:1-5 – While it is accurate to say that Paul “had ruled” on the matter of the adulterous man, notice that he does not exclude the man with apostolic authority.  He instructs the congregation to exclude him when they next gather.
• II Corinthians 2:6-8 – In a passage that may be referring to the same man, Paul instructs the congregation to restore the penitent brother.  I grant that Paul instructed it, but he did not do it.  The congregation restored him.  (Notice also that the wording here may mean that he was put out “by the majority.”)

So to Josh’s question of congregational rule, I answer with a firm “yes and no;” and a hearty “it depends.”  Christ rules, but the congregation is instructed to handle affairs of membership, discipline, ordination, and discernment.  I agree and amen that the purpose of the church is to equip its members, and indeed the pastor is to lead in this, but if you look at the main passages that deal with equipping the saints – such as Romans 12:4-5; I Cor 12 (esp. 12,27); Eph 4:11-12 – the gifts are given not to the elders but to the body!  In fact, according to Eph 4:11, the pastor himself is a gift to the church for this very purpose.  This leads us naturally to the next point.

Led by the Pastor

                First and foremost, it is important to understand that “bishop”, “elder”, and “pastor” are three terms referring to the same office.  (For more on this, consider Acts 20:17 with 20:28; I Peter 5:1-2; and I Tim 3:1 with Titus 1:5.)  This man (or group of men) is to lead the congregation through the proclamation of the Word.  Consider Paul’s heart in Acts 20:17-38 as he bids farewell to the elders at Ephesus and spurs them on to lead the people even as he led and equipped them through the preaching of the Word.  Hebrews 13:7,17 relate that the leaders (the same people who spoke the Word to them) are to be imitated, followed, submitted to, and honored.  It is all tied to their faithfulness in preaching the Word – not to casting vision (whatever that means) or to their mad CEO skillz.  Furthermore, elders are accountable to God for what they teach; the undershepherds must answer to the Great Shepherd for their care of His flock.  Thus, let the pastor take care that he leads where Christ leads; that he walks where Christ walks.  And if the Word is silent or ambivalent on an issue (so far, there are no Bible codes that uncover what color of carpet goes best with burgundy pews) so ought to be the pulpit.

Served by Deacons

                On this, Josh and I seem to agree.  Deacons are servants.  Table waiters.  Foot washers.  It is not necessary that they be great theological minds.  It does not matter whether they have attended seminary.  They must be head over heels in love with Jesus and His Word, yes, but they are not devoted to it as elders are.  Consider that the whole reason for their call was so that others could devote their time to Scripture – Acts 6:1-7.  Deacons, by virtue of their position, are not leaders in the church.

                And yet…

                Luke 12:37 and many other passages show that Christ was the quintessential deacon.  To be a good deacon is to emulate Christ.  At his most humble, Christ was a table waiter and a foot washer.  Furthermore, both Stephen and Phillip were deacons.  One became the first Christian martyr for his preaching and the other was the apostle to the Samaritans and the Ethiopians (or at least one of them.)  So while I do not grant that “deacon boards” have any place of leadership in the church simply by virtue of their office, a good deacon is a fine man (or woman?) to emulate in service to Christ and his people.

This has been long, so I will dispense with the closing statement.  I hope it has been helpful!

From the ESV:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

This passage has long been used by those who wish to prove baptismal regeneration to show that both repentance and baptism are necessary for sins to be forgiven.  Those who argue against this interpretation have done so ingeniously and in several different veins:

• The word translated for can mean just as easily mean “because of,” rendering the passage “Be baptized because of the forgiveness of your sins.”
• This passage is unclear whereas heaps of other passages clearly fall on the side of “salvation by grace through faith.”  (See Ephesians 2:8-10, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-13, etc.)
• Those who are being addressed are already “saved” in that they awaited the coming Messiah and are now having their faith actualized by Peter’s sermon of the crucified Christ.

Each of these is a noble effort and may very well be the correct exegesis of the passage, but there is an historical problem that has escaped many: namely, that the earliest proponents of infant baptism (men like Augustine and Pope Innocent I) never used this as a scriptural argument for baptismal regeneration!  Only after the idea that original sin must be washed away by baptism came on the scene did infant baptism even rear its ugly head.  Not until the Campbellite movement of the 1820s does Acts 2:38 find its way into regular baptismal regeneration discussions.

So why did early proponents of the practice not utilize such a seemingly strong verse for their cause?  Though it has been established that many of the western Patristic theologians had only a rudimentary understanding of Greek, it may be in that original language that the answer lies.

Before we look at the text, remember two rules of Greek: 1) as it is an inflected language, word order means almost nothing, and 2) pronouns and their antecedents (just like nouns and their modifiers) must agree in gender and number. 

Drawing from Rule #2, the word for “Repent” is a second person plural imperative that should be understood as “You all repent.”  Then we switch to singular language: “let each of you be baptized.”  The final phrase of import, “for the forgiveness of your sins,” refers to a plural second person and is grammatically tied to “Repent.”  This can be confusing because the English second person is the same in singular (sg) and plural (pl) so that I can say to my friends Josh and Rosie, “I love your kids” without any confusion as to the identity of “your.”  The kids are not Josh’s or Rosie’s but Josh’s and Rosie’s.  The “your” is plural.  The Greeks solved this by having different endings for the singular and plural second person so that there is no ambiguity in the Greek.

Thus, drawing from Rule #1 that word order is essentially irrelevant, there is no problem translating the phrase into English in a way that more correctly reflects the grammatical relationships:

And Peter said to them, “Repent (pl) for the forgiveness of your (pl) sins,” and he said, “Let each (sg) of you be baptized (sg) in the name of Jesus Christ, and you all (pl) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

This device is called an intercalation and is used elsewhere in Scripture such as in Ephesians 4:26-27:

Be angry, but do not sin: let not the sun go down on your wrath: and do not give the devil an opportunity.

Here the first and third phrases contain second person imperatives while the middle phrase contains a third person imperative.  This ABA structure is used also in Mark 3:19-35, 5:22-43, 11:12-21, 12:38-13:2, 14:66-72, and John 18:13-27.  Think of it like a sandwich – the pieces of bread are very much the same, but the meat is in the middle.  Thus, for the Greek hearer, the shift in number or person draws attention to the words as being the most important part of the commandment.

Returning to Acts 2:38, given that we have already established the logical flow of the phrases, this new knowledge of intercalations also allows us to know for certain Peter’s main message.  While “Repent for the forgiveness of your sins” is important, it is clear in the context of Acts 2 that these men were already in a receptive state for repentance.  Thus, Peter’s desire is that these men be baptized – each of them – to complete the conversion process begun in repentance.

It is ironic that we Baptists have become baptizophobic.  So staunch are we on salvation by grace alone through faith alone and so scared are we of the Campbellite error that we have divorced baptism from the process of conversion.  I challenge anyone to point to a fully orbed conversion in Scripture – apart from the special case of the thief on the cross – that does not prominently include baptism.  There will be many unbaptized people in heaven, but there is no such thing as an obedient convert to Christ who has not gone through the baptismal waters.

(Special thanks to Kirk R. MacGregor in A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology for the meat of this post.)

This author finds himself in the unique position of having been reared in twentieth century churches built upon the nineteenth century model here described by J.M. Pendleton in his Baptist Church Manual. Sadly, many of those sister churches employed only the letter of this magnificent document, forgetting the vibrant spirit that at first drove Landmarkism. Furthermore, having served for over a decade in such churches, this author easily sees past what many less experienced churchmen might see as legalism to Pendleton’s pious faith that willingly restricts itself of liberties for the good of the body and of the world.

Pendleton lays out this simple yet profound work in seven sections. The first of these regards the nature of a church. It is important that he refers to a church for though he affirms the use of church to refer to “the redeemed in the aggragate” (5), he rightly recognizes that its primary meaning is for “a congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, united in the belief of what he said and covenanting to do what he has commanded” (7). A candidate for membership must meet moral and ceremonial qualifications to be eligible for membership. Morally, he must display repentance and faith. In contrast to the seeker-sensitive movement prevalent in twenty-first century churches, Pendleton upholds the purity of the body, writing, “There is no place more inappropriate for the impenitent than a church of Christ” (9). Ceremonially, he must be baptized. Pendleton takes one more logical step that many Baptists today are not willing to venture: “In the absence of… baptized believers in Christ, there cannot be a New Testament church” (15).

His second section regards church officers of which there are four; two Scriptural and two legally necessary (and therefore having no authority within the church.) The first office is of pastor, and his supreme qualification is love for Christ (24). Pendleton equates the offices of pastor, bishop, and elder in the New Testament and argues for pastoral authority only to preach divine truth and enforce divine commands (29). The second office is of deacon, who is still responsible for service to tables of 1) the poor, 2) the Lord, and 3) the pastor. The legal offices recommended are clerk and trustees (which Pendleton argues ought to be the deacons, 39).

The third section deals with the doctrines of a church, which are defined as what a church believes the Bible to teach (40). Rather than engage in a systematic theology, he here includes J. Newton Brown’s declaration of faith, the common church covenant, and a church prayer.

In his fourth section, Pendleton launches into a healthy explanation of the ordinances of a church, which are two. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of a believer by a church-authorized administrator. On this latter point, he posits that churches were entrusted with the command to baptize, not individuals (65). In his argument against paedobaptism, he affirms that “a commission to do a thing authorizes only the doing of the thing specified” (81), showing that the commission by Christ must follow a certain order. His main reference to Christology comes in his exposition of the Lord’s Supper: “If ever the tragedy of Calvary should engross the thoughts of the Christian to the exclusion of every other topic, it is when he sits at the table of the Lord” (89). Against the Anabaptists, he sees horizontal communion as merely incidental to the vertical fellowship with Christ. Pendleton defends close communion as logical since baptism is prior to observance of the Lord’s Supper. Here, he quotes several Presbyterians and Methodists who recognize that Baptists must practice close communion not as an issue of communion but as an issue of baptism (96-8). Ultimately, because it is the Lord’s table and not the church’s, it must be guarded as close as can be (99).

Pendleton’s fifth section reflects upon the government of a church as congregationalism contra episcopacy or Presbyterianism. He posits that members have the right to receive (Rom. 14:1), exclude (I Cor. 5:1-5), and discipline members (II Cor. 2:6-8).

On discipline, Pendleton builds a whole section. How many Baptist churches today respect the honor of Christ enough to devote one seventh of a church manual to upholding it? Pendleton outlines two forms of discipline: formative and corrective. The former is action that keeps a Christian in a constant state of spiritual growth (118). The latter is broken down into personal and general offenses. Pendleton takes care to note that both the offended and the offender have a responsibility to make the transgression right. (For this, he cites Matthew 5:23-4; 18:15.) Using II Thessalonians 3:14-15, Pendleton takes care to explain just how excluded members ought to be treated (141-2). Finally, he urges churches to keep in view the glory of God, the purity of the churches, and the spiritual good of the disciplined party.

Pendleton’s final section is on the duties of a church individually (the members to one another) and corporately (the congregation to the world). Christian love is our main due to each other, while encouraging ministerial gifts – including monetary support for Christian education (151) – are also essential. Corporately, a church owes the world evangelism, Bibles and literature, missions, and Sunday Schools. This latter point may seem outdated to (post)modern Christians, but on further inspection, Pendleton teaches that Sunday Schools are designed to aid – not supersede – family instruction (154). Furthermore, the method he outlines looks strangely like the small group method being employed for evangelistic purposes all across America.

In conclusion, hundreds of thousands of Pendleton’s Church Manual have been printed and distributed. Though it was first published in 1867, he makes no reference to cultural topics such as the Civil War not yet two years finished or Darwinism, burgeoning since 1859. Is it possible that the aloofness of Landmarkism led its seminal theologian to this sophomoric mistake? This might well be the consensus, but this author disagrees. It is this: at their core, the fundamental beliefs and practices of a local church do not depend in any whit on the culture around it. The things we owe the world are not conditional to the state of our culture. Said Pendleton, “Earth’s wretched millions are starving for the bread of life, and this bread is in the custody of the churches” (162).

Even if Gandalf had told Frodo every step to take, could he have done it alone?

If you are not at Southwestern Seminary, it is hard to describe the culture of thought around this place.  For the most part, we consider the Conservative Resurgence as a major victory for the cause of Christ.  We recognize the next stage of the battle as being for the sufficiency of Scripture, and we also take note of our weaknesses and the threats that are coming as a result of these weaknesses.  What we have not done is found a solid way to implement the theology we have rediscovered.

That we have not found a way is evident in the state of our churches.  We can expect that as churches constrict their liberal tendencies that there are those who will seek more fertile fields for their brand of theology.  Though we ought to admonish and encourage these brothers and sisters to stay with us and submit their theology to Scripture, ultimately we cannot help a good bit of contraction.  If this were the reason that church attendance was shrinking, you would not hear an argument from me.  But it’s not.  The people filing through the backdoor of a church are most often the ones who came in the front door just a few months before.  This sort of contraction is perhaps the greatest problem facing churches today.

Many different solutions have been offered.  We will briefly look at three.  The first one is currently being dealt with and will, hopefully, die out in a generation or so; the so-called “seeker-sensitive” church model.  This has been an attempt to make church pallatable to the world, running the gamut from merely adopting contemporary worship services to becoming fully Emergent, i.e. embracing the postmodern worldview.  While there is something to be said for reaching people where they are and “becoming all things to all men,” this model tends to view Christianity as a product and the church as a marketing tool, which is completely antithetical to Biblical teaching regarding the church.  (For more on this topic, see White & Yeats, Franchising McChurch.)

The second of the three methods seems less caustic and at least attempts to be Biblical.  Many well-meaning and otherwise solid students and professors are advocating personal, individual discipleship.  The thought is that the mature brothers ought to disciple the immature, the learned the unlearned, and so forth.  They look to the relationship between Paul and Timothy and passages like Titus 2 (where the old are called upon to instruct the young, etc.)  A very good friend and coworker of mine is sold out to this idea and has started a summer discipleship program for seminary students.  Does individual discipleship meet the need at hand?  In other words, will it strengthen the churches and help to close the backdoor?

No.  And lest I be seen as a pragmatist, let’s quickly evaluate the two points they make from Scripture.  In the first, Paul was not discipling Timothy; he was mentoring him.  Now before you label this semantics, hear me out.  If by discipleship we mean practical instruction and application in the Christian faith, Timothy received such from his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5) and from his membership in the church at Lystra.  Instead, Paul is giving Timothy professional training as regards the ministry.  This type of mentoring program is absolutely Biblical, especially with young pastors and older pastors in their area.  With regard to Paul’s instruction to Titus, such discipleship is to take place, but (and here’s the kicker) as part of the ministry of the local church.

This brings me (finally) to my point.  Discipleship is exactly what we need to focus on to build vibrant churches and “close the backdoor.”  This is an integral part of the Christian life as displayed in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20):

Jesus said to them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

I have granted that discipleship is the answer, so why my polemic?  Because individual discipleship is not.  If a young minister needs mentoring in the application of his calling, so be it.  But discipleship as Scripture explains it is not independent but corporate.  It is part of the lifeblood of the local church, and it is there that discipleship must take place if churches are to regain their vivacity.

The problem with Protestantism is that it has built up the false doctrine of “the priesthood of the believer” rather than the Biblical doctrine of “the priesthood of the believers,” plural.  The Protestant view has led to a disconnect in the doctrines of “Christian life” and “ecclesiology” and has minimalized the role of the local church.  The second view (also known as the Anabaptist view) sees the local church as the communion of saints whereby our orthodoxy becomes orthopraxy.  In other words, any attempt to “do discipleship” outside the auspices of a local church, while it may strengthen the individual, will do precious little to close the backdoor.  In fact, as people become increasingly independent and individualistic in their faith, I predict that the whole back wall will be blown off the church, so to speak, and that in the midst of a Conservative Resurgence, the churches of Christ will die on the vine.

Now unto Him who is able to do far more in abundance beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.  Amen.  (Eph 3:20-21)

                A few weeks ago, I read John Stott’s The Cross of Christ.  It is an excellent book that every Christian should consider picking up.  In it, Stott deals with the cross – its purpose, accomplishments, and effects – in a way that ought to cause every Christian to glorify God for the cross.

                And yet…

                Indulge me, if you would for a few moments.  What did you think of when I spoke of the cross?  Did you think, as you ought, of the atoning death of Christ?  Of His forsakenness on Calvary’s tree for your behalf?  Of Him dying in your place?  Or how the work of Christ ought to radiate through our lives as we carry our crosses for His glory?

                Or did you think, as most people do, of two perpendicular beams fastened together in their midst?  Maybe its gold, or in stained glass, or even (God forbid) sporting an alabaster likeness of the Savior.  For millions of confused Christians, the cross is an object of adoration rather than, as Stott hoped it would be, a symbol to aid the believer in focusing his worship on Christ.

                When you sing “Kneel at the Cross” or “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” I hope you have in mind the redemptive work of Christ rather than an instrument of torture.  I hope you venerate the Crucified One rather than the means of His crucifixion.  And I think most, if not all, of you have this proper notion.

                If you did not, your theology of the cross would become an idolatry of the cross.  Cross theology or staurology if you want an arcane (probably made-up) term is short hand for “interpretation of the biblical teachings regarding the crucifixion event and the atoning work of Jesus Christ.”  Yet, many people have adopted the cross as an object of their worship (which I guess would be staurolatry.)

                With the exception of Theology Proper (which is the study of God the Father), Christology, and Pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit), any of the –ologies can become –olatries.  In other words, only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God.  Anything else can be an idol if it goes too far.  Mariology (the study of Mary) can become Mariolatry (the worship of Mary.)  Ecclesiology (the study of the church) can become ecclesiolatry (the worship of the church) if the church is placed with or above God.

                So in a sense, we can have “good” idols.  An idol does not have to be an evil thing; it can merely be a good thing – even a great thing – that is ascribed too much importance to the level of divinity.

Which brings me to my point (FINALLY!)

Is it possible to practice Bibliolatry (or as Angelo likes, grapheolatry)?  Is it possible to hold the Scriptures in too high a regard?  This is what I want you guys to weigh in on.  Here are some quick thoughts from me.

On the one hand, the Bible is the Word of God inspired and inscribed.  Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.  Is there a sense, then, that the Word that is Jesus is also Scripture?  Should the Bible be worshiped?

On the other hand, I know no one who would say that the Bible is God.  I will affirm that the Bible is the Word of God, but does that make it God?

I have heard some of your arguments already, and I think I have made up my mind, but I want your input first, especially Scripture references (which I have purposely left out to see what comes up.)

This week, Dr. Richard Turnbull, Principal of Wycliffe Hall at Oxford spoke at SWBTS on the topic “Still Evangelical?”  I must admit that I was skeptical of an Anglican minister speaking on our commonalities.  Normally, such skepticism of Dr. Turnbull would come from a liberal who is appalled at his views on the inerrancy of Scripture, complimentarianism, or some other of his radical (read: Biblical) views.  In this case, it comes from a Baptist with Landmark leanings who is automatically skeptical of, well, pretty much everyone.  What I found in Dr. Turnbull laid many fears to rest, and yet some fears remain.

As Dr. Turnbull spoke, I developed a deep respect and admiration for the man.  There is no doubt in my mind that he is a genuine Christian of the highest caliber whose methods of reform ought to serve as a model for all conservatives within their own faiths.  In his consummate lecture on evangelicalism, Dr. Turnbull chose to speak on three areas in which evangelical Christians must take a stand: the Bible, the Cross, and the Church.

The Scriptures

Dr. Turnbull holds unswervingly to the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, yet his greatest insights came as he contemplated the less well-known fronts of the battle for the Bible; the sufficiency and completeness of Scripture.  The Bible is not just a revelation from God as if we can expect to find more somewhere else.  It is the revelation of God.  Said Dr. Turnbull, “There are parts of Scripture I’d prefer not to deal with, especially in my own life.  But that’s the point, isn’t it?”  The very nature of Scripture precludes our being able to pick through it as we see fit, despite the discomfort such a practice causes in our own lives.

The Cross

                There is nothing to assault in Dr. Turnbull’s Christology, particularly (as he related it) his view of the atonement.  What a vibrant and lively faith the man has!  I applaud him for taking on the likes of Steve Chalke, an erstwhile Baptist minister on par with America’s Bryan McLaren, when Chalke downplays the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ as “changing God from a loving Father to an angry tyrant.”  According to Turnbull, Chalke advocates that this view of the atonement has a negative impact on the Christian message.  I concur wholeheartedly with the Principal when he says, “If a Biblical doctrine has a negative impact on your message, then your message is wrong.”  God bless Dr. Turnbull for his stand for Christ!

The Church

                Here the Oxon surprised me.  I had little hope that he would have anything for me here, yet he lamented that his Anglican Church had degenerated from the “church militant” to the “church submerged.”  Dr. Turnbull confessed (in the most hospitable form of the word) with no amount of shame that he teaches his students to look for their spiritual heroes within the Radical Reformation; whom we know as the Anabaptists.  Furthermore, he lamented certain ecumenical moves that take place outside the bounds of conservative evangelicalism.  Even in mere social ministry, Dr. Turnbull warns against association with the Roman Catholic Church especially.  Their influence on the Church of England has led the latter body (in some places and certain ways) to place tradition on par with Scripture, to “reserve” the penal substitutionary atonement, and to downplay the role of the local church.

Making the Changes

                In conclusion, Dr. Turnbull outlined three prescriptions for ailing evangelicals.  First, we must speak with greater clarity regarding our identity as confessional Christians, including marks of spirituality and a healthy belief that God displays transforming power.  Second, we must renew our spirituality through expository preaching (rather than the cult of personality), increased public and private prayer, and vibrant worship.  Third, we must recover the five solas.  This, Dr. Turnbull believes, will rescue evangelicalism from obliteration.  But we must be intentional and strategic in our implementation.

A Well Meant Critique

                I don’t know quite what I expected when I saw that Richard Turnbull was coming to SWBTS.  I confessed this skepticism to Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, and he helped me greatly by allaying my fears and confirming my cautionary attitude.  I also owe a great debt to Dr. John Mark Yeats who was willing to speak with me at length after the lectures, answering many of my misgivings.  Though Yarnell and Yeats disagree on certain points here regarding evangelicalism, both are quintessential Baptists and have answered my curiosities with hospitable patience.  Yet in light of their knowledge and my respect for Dr. Turnbull, I humbly offer a simple critique.

                I am left with a question that stands out among all others: can spiritual vibrancy and sustained evangelicalism truly thrive in a denomination that is intentionally mixed?  For those who might not follow my terms, a mixed congregation is one that has both regenerate and reprobate members.  This has been a constant state of affairs within local churches; there have always been wolves among the sheep, so to speak.  Baptists certainly cannot claim that our churches are made up of 100% saved folks.  Let there be no Baptist hubris in this regard.  However, the issue is not with the reality, which may be changed through spiritual efforts, but with the ideology.  The Church of England is intentionally mixed, though certainly not to the degree that it was in its more sacral days.  In contrast to Baptists who (ideally) practice believer’s baptism as inductive to the local church, Anglicans are pedobaptists (infant baptizers) who wholly recognize that these newborns are not regenerate believers.

                Thus, in my estimation, Dr. Turnbull is hampered from the start, not by his impeccable theology, vibrant faith, or staunch apologia, but by the vehicle he has chosen for his movement.  Dr. Yeats has argued that ecclesiology is a second tier issue after Scripture, theology proper, and Christology, and with this I must agree (if I acquiesce to the idea that theology can be structured in tiers at all), yet Dr. Turnbull is not merely speaking of theology.  If he were trying to reconstruct a proper evangelical theology for the academy, there would be no issue.  But he is trying to put it into practice, and there is no practical method of doctrinal implementation given to men by God outside of the local church.  Let the academy formulate all it likes; if the movement does not reach the pews, it will be worse than vain.  So if Dr. Turnbull is formulating a useful doctrine (which he is), then it is fair to speak of the vehicle of its implementation, and any Baptist ought to be able to admit that the churches of the Anglican faith, indeed of any “mixed” denomination, will not be able to suitably rise to the task at hand.

                In conclusion, I would remind my reader of two more things that Dr. Turnbull brought out.  The first of these is that he (rightly) believes that churches should be engaging culture with the Word of God rather than taking on fallen cultural attributes.  Second, I would remind the reader that he warned against cooperation with the Catholic Church lest our doctrines erode.  To the first of these I would argue that a church is much better equipped to engage culture as Christ commanded us if it is a local baptized group of believers covenanted together to fulfill the Great Commission.  Such constitution does not guarantee success – not by a long shot – but starting with an intentionally mixed congregation is, to use an American metaphor, coming to bat with two strikes against you.  (I tried to find a cricket metaphor, but that game is beyond me!)  The second issue is the direr of the two, and I approach it cautiously.  I must echo Dr. Turnbull’s admonishment to keep a wary eye on those denominations with whom you associate, yet I must apply it to his own Anglican Church.  If you think you know Anglicanism, please read their Thirty-Nine Articles.  I did, and I was surprised – especially since all I knew were Cranmer’s Ten Articles.  It is surprisingly less Catholic than the expression found here in the States, but I argue that this makes it even more dangerous in a sense.  Their palatable evangelical flavor conceals the latent poisons of infant baptism, ecumenism, a still-increased sense of traditional doctrine (as opposed to Biblical doctrine), and a hierarchy that undermines not the local church’s existence but her autonomy.

                God bless Dr. Turnbull for his stands, his contributions to evangelical Christianity, and his desire to reform the church group in which he finds himself.  Yet as we bless him and encourage him with a right hand of fellowship, let us keep a wary eye on our interactions with indeed all associations whose doctrines do not line up with those we confess to be Scriptural.  The crazy thing is: I think Dr. Turnbull would give that last statement a hearty “Quite right.”

Dekker, Ted.  The Circle Trilogy.  Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.  $12.95 at Lifeway.

So two and a half weeks ago, I was shopping for my brother for Christmas.  He has always been a big fantasy fan – Tolkein, Robert Jordan, R.A. Salvatore, Christopher Paolini; the heavy hitters.  Since I had a gift card for Lifeway, I thought I’d look there.  I haven’t really experienced Christian fiction beyond C.S. Lewis, so I had no idea what I was doing, and I can’t say why exactly I chose this work by Dekker.  It had several things going against it.  For one thing, I saw the graphic novels first, so I assumed that it was more of a kids’ story.  Also, it was over 1,100 pages and only $12.95, so I figured they couldn’t move them, but I bought it anyway.

I can honestly say that it was a gift of providence.

First of all, don’t start reading The Circle Trilogy if you don’t have some time to kill.  It is an absolutely riveting page turner on par with any of the modern fantasy giants.  Second, prepare for a personal encounter with Christ from a fresh perspective.  Just like Lewis’s Narnia, Dekker’s alternate reality puts what all Christians know to be true in a whole new light: from the absolute joy of experiencing God to the bitter pains that sin brings.

Thomas Hunter is the agnostic son of a military chaplain raised in the Philippines.  He is an unstable drifter in trouble with the mob who gets shot in the head and awakes in a future reality where good and evil are tangible, but mankind is yet innocent.  Every time he sleeps, he awakens in the other reality.  In the future, he receives information that his world will soon be destroyed by an engineered virus.  In the present, he tries to stop it.

All three books, Black, Red, and White, tell the story of the redemptive history of God compressed into the lifetime of one man – Thomas.  Through his experiences in the future, he comes to have faith in God in the present, but this is much more than a moral tale.  Plot twists, character development, and rich allegory are coupled with the staples of fantasy fiction including Jordanesque military escapades (without all of the dizzying names and subplots) to satisfy even the toughest literary critic.

In all, Dekker is the perfect author for the cinematic generation in that Circle reads fast and is very descriptive.  Yet classic readers will not be disappointed, for Dekker is an excellent wordsmith who paints fantastic worlds for the reader to imagine.  Not everyone will like it, of course, but if you enjoy Christian fiction or are looking to find a good starting place in the genre, I wholeheartedly recommend The Circle Trilogy.

Best of all?  His next seven books are all set in the same world.

The Free Church Confession – Jesus is Lord

I wrote this as an introductory note to free churches for my friend Josh’s church website.  Feel free to post any comments or questions!

Free churches make a radical claim – to be New Testament churches.  They do not do this to deny any part of their diverse heritages within church history or to incite those who do not wish to be known as free churches; it is simply that within their heritage and with all due respect to other Christians, they prefer to judge themselves by the measure of Scripture.  Therefore, to speak of a free church is to speak of one that takes seriously the Word of God and holds itself up to the light of Scripture to be judged.  Their confession is simple – Jesus is Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3); their calling radical – come and die (Mark 8:34-38); and their commission transformational – spread the Word (Matthew 28:16-20.)

                This theme is the thread that holds together the fabric of a New Testament church.  The first church at Jerusalem was thus woven.  In the face of persecution even to death (Stephen in Acts 7 and James in Acts 12), the Jerusalem congregation radically confessed Jesus as their Lord.  When Peter and John were arrested for preaching, they did not flinch at the beatings they received.  They answered plainly; “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29.)

                Free churches throughout history have recognized their due to the state; they take seriously the teaching of Christ to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 16:24-25.)  They respect their leaders and pray for them as Romans 13 requires, but with the free churches, Jesus only is Lord.  This radical confession sometimes requires a radical sacrifice.

The Free Church Calling – Come and Die

                The free churches are no death cult.  And yet, they recognize with somber willingness that “When God calls a man, he bids him come and die.” [1]  They have forever taken their calling from Mark 8:34-38 where Jesus tells his disciples that His followers must deny themselves and take up a cross.  There is in mind here the figurative death that comes from submitting our wills wholly into God’s so that we are crucified with Christ and yet living radically for Him (Galatians 2:19-21.)  We are carrying around his dying in our living bodies as a testimony to the power of God within us (2 Corinthians 4:7-12.)  To be a free church is to have radical discipleship that leads, if necessary, even to physical death.

                The free churches during the Reformation were attacked by Protestants as well as Catholics; many thousands of them were put to death.  Hear now one of those, writing to save his life to a condemning city council:

If I am then found to be in the right, then consider what deep sorrow and sin you would be committing if you thus would unjustly sentence innocent blood to death… But if I should be found to be wrong, your honors have sword, fire, and water that can cut, burn, and drown… you should then not let me go without punishing me with prison and death… For where Christ is, he carries his cross with him.  If we cast his cross from us, then neither will he abide.  Therefore let us all esteem God more highly than men…[2]

This is the perfect picture of submission to the earthly authorities with no hint of relinquishing the call.  For the free churches, it is primarily that they die daily to sin so that they may witness of Christ, but should that path put them afoul of authorities and principalities, they have always been willing to answer the call to come and die.

The Free Church Commission – Spread the Word

                Matthew 28:16-20 has long been known as The Great Commission, but only free churches can follow it unhindered.  They are taught first to, “Go.”  Thus, free churches are missional.  Throughout history and across the planet, free churches have existed because people went.   Even before the Reformation, their preachers were dying at the hands of the Catholics and Muslims.  Joseph of Antioch was a Paulician missionary in the eighth century who is reputed by his enemies to have preached in every major city of Asia Minor making so many converts that three centuries later, 100,000 of them were put to death and there were many more left alive.[3]  The Donatists of North Africa and the Waldensians of Western Europe likewise traveled and were likewise persecuted.[4]  Free churches are “going” churches.

                But it is not enough that they go.  It is what they do while going, for they are committed to “make disciples of all nations.”  Discipleship is a process that continues throughout life, but one becomes a disciple of Christ the moment he accepts Christ.  Free churches hold strongly to the simple paradigm found in Romans 10.  Men and women are sent to preach so that people may hear and believe, thereby calling on the name of the Lord.  Thus, free churches are regenerate.  While their mission is to a lost and dying world, there is no room for the unsaved within the body.  The congregation is made up of disciples who seek to make more disciples.  But unlike many churches whose baptismal practices (seen below) necessitate that their membership be made up of both saved and lost individuals, free churches place great importance on faith prior to membership.  Free churches are “believing” churches.

                It is noteworthy that only here does Christ command baptism, for only here do free churches baptize.  After a person has been made a disciple, free churches baptize them.  Thus, free churches are baptismal.  This has been the single most identifying mark of free churches throughout the ages.  Even early in church history as those scholars who would later influence Catholicism were arguing for infant baptism, early free churchmen such as Tertullian were writing, “The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’  Let them come then, when they are grown up.  Let them come when they learn.  When they are taught, let them come.  Let them be made Christians when they have become able to know Christ.”[5]  Many hundreds of thousands of free churchmen and women have died at the hands of Protestants and Catholics alike because they refused to baptize their babies – all because they took Christ’s Word literally in all the places where faith precedes baptism and baptism is the first act of Christian obedience.    Free churches are “baptizing” churches.

                The final command of Christ’s Great Commission is oft overlooked; “teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded of you.”  Christ established not only observances and ordinances for his church, but He commanded them in many things.  Indeed, it can (and should) be said that the commandments of Christ encompass no less than the entirety of Scripture.  Thus, free churches are biblical.  Not just in their existence but in their worldview and in their preaching.  They have never been known to be great systematic theologians (most often because they are too busy running for their lives) or overly academic people.  Free church folks are just simple enough to claim the Bible as their creed and just radical enough to live it out, whatever it may say.  If it commands them to judge themselves with heavy scrutiny, so they do.  If it demands obedience and discipline, they submit.  And whether it calls them to go and preach or come and die, free churchmen and women have always answered the call.  Free churches are “teaching” churches.

Conclusion

                According to modern scholarship, there are four ways to develop doctrine, or church teachings: reason, experience, tradition, and scripture.  While it is true that all four play a part in many different teachings, we can tell a lot about a church by which one takes priority.  For instance, the Catholic faith makes no bones about the fact that tradition is more important than the other three.  The Reformed tradition has historically appealed to reason for its doctrine, and liberal Christianity holds up their own experiences as the supreme judge.  With few exceptions, the free churches alone have upheld Scripture as the standard by which the other three are interpreted.[6]  Do you have a tradition?  The free churches will compel you to test it by Scripture – is it prohibited expressly and if not, is it something that edifies or tears down.  Do you have a logical argument?  The free churches will urge you to submit your reason to Scripture; God has not revealed Himself to us fully so that we may rationalize all things.  And are you strong enough in your faith to believe Scripture over even your own experiences?  Our perceptions are mere shadows compared to the realities of God.

                Being a free church is a decision; it does not happen accidentally.  A fellowship must decide that it will be Christ’s and submit to Him alone.  They must commit to the radical, sold-out discipleship for Christ that leads even to death.  And they must be busy reaching people with the good news of Christ, baptizing them as Christ commanded, and growing them with the very Word of God.  This isn’t just a free church; it’s a New Testament church.

---

[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

[2] Balthasar Hübmaier, An Earnest Christian Appeal to Schaffhausen

[3] F.C. Coneybeare, The Key of Truth

[4] Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren

[5] Tertullian, On Christian Baptism

[6] Malcolm Yarnell, The Formation of Christian Doctrine

This is a very condensed version of the paper that I presented at this year’s Baptist Theology Award Symposium. For a full version, please email me.

Living in the Lion’s Mouth

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to the sojourners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect in accordance with the foreknowledge of Father God by the sanctifying work of the Spirit for the purpose of obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace be multiplied. I Peter 1:1-2, author’s translation

In the Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis symbolizes Christ in the lion Aslan. One classic scene finds the children in Mr. Beaver’s home. One of them asks if Aslan is safe. Mr. Beaver responds, “Safe? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe! But he’s good.”

This doctrine of divine danger permeates Lewis’s work. Aslan is unpredictable yet dependable, savage yet merciful, unbridled yet compassionate. God is likewise good, but woe to the man who thinks it safe to approach Him unbroken and unabashed (Psalm 51:15-17.) Woe to the man who would tame God and claim to know His ways (Isaiah 55:6-9.)

Let us remember this divine danger as we look at I Peter 1:1-2, for in this passage, God reveals two of His most cherished doctrines: the Trinity and man’s salvation. Nothing has cost God more than to reveal Himself to us and make a way for our salvation, for the moment He decided to create us is the moment He decided to give His Son as a ransom for our sins. Yet too many theologians feel no sense of dread picking apart this passage and making it fit their own systems and prove their own purposes. This post is dedicated to showing that man forgets his mortal danger when he treats God thus.

Election in Accordance with the Foreknowledge of the Father

It is not the purpose of this post to delve into the relation of election to foreknowledge. Rather, let this serve as a warning to those who would impose a system on this passage. Calvinists, traditionally, have equated foreknowledge and election while Arminians have insisted that foreknowledge of man’s future faith causes election. Yet this creates problems for both systems that must be answered with material not in Scripture. Both systems go too far and are indeed playing at the mouth of the Lion’s den.

Only a few have been satisfied with Scripture. Sixteenth century Anabaptist Balthasar Hübmaier was just such a man. He wrote,

Whomever God has chosen and selected by his special choice, in order to keep them, concerns the secret God, whose mind we do not know. For deep are his judgments and unfathomable are his reasons. Nevertheless, it is certain and sure that the crucified Christ wants all people to be saved and come to the recognition of the truth.

He would rather hold the two concepts in tension with one another than create a system that would cheapen either doctrine. While some have seen Hübmaier’s teachings as the basis for Molinism (which I hold philosophically), theologians must remember not to force Scripture to fit a system that God has not ordained himself. Thus, we ought to be content to praise God that He has elected us without questioning further His motives or abilities.

Election by the Sanctifying Work of the Spirit

Even when people have a healthy view of the Father, they often reduce the Spirit to a divine messenger boy, delivering our prayers to God and bringing blessings in return. But the Spirit is also the Lion in some sense, to be feared as much as loved. His part in man’s election and salvation is His sanctifying work.

Paige Patterson has characterized sanctification in three forms: positional, progressive, and ultimate. These are all seen in Romans 6:3-5.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

In this passage, sanctification is positional (those who have been baptized into Christ), progressive (raised to walk in newness of life), and ultimate (united with him in resurrection.)

Hübmaier has proposed a similar understanding of sanctification, fashioned with the mold of three baptisms; of Spirit, of water, and of blood. Baptism of the Spirit is our salvation, but it is also the down payment on our ultimate sanctification (Ephesians 1:13-14.) Baptism of water has in view our position as holy before God; those who are baptized are set apart for His service.
Baptism of blood (Luke 12:50), then, is best understood as progressive sanctification. Hübmaier taught that baptism of blood was the “daily mortification of the flesh.” In other words, the command to walk in newness of life is not along a path always laden with blessings. Christ called us to take up our crosses and follow Him (Matthew 16:24) on a path that leads more often to glory through persecution than glory through blessings and riches.

And here is the danger of the Holy Spirit, for His sanctifying work can be a painful, deadly process. Yet without Him, we could not walk it; and for this, He must be praised!

Election for the Purpose of the Sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ

In Christ, the fullness of the allegory of Aslan is seen, so here divine danger is also most clearly seen. This passage has in mind the most precious concept in all of Christianity: the blood of Christ. If all of these other discussions have been close to the heart of God, this is the heart of God laid open for man to see. Yet people treat the blood of Christ too carelessly, especially in arguing “To whom does the blood apply?” and “For whom did Christ die?”

I will not attempt to answer these questions, and I offer a caution to anyone who would. Whether you are “general” or “particular,” you will appreciate the tact of Hübmaier when he writes, “If not all people are saved, then it is not God but we who are guilty of that, for he gave his most beloved Son into death for us all.” This places the glory for election squarely on God while placing the blame for reprobation squarely on man merely by allowing Scripture to speak for itself. Be careful when treating the precious blood of Christ.

Conclusion

Please note that I Peter 1:1-2 is not about praising the elect; it is about the Father who elects them, the Spirit who sanctifies them, and the Son who sacrificed Himself for them, so praise the Trinity, and remember that though no person of the Trinity is safe, He is good.