XVII. Religious Liberty

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7,24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.

Ummm . . . okay?  What was that?  I’m not quite sure if what we just read is what we believe from the BF&M 2000 or from the US Constitution 1789?  I definitely picked up a lot of Romans 13 in there, but it seemed to be mixed with a fair dose of the First Amendment and various Supreme Court rulings.  Honestly, I don’t really know why this is even in here?  Looking at it, this is verbatim what was written in the 1925 and 1963 editions (though the Scripture references have increased a tad), which is interesting since to the best of my knowledge the “separation of church and state” was not a well known civic doctrine until after 1947.

Alright, so anyways, let’s take a look at this mess.  Maybe a place to start would be by trimming it down to what I think actually has biblical justification as opposed to simply Constitutional justification.  It would look like:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. (*Church and state should be separate.)  Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.  A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

* = This is dependent upon how we define separate

It appears to me that much of what was written originally (and subsequently removed by me above) was an expansion on one of two sources, either Romans 13.3-4 or Philippians 3.20:

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13.3-4)

But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Philippians 3.20)

Now, I love Philippians 3.20, but I believe we can take that and Romans 13.3-4 too far.  We are to cherish our citizenship in heaven above our earthly citizenship, but this is not meant to be taken as a renouncement of our earthly citizenship (as say the Anabaptists might), which seems clear to me by the simple fact that the man who wrote Philippians 3.20 is the same man who constantly appealed to his Roman citizenship for protection during his ministry as recorded in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 16.37ff, 22.25ff, &tc).  Thus there must be some moderation here.

Similarly, one does not have any reasonable expectation for governmental respect of the church under the guise of Romans 13.  Surely the state shall be judged for their unfairness, but I do not see any cause to state that the state owes anything to the church.  Is this how Peter and James or Paul and Silas approached the issue?  Certainly not.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not recall Paul at any point before the King or Caesar saying, “Excuse me, I am a Christian.  You owe me religious liberty.”  Proper governmental authority should pay homage to Christ, but there is no delusion that the civil government of this world will or that we should expect it to.

This leads us to the idea of whether or not the Bible teaches that “Church and state should be separate.”  In as much as this means that the church should not depend upon the state for anything nor use authority within the state to determine authority within the church (think like the Church of England and it’s mixture with the monarchy) then certainly the two should be separate.  But to the extent that this concept is taken today, that we must have a pluralistic public square and that the state should not honor the church solely or at all, I do not believe this to be the case.  It is plausible (though not highly likely) that the state could operate in a way which is both honoring to and subservient to the church.  This would seem to be okay.  What must be avoided is the church becoming dependent upon anything from the state.

All that said, I do believe that the writers were on the right track in saying, “The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.”  This is what I meant above by the church not being reliant upon the state for its well being.  It’s funny, this is so right and yet our convention seems to have a reputation in direct contrast to this, constantly wanting to use our power and influence to push our agenda through legislation and crying foul and prophesying utter doom when this does not work out.

In the end, this article is definitely a mess.  There is so much inappropriate in here, and that which is appropriate and good to meditate on we tend to disavow in practice.  Oh well, they can’t all be winners.

Case in point, Dr. Jerry Vines.  Full disclosure: it is well known on this site that I am not the biggest fan of Jerry Vines’ ministry, particularly in light of last fall’s horrendous John 3:16 Conference.  That said, he has decided to interject himself into the GCR conversation by signing the document and then appending the phrase “with caveats” to it, which of course leads to the obvious question (and Internet hot topic) of, “What are his caveats?”  Thankfully we did not have to have another poorly named conference to flesh these out as he answered the question recently in an interview with the SBC’s own Baptist Press (here). 

So, what are his caveats?

In Article II ["We must be gospel centered in all our endeavors for the glory of God"], I understand Gospel-centeredness to include that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2).

In Article V [" We must affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a healthy and sufficient guide for building a theological consensus for partnership in the gospel, refusing to be sidetracked by theological agendas that distract us from our Lord’s Commission"], I understand the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 to be a minimal guide, not a maximal one.

Good night!  This is exactly what I’m talking about!  First, neither one of these things is essentially to fulfilling the Great Commission (and thus shouldn’t be caveats at all!), and second, both of them are simply an attempt for Dr. Vines to further push his anti-Calvinist agenda within the SBC.  

1 John 2.2 says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”  That is a nice verse, divinely inspired and glorious in its revelation.  However it does not exactly say that “Christ died for the sins of the whole world.”  Besides, if we are going to use one verse to make a theology, why don’t we use John 10.11 (“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”) or Matthew 1.21 (“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins“)?  My point being, universal redemption (or unlimited atonement) is not a cut-and-dry doctrine, especially for consideration within the gospel.  

In his great book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, here is what J.I. Packer has to say about the extent of the atonement and the gospel:

It is obvious that if a preacher thought that the statement “Christ died for every one of you,” made to any congregation, would be unverifiable, and probably not true, he would take care not to make it in his gospel preaching.  You do not find such statements in the sermons of, for instance, George Whitefield or Charles Spurgeon.  But now, my point is that, even if a man thinks that this statement would be true if he made it, it is not a thing that he ever needs to say, or ever has reason to say, when preaching the gospel.  For preaching the gospel . . . means inviting sinners to come to Jesus Christ, the living Savior, who, by virtue of his atoning death, is able to forgive and save all those who put their trust in him.  What has to be said about the cross when preaching the gospel is simply that Christ’s death is the ground on which Christ’s forgiveness is given.  And this is all that has to be said.  The question of the designed extent of the atonement does not come into the story at all. (p.76)

Thus, this caveat definitely seems extraneous given its tenuous justification and lack of necessity as demonstrated by Dr. Packer.

Then on the second caveat, this is really just more of the same.  Why does Jerry Vines want to “caveat” that the BF&M 2000 is a minimal guide for building theological consensus?  Well, let’s look at the things that Danny Akin says are not covered in the BF&M and do not need to be held in agreement for us to unify within the GCR: 

1. The exact nature of human depravity and transmission of the sin nature.
2. The precise constitution of the human person.
3. The issue of whether or not Christ could have sinned. (We all agree He didn’t!)
4. The ordo salutis (”order of salvation”).
5. The number of elders and the precise nature of congregational governance.
6. The continuance of certain spiritual gifts and their nature.
7. Does baptism require only right member (born again), right meaning (believer’s) and right mode (immersion) or does it also require the right administrator (ever how that is defined).
8. The time of the rapture (pre, mid, post, partial rapture or pre-wrath rapture).
9. The nature of the millennium (pre, amill or post)
10. And, saving the best for last in our current context, we are not in full agreement about Calvinism and how many points one should affirm or redefine and affirm!

Now, of these, I wonder which of them Dr. Vines believes is necessary for building theological consensus?  I would highly doubt he is being strict over mind/body/soul issues (#2), the possibility that Christ could have sinned (#3), proper administration of baptism (#7), or eschatology (#8 and 9).  That leaves #1, #4, #5, #6, and #10.  Of these, at least three (and probably four considering the nature of polity issues) are related to Reformed theology.  Maybe Jerry Vines feels like he can’t be in cooperation with someone who believes in the possibility of speaking in tongues.  But what seems more likely the case based on precedent and the above statistics is that Jerry Vines would have trouble consensus-building with Calvinists.  I’m sorry Dr. Vines, but as a Southern Baptist, and particularly one who sat on the committee which wrote the BF&M 2000, that’s pathetic!  Again, caveat unnecessary.

Why does it have to be more of the same?  Like I said earlier, Dr. Akin’s message was grand, but now that it has made it into the hands of SBC “dignitaries” watch out.  The only thing likely to come of it now is more of the fabulous SBC infighting which the point of the whole freakin’ message was against in the first place!

XVI. Peace and War

It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.

The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Romans 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; James 4:1-2.

Because evangelical Christians, and Baptists in particular, tend to align ourselves heavily with conservative politics, at least in this present day, then we often inherit some of the charges laid against these parties in matters that should not actually be a criticism of the church.  The issue of peace and war is one possible example.

Should Christians be war-mongers?  There certainly is sufficient testimony of God’s people at war in the Scriptures as well as in the last 2000 years since the creation of the church.  There are even times when God explicitly called his people into conflict (cf. Joshua 6).  But, among Christ’s last words to the disciples prior to his trial and execution was the command to Peter to “put [his] sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26.52), which pictures for us a kingdom that is to be won without conflict because it is a kingdom “not of this world” (John 18.36).  

So then where do we fall?  The article says, “In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.”  I believe this to be right.  Christians should not desire war, but if the time comes when it is unavoidable then we have freedom to defend ourselves.  Of course, this takes great discernment.  

I read recently from John Piper that he does not own a gun, even to protect his house, citing the same reason given by Jim Elliot for not using guns to protect their missionary group in Ecuador: “The natives are not ready for heaven. We are.”  This is a convicting thought, but we must also view it in light of other types of conflict, namely conflict that occurs between countries and acts of terrorism.  At what point must we stand up to defend our person and our families from senseless violence?  Does “turn the other cheek” always apply?

Looking into the OT we see an account in Judges 20 where the tribe of Benjamin drew their swords against the rest of Israel and the remainder of the nation went to God to receive instruction on how to proceed in defending themselves in battle against this attack.  Innocent people had been hurt and more were in danger and so God commanded his people to take action, which meant entering into war.  Similarly 1 Samuel 23 pictures for us David being led by God into battle in order to protect the city of Keilah.  Now, I realize these are Old Testament stories, but is there any place in the NT where a new law prevails?  It is not quite fitting to transpose the words about personal conflict (i.e. “turn the other cheek”) into matters of familial and national security.  As much as God is a God of peace he is also a defender of the weak, and so, as I stated before, we need to be able to use discernment in fleshing this reality out when it comes to war and peace. 

To close our look into this article, let’s peak a little into its history, namely the inclusion, removal, and then readdition of the declaration that “Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace,” as we go from the 1925 to the 1963 to the 2000 versions of this text.  It surely is an interesting sentence, as my first reaction hears it as an implicit ode to premillenialist eschatology.  But if this is the case it would make no sense for it to disappear during the 60′s when men like W.A. Criswell who were well-known for their premillenial dispensationalism were in their stride.  On the same token, if this is not a wink towards premillenialism then why is it here.  If all that is being viewed is the second coming of Christ then this would be a better fit in Article X on Last Things.  Alas, the only sensible explanation then would seem to be that it is simply a call for Christians to pray for the second coming, but even that I question if it is a good teaching.  Oh well, “The secret things belong to the LORD.”

First the general command:

XV. The Christian and the Social Order

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ.

The first portion begins with the general command for every Christian to be motivated by and for the supremacy of Christ.  This is a perfect sentiment, drawing straight out of the Ten Commandments and Jesus’ words to be salt and light (Matthew 5.13-16).  Even better is the statement that no “truly and permanently helpful” change can occur outside of “the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus.”  I love and totally embrace this statement.  I pray that all others do as well, but in observing how so many Christians attempt to “influence” the world through “Christian determinism” outside of grace I’m afraid that isn’t so.  We will return to the means of influence later, but it is important above all else to start with the fundamental understanding that outside of a saving relationship with Christ, all earthly change and control is nothing more than pagan moralism.

From the general command we move into specifics:

In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.

This is a very interesting section.  When comparing it to the wording of this same article in the 1963 version of the BF&M we see a lot more in the way of specifics have been added.  In 1963 the only specific commands in the “Christians should oppose . . . ” sentence were “every form of greed, selfishness, and vice.”  Now, under the 2000 writing we see this expand to also include “racism” and “all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography.”  This is not an extrabiblical extension (I believe it is perfectly inline with what Scripture reveals), nor is this a sign that society is more depraved now than in 1963 (it’s not and I have argued extensively on this site to that effect), it is simply telling of the ways in which the culture has become more open with and the Christian church has become more accepting of various forms of sin which in 1963 were almost unmentionable and clearly not what God sought in his children.  Now 40 years later we just assume God has changed or theologians were ignorant or some combination of the two and so we try and rationalize our sins.  Despite the fact that fundamentalists are prone to abuses in seeking to fulfill these oppositions, I am thankful that our denomination has enough integrity to say “This is what we believe, even if it’s not cool, and we’re not afraid to put it in writing.”

Finally, we see how they prescribe for us to influence the culture towards these standards:

In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth.

Exodus 20:3-17; Leviticus 6:2-5; Deuteronomy 10:12; 27:17; Psalm 101:5; Micah 6:8; Zechariah 8:16; Matthew 5:13-16,43-48; 22:36-40; 25:35; Mark 1:29-34; 2:3ff.; 10:21; Luke 4:18-21; 10:27-37; 20:25; John 15:12; 17:15; Romans 12-14; 1 Corinthians 5:9-10; 6:1-7; 7:20-24; 10:23-11:1; Galatians 3:26-28; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:12-17; 1 Thessalonians 3:12; Philemon; James 1:27; 2:8.

This command harkens back to the cooperation article prior to it, but also goes further.  We should be willing to work both through interdenominational means and secular means with any person or group who is of “good will.”  Of course, like many things in the BF&M, this phrase is up for interpretation, but at least it leaves the door open for cooperation with those outside of the body of Christ.  There is a growing movement which says that Christians should not do this, that they should not work with those outside the church to reach God’s ends.  

Actually, there are several strains saying this, from radically different perspectives.  There are those who are saying to not work with the education system because it is secular and will contaminate our kids (sorry, that didn’t sound unbiased, did it?).  There are also those who say we should not work with the government because the only proper government is the one where God (or Pat Robertson) is ruler.  And finally there are those who say we shouldn’t work with those outside the faith to promote biblical ends because, well, who’s to say that we’re right, and if we try and influence people towards our beliefs we are being intolerant (sounds like a president I know of).  All of these seek to isolate the church and its beliefs from the realm of public ideas for one reason or another, but none that are particularly biblical.  Instead, we should really try embracing the last part of this sentence which instructs us to influence the culture while “always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising [our] loyalty to Christ and His truth.”  We say it and affirm it, but so few actually practice it.  It’s not a problem with our belief; it’s a problem with our follow through that makes us into hypocrites and legalists and bullies.

Overall, this is a fairly decent article and if we could apply it properly without being too weak or too strong in the execution we would probably be in a pretty good place.  But alas, sin!

XIV.  Cooperation

Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.

Exodus 17:12; 18:17ff.; Judges 7:21; Ezra 1:3-4; 2:68-69; 5:14-15; Nehemiah 4; 8:1-5; Matthew 10:5-15; 20:1-16; 22:1-10; 28:19-20; Mark 2:3; Luke 10:1ff.; Acts 1:13-14; 2:1ff.; 4:31-37; 13:2-3; 15:1-35; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 3:5-15; 12; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Galatians 1:6-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Philippians 1:15-18. 

It’s funny, but my main thought in reading through this article is that is serves primarily as an apologetic for the organization which commissioned its writing in the first place, the Southern Baptist Convention.  Nice.  But we must ask ourselves, Is what it says truly biblical?  Reading through the verses used as justification and scaling back the language used in the article which sounds more of corporate or political organizing I think that we do see a biblcal truth portrayed here, at least to some extent.

Many of the passages used in justifying the claims here are passages speaking of general cooperation between Christians which may or may not be usable in a context wider than the local church.  Texts such as those given in Ezra and Nehemiah demonstrate the principle of helping out our brothers, living a servant lifestyle, or what I would more generally put as “bear[ing] one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6.2).  However, that verse, Galatians 6.2, is conspicuously absent from the justification list, most likely because it is traditionally interpreted as a local church verse.  The question I ask is, If we are claiming a universal church of all believers, how is cooperation at all divorceable from this call in Galatians?  And if it is not, then how come we seek to make a special distinction for “associations and conventions”?  I’m not sure if I see this myself.

One special exception picturing a larger specialized gathering might be found in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.  At this point we see a special convening of the church to deal with particular controversies that had arisen in the early days.  This certainly sets a precedent for coming together in a unit larger than the local assembly for clarifying doctrine, but is this what we are doing in the Southern Baptist Convention.  In part yes, but we are also doing much more.  We have things like the Cooperative Program which function on a large scale like Paul’s offering for the church at Jerusalem in 2 Corinthians and elsewhere.  We also have our missionary organizations, NAMB and IMB, which are collections of skilled people trying to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28 and Acts 1.8.  All of these fall under the umbrella of the SBC and all are good and God-honoring things.  However, to say that they are specifically laid out as the pattern of Scripture seems like a stretch to me.

On another note, a very interesting statement is made when the article says,

“Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.”  

Why is this so interesting?  Well, I, at least, find it interesting in light of recent cries foul by certain commentators among the non-Calvinist wing of SBC life who berate upstanding Southern Baptists like Al Mohler and Mark Dever for their associations with Presbyterian and charismatic and even just plain non-SBC brothers through ministries such as Together for the Gospel, Ligonier and Desiring God.  In particular I recall the provost of one of our great Southern Baptist seminaries commenting at a recent (controversial) gathering that it is confusing for Southern Baptists to be so friendly with paedobaptists.  Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t joining “together for the gospel” be a justifiable end for teaming up across denominational lines with people maybe a little more reformed than ourselves?  What does that say when even our seminary leaders are having trouble affirming the BF&M in its entirety?

XIII. Stewardship

God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and for helping others. According to the Scriptures, Christians should contribute of their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally for the advancement of the Redeemer’s cause on earth.

Genesis 14:20; Leviticus 27:30-32; Deuteronomy 8:18; Malachi 3:8-12; Matthew 6:1-4,19-21; 19:21; 23:23; 25:14-29; Luke 12:16-21,42; 16:1-13; Acts 2:44-47; 5:1-11; 17:24-25; 20:35; Romans 6:6-22; 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 4:1-2; 6:19-20; 12; 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8-9; 12:15; Philippians 4:10-19; 1 Peter 1:18-19.

Of all the practical theology articles, the one on stewardship probably has the highest likelihood of going way off course from what the Bible says, but thankful (surprisingly?) the authors of the BFM 2000 did not take the bait.  In fact, at no point has the BF&M ever been constructed too tightly on this matter.  I appreciate that, though unfortunately I do not think this is a point that many of our churches have actually taken to heart.

What I mean is this: whenever there is a special need in the church, or even a time for offering, the appeal to the congregation often comes in two unbiblical ways.  First, we always put tongue-in-cheek and add the disclaimer that giving is “Only for church members” and that guests should not give (maybe even that they should “offer” their visitors card instead).  Clearly we don’t want to impose upon non-believers as their conscience should not be leading them to give seeing as how their conscience is not even leading them to believe, but carrying this out too far simply adds into the consumerist Christianity that is rampant among believers today.  Great percentages of people hop from church to church, consuming ministries without ever putting down roots or contributing back in the first dime.  People will populate pews and attend classes, and yet will always take this disclaimer as a good enough reason for them not to give.  When presented in this way we make giving an offering sound like an idea our individual local church has had and not like a biblical concept promoted for believers throughout Scripture.  And particularly in the SBC one will find that a sizable amount of the giving to a local church does not actually stay in the local church, with so many commitments to cooperative programs and new works standing each week.  Thus, giving on a Sunday morning is not just lining the pastors’ pockets– it is lining the missions field in places that probably know very little about whatever local body it was that sent money there to support them in the first place.

Second, and more to the point, we speak frequently of the tithe, a tenth of the income that is to be given back to the Lord, and yet, in speaking this way we fail to find any biblical basis for asking for such an offering.  Sure, we often point back to Abraham’s giving of a tithe to Melchizedek, but this neglects the context of what the tithe was used for, which is better garnered in Numbers 18.21-24:

To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the tent of meeting, so that the people of Israel do not come near the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin and die. But the Levites shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, and among the people of Israel they shall have no inheritance. For the tithe of the people of Israel, which they present as a contribution to the LORD, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance. Therefore I have said of them that they shall have no inheritance among the people of Israel

So the focus of the tithe, the Scriptural recipients, were those within the Levitical priesthood.  The tithe served as income for the priests so that they could focus on making sacrifice and intercession for the people while not neglecting to provide for their families.  These men were set apart by God from birth to an important position within the sacrificial system and it would not have done to have them splitting their time between the temple and the field or market.  Thus the tithe was there to support them.

Unfortunately, for those promoting a tithe today, we no longer have a parallel for the Levitical priesthood in the church.  In fact, all believers, through the sacrificial death of Christ and the gifting of the Holy Spirit, are now on par with the Levitical priests, able to interact directly with the one mediator between God and men, that being Jesus (1 Timothy 2.5), and so with the passing of the Levitical priests and the sacrificial system we also see a passing of the requirement for the tithe.  Jesus speaks to this in places such as Matthew 23.23 where he displays that, like many other requirements under the law, this call to give a tithe is not  really a matter of the letter of the law but of the condition of the heart.  

Therefore, when later we interact with Paul, we find him making statements such as, “For if the readiness [to give] is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have” (2 Corinthians 8.12).  Too many times this is neglected in the church and instead the fixed concept of a tithe is pushed not as a matter of conviction or proportion, but as a payment into the great debt that we owe God for his blessings, a supremely unbiblical ideology which John Piper refers to as the “debtor’s ethic.”  Hopefully this will be one place where we can find our churches coming in line better with the BF&M and avoid promoting their own extrabiblical understanding of the requirements on the New Testament saints.

XII. Education

Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence. In Jesus Christ abide all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All sound learning is, therefore, a part of our Christian heritage. The new birth opens all human faculties and creates a thirst for knowledge. Moreover, the cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence, and should receive along with these the liberal support of the churches. An adequate system of Christian education is necessary to a complete spiritual program for Christ’s people.

In Christian education there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. Freedom in any orderly relationship of human life is always limited and never absolute. The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists.

Deuteronomy 4:1,5,9,14; 6:1-10; 31:12-13; Nehemiah 8:1-8; Job 28:28; Psalms 19:7ff.; 119:11; Proverbs 3:13ff.; 4:1-10; 8:1-7,11; 15:14; Ecclesiastes 7:19; Matthew 5:2; 7:24ff.; 28:19-20; Luke 2:40; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Ephesians 4:11-16; Philippians 4:8; Colossians 2:3,8-9; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:14-17; Hebrews 5:12-6:3; James 1:5; 3:17.

I’ll be honest right up front: I don’t really know what to do with this.  There are parts I agree with, but there is also so much that I feel is either redundant or implied that goes over-and-beyond what is biblical fact and is more of personal opinion.

I will say that I fully agree that, “Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence. In Jesus Christ abide all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  Both Scripturally and historically, Christianity has always promoted enlightenment and understanding.  The forced ignorance that the Catholic church promoted for so many years was thankfully corrected during the Reformation to return us to a place where we encourage and see poor, uneducated Galilean fisherman become powerful public figures overflowing with the wisdom of Christ (cf. Acts 4.13).  The empowerment and freedom that have come to so many through the ability to simply read the Bible is an astonishing testimony to God’s purpose for all men to be one in Christ and to benefit from the Holy Scriptures (cf. 2 Timothy 3.14-17).  Thus, when the BF&M speaks of “the cause of education” being “co-ordinate with the cause of missions and general benevolence,” I concur and support that statement for the above reasons.

As well, it is not that I don’t support what the BF&M says about “[a]n adequate system of Christian education is necessary to a complete spiritual program for Christ’s people,” or that “[t]he freedom of a teacher in a Christian [setting] is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ;” what I am fearful of is the broader application that the vague statements here can be used to make.  There are two ideas about education, particularly as it occurs in America, that I inherently reject.  The first is that Christians should be engaged in strictly Christian learning environments.  The second is that the public school environment should be friendly to Christian ideals.

First, as a father of an 8-year old, I find it to be a disturbing trend among many Christian parents to immediately choose to abandon public or secular schooling and instead place their child(ren) in private Christian and/or home schooling.  This is the sexy thing to do right now, but I am just not fully convinced that it is the best (or even a beneficial) practice.  First of all, very few parents are capable of providing the well-rounded education that a child needs to be able to succeed in the larger society once they reach college and beyond.  Teaching may look easy, but unless a student is incredibly gifted to start, there are often many bumps in the road that even trained teachers will struggle accomodating for, so much less will a minimally-trained, personal biased parent be able to deal with adequately.  Second, no matter what parents say or do, the non-sterile environment of the public school system is crucial to spiritual formation and is unable to be replicated by a bunch of kids meeting at the park or in church.  So many parents say that the child is not safe and receives too many harmful influences in the public school setting, but that’s real life lived in a fallen world.  The problem with kids growing up in the Christian fairytale land that we often create is that they don’t truly come to a full understanding of the horror of sin until they are old enough to get in real trouble with it.  A 10 year old coming home and saying the F-word for the first time is much better than an 18 year old drinking away their freshman year of college because they’ve never been out from under the guise of their Christian upbringing.  Of course this is hyperbole, but it is not so far from reality in most cases.

The second idea that I reject is that the public school setting should be more friendly/promoting of Christian ideals.  Parents kick and fight to keep “In God We Trust” in the pledge or to ban evolution from the classrooms, but often times these are just empty rituals that assuage their consciences to see performed and have very little bearing on what God actually requires of us.  The world is fallen, we should expect it to be fallen.  The arrogance of evangelicalism is that we assume the whole world should live up to the extra-biblical standards of perfection that we shout out from a bullhorn and yet suck at following even ourselves.  The ideal is not that our kids should be placed in a “Christ”-lined bubble; it is that we should be real parents, shepherding our children, living transparent lives in front of them, and demonstrating what the Christian life exercised in a fallen world really looks like.  Too many children are having to learn how to live as Christians on the fly as adults (or even worse, are simply abandoning the faith) because they grew up only seeing cookie-cutter, phony bologna “Christianity” practiced by their parents and the church, and so when the feces and fan interface, they are left totally unsure of what to do and doubting everything that they had always believed.  Parents rarely do their children any good by trying to “protect” them from the world.

Sorry to rant.  As you can see, I feel passionately about this.  The point of the matter is, as Christians we should be about education, but we need to be open enough to understand that God gave all knowledge and wisdom and all things worth knowing reveal the glory of the one who established them.

XI. Evangelism and Missions

It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man’s spirit by God’s Holy Spirit means the birth of love for others. Missionary effort on the part of all rests thus upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life, and is expressly and repeatedly commanded in the teachings of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ.

Genesis 12:1-3; Exodus 19:5-6; Isaiah 6:1-8; Matthew 9:37-38; 10:5-15; 13:18-30, 37-43; 16:19; 22:9-10; 24:14; 28:18-20; Luke 10:1-18; 24:46-53; John 14:11-12; 15:7-8,16; 17:15; 20:21; Acts 1:8; 2; 8:26-40; 10:42-48; 13:2-3; Romans 10:13-15; Ephesians 3:1-11; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 2:1-3; 11:39-12:2; 1 Peter 2:4-10; Revelation 22:17.

Given that the major emphasis in most (all?) Southern Baptist churches is on missions and evangelism, one would expect this to be a very solid article.  And reading it over, it doesn’t seem to disappoint.  The one thing that we have to be careful of is checking to see if they actually say too much and overreach on what the Scriptures actuallt call us to in sharing the message of the gospel.

The opening statement is very bold: “It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations.”  Many will dispute this and say that Jesus’ commands in Matthew 28.18-20 and Acts 1.8 were directed only to the apostles, but this fails to account for why many who weren’t there, say like Timothy or Titus or Apollos, felt inclined to fulfill it as well.  Instead we see that everywhere the apostles go they not only preach the word of God but that also encourage others to do it as well.  So, unless they missed the interpretation of Jesus’ commands right from the start I think it is safe to say that the Great Commission(s) is meant for all believers.  

The statement that it is a privilege echoes Peter’s sentiments that we are a chosen people that now “may proclaim the excellencies of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2.9).

After making such a strong declaration of our calling to do evangelism and missions, I am very impressed by the way that the BF&M then proceeds to say, in so many words, “But still, evangelism and missions is not to be done out of plain obedience.”  This is important.  A lot of people, even a lot of great theologians (RC Sproul comes to mind right away) will argue that the reason why we do missions is because Christ commands us to.  That is a good reason, but I think it falls short of what the Bible actually says.  Now, I know that RC comes from this angle because he is arguing for why we should do evangelism and missions if God has already set out to save all and only the elect who have been chosen unconditionally from before time, but hear me out: if our gospel witness comes just from pure obedience then we are missing the point.  When we are regenerated we are adopted into God’s family.  This then should produce a love in us for the family and thus a desire to see all of the members of the family (i.e. the elect) brought home and reconciled with the Father.  So, we have this longing and the Scriptures tell us that the only way to see it happen, to see them reconciled, is through their hearing and receiving the message of the gospel (cf. Acts 4.12, Romans 10.9ff).  Viewing our participation in evangelism and missions as simply fulfilling an obligation sets it up as an item on a checklist that we can cross off eventually without having completely sold ourselves out to doing it, which of course is the breeding grounds of legalism.  Viewing it as our internal desire to see the whole family reconciled makes it a lot more personal and more accurately conveys the spirit of him who called us (cf. Galatians 4.1-7).

Finally, we are hit with the question of how we should go about doing evangelism and missions.  This again is a place where I think the BF&M gets it just right.  It says that we are to try and ”win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ. ”  Of course, I am not a huge fan of the language of us “winning people to Christ” since I think this puts too high a value on our actually abilities, but the principle expressed is absolutely correct.  Our first weapon is a verbal witness, for “how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10.14b), and then this is to be followed up with a consistent Christian lifestyle and all other means of witness which do not contradict the commands of Scripture.  I think we have all been guilty at one time or another of witnessing only through “lifestyle evangelism,” whether we meant to or not, and I like the fact that the BF&M takes a clear stance that this is not the proper type of biblical witness.  Of course, we shouldn’t expect all of the people in the church to be George Whitefield, especially right out of the gates, but that is why the SBC has invested so much through LifeWay into evangelism training courses and through NAMB and IMB for missionary training.  This is far and away one of the biggest advantages of being in the SBC.

So, going in there was a concern that maybe the BF&M would go too far in its assessment of the Scriptural writings on evangelism and missions, but honestly, I think they did an excellent job in staying true to the word here; and even though this is not a popular way to live– I know I struggle with placing enough focus on evangelism myself– we would all do better at fulfilling God’s call on our lives if we truly embraced what this article says.

After a weeks hiatus we are trucking along with our journey through the Baptist Faith & Message.  This week we are in the ninth article, focusing on what Scripture tells us and we confess as Southern Baptists in regards to the Kingdom (of God):

IX. The Kingdom

The Kingdom of God includes both His general sovereignty over the universe and His particular kingship over men who willfully acknowledge Him as King. Particularly the Kingdom is the realm of salvation into which men enter by trustful, childlike commitment to Jesus Christ. Christians ought to pray and to labor that the Kingdom may come and God’s will be done on earth. The full consummation of the Kingdom awaits the return of Jesus Christ and the end of this age.

Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Matthew 3:2; 4:8-10,23; 12:25-28; 13:1-52; 25:31-46; 26:29; Mark 1:14-15; 9:1; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2; 12:31-32; 17:20-21; 23:42; John 3:3; 18:36; Acts 1:6-7; 17:22-31; Romans 5:17; 8:19; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 11:10,16; 12:28; 1 Peter 2:4-10; 4:13; Revelation 1:6,9; 5:10; 11:15; 21-22.

I will be honest, this is an awkward article to me.  As I look back at the confessions which I would say have a Baptist flavor to them I am unable to find any that pay particular attention to the idea of the Kingdom of God the way that the BF&M does.  Even the forebearer of the BF&M, the New Hampshire confession, makes no separate article for discussing the Kingdom.  Yet, all the way back in the first BF&M there it is, though I am baffled as to why?

Now, I say that it began in the first BF&M, but really, if you read that version you will find that it is quite dissimilar from the article on the tabel today (see here for a comparison).  For instance, the 1925 version seems to picture the Kingdom of God in a highly personal manner, expressing it as “the reign of God in the heart and life of the individual in every human relationship, and in every form and institution of organized human society,” whereas the 1963 and 2000 versions take on a much more corporate vision: “The Kingdom of God includes both His general sovereignty over the universe and His particular kingship over men who willfully acknowledge Him as King.”  This again begs the question of why we are even talking about the Kingdom of God if we have so radically changed what seems to be the focus of it?

All that said, I do not disagree with most of what is said here (other than the emphasis on the word “willfully” in discussing the acknowledgment of God’s kingship).  I do not however find it very interesting or illuminating.  The big thing I wish it would do is to more clearly connect the way in which the church and the Kingdom interact/overlap.  Here is a statement from elsewhere which I find informative on this matter:

The task of the church is to make the invisible kingdom visible through faithful Christian living and witness.  The gospel of Christ is still the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23; 24:14; Acts 20:25), the good news of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.  The church makes its message credible by manifesting the reality of kingdom life. [The Reformation Study Bible, p.1489] 

John the Baptist declared that “the kingdom of heaven [was] at hand” as he looked towards Jesus (Matthew 3.2).  Jesus declared that “the kingdom of God [was] in the midst of [the Pharisees]” (Luke 17.20-21).  Today, Christ is seated at the right hand of God, with all things placed in dominion under him and with him as the head of the church (Ephesians 1.20-23).  So, as the church we are under Christ’s reign, and therefore, being strangers and exiles still on this earth, we should live as the citizens of heaven that we are, paying respects to our king and making his glory known all throughout the land of our sojourning (Philippians 3.20, 1 Peter 1.1, 2.9).

This idea is simply omitted from the BF&M’s discussion on the Kingdom, due in no small part I would imagine both to a lingering fear of declaring the church to be the Kingdom of God (a la Roman Catholicism) and the modern influence of dispensational theology upon Baptist thought.  It is unfortunate, however, that this occurs, since otherwise we are left with the Kingdom of God appearing to be some abstract eschatalogical idea and not what it really should be to us: a daily reality of the sovereign reign of Christ demonstrated through the church, which will one day be fully consumated in a visible, earthly Kingdom.

VIII. The Lord’s Day

The first day of the week is the Lord’s Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private. Activities on the Lord’s Day should be commensurate with the Christian’s conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Exodus 20:8-11; Matthew 12:1-12; 28:1ff.; Mark 2:27-28; 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-3,33-36; John 4:21-24; 20:1,19-28; Acts 20:7; Romans 14:5-10; I Corinthians 16:1-2; Colossians 2:16; 3:16; Revelation 1:10.

I think, before we say anything in particular about this statement, we must note that this article marks the first place where the 2000 BF&M is actually more liberal than the 1963 and 1925 versions, both of which call for what is often termed “sabbatarianism” in that they argue in favor of Christians “refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, work of necessity and mercy only being excepted,” on the Lord’s Day.  That said, I believe that the 2000 version is right in abandoning this practice.  Let’s look why.

To begin, the statement that “the first day of the week (i.e. Sunday) is the Lord’s Day” is a teaching drawn straight from Scripture and supported by asundry verses concerning the Resurrection occurring on a Sunday, as well as passages in Acts and the epistles showing early church gatherings on the first day of the week (cf. Acts 20.7, 1 Corinthians 16.1-2).  The term “the Lord’s Day” is observed in Revelation 1.10, and probably also has origins in Jesus’ statement that “the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath” (cf. Matthew 12.8, Mark 2.28).  This helps us counteract the Christians who try to be “cute” (I say that facetiously) and point out an inconsistency in the modern church by arguing that the Sabbath is actually on Saturday, as clearly we see Scriptural evidence and reasoning for why the Christian “sabbath” is to be observed on Sunday.

The instruction that it should be a “regular observance” seems to come from the matter of frequency with which the first day observances are mentioned in the New Testament and its close ties to the weekly observance of the Jewish sabbath, as other than that I see no direct instruction that this be the case from Scripture.  Curiously, the Lord’s Day observance isn’t explicitly linked to “going to church” in the BF&M, otherwise one might be inclined to refer to Hebrews 10.24-25 as evidence for a regular observance.  (I do actually believe this is the case though, that the “public” manner referred to later as a way of observing the Lord’s Day is essentially the church service.)  The fact that this observance “commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead” is taken from the circumstances of the initial Lord’s Day, the day of his rising.  That the activites of this day “should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private,” is argued in Colossians 3.16.

Now, here is where the controversy occurs for many.  As I have already mentioned, the 1925 and 1963 versions of the BF&M say that the Lord’s Day is observed “by refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, work of necessity and mercy only being excepted.”  This view is typically referred to as sabbatarianism.  Contrary to this, the 2000 version takes a non-sabbatarian position, saying that “Activities on the Lord’s Day should be commensurate with the Christian’s conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.”  Personally, I think that the 2000 version is right, and have much trouble in understanding why so few Christians (historically) have come to this same conclusion.  I say this because of the traditional confessions which I would claim agreement with, all of them take at least a moderately sabbatarian position.  I actually know of no other prior confession which doesn’t read as sabbatarian.  Yet, in reading the New Testament I can’t help but reach the non-sabbatarian position myself.

So, what Scripture would I refer to?  Many sabbatarians will include Matthew 12.1-12 in their argument for sabbatarianism.  However, I do not believe this makes the point they long for, other than being an argument towards excepting rest for the doing of good on the Lord’s Day.  Beyond this, whenever the New Testament approaches actual doctrine related to the Lord’s Day (and not just historical remarks) they always seem to allow for Christian conscience in place of strict sabbath rest.  Specifically I would turn to Colossians 2.16 (“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of . . . a Sabbath“), followed by Romans 14.5-10 (“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. &tc”). The Apostle Paul seems to clearly argue that whether one observes the Lord’s Day as a sabbath or not is purely a matter of conscience that none should be judged over if they follow their own.  This is in no way contradictory to the teachings we find from Jesus on the matter of the sabbath, and actually appears to accord very well with his statement that “The Sabbath was made for man,  not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2.27).

I’m curious how much debate there is on this matter today.  I know of many fellow Calvinist brothers who hold to the sabbatarian position (which is in compliance with things like the Westminster Confession of Faith and the full practice of Covenant Theology), but typically this is a belief held by an older generation.  I would be interested in seeing comments from those with a position opposite mine though, to see how they handle the Pauline passages I gave in defense of the non-sabbatarian conviction; the position which I have shown is now accepted as orthodoxy in the SBC.

VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

As we go on, there seem to be very few statements in the Baptist Faith & Message that I would not handle with a little care as to exactly what they say, but on this paragraph concerning baptism I have to admit that I am completely in agreement with what has been written.

From the beginning, they assert that Christian baptism is by immersion (as opposed to by sprinkling) which is the precedent we see in places such as with the baptism of Christ in Mark 1.9-11 and the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.38, as well as by the linguistic analysis of the Greek word translated as ‘baptism,’ that being baptizō.  This is of first importance, not that it has any affect on the persons salvation, but to be in full obedience of the symbol which baptism is to hold (and to which we will speak in a moment).  

Secondly, it is “immersion of a believer,” hence us calling it “Believers baptism.”  Though I love my reformed Presbyterian brothers, this is where they get it totally wrong.  Baptism is not a perfect equivalent to circumcision the way they try and pursue it.  Baptism is for the believer who, after placing faith in Christ as Savior and Lord, partakes in it as “a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.”  Look at the most controversial of the baptism verses, Acts 2.37-39:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”  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. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

What evidence does this give us that the baptism is for believers?  Because it says that the people were under convicttion from the Holy Spirit and were seeking to respond somehow (v.37).  So, Peter instructs them that, since they have been convicted (regenerated, no?) then they should repent of their sins and follow after the Lord in baptism.  The following after in baptism is done as a public testimony of faith, since it is something that a devout Jew (which reasonably we should assume these people were) would not be willing to participate in.  

Notice, that is all he says to them about baptism.  The next verse, which is where the Presbyterians go awry, deals with the promise of the Holy Spirit’s availability.  The Presbys interpret this as a promise of his actual gifting and how to receive it, that through baptism “[this] promise is [realized] . . . for your children.”  However, clearly, if nothing else, this neglects the remainder of v.39 about “all who are far off,” since we never see any hurry to baptize those people in the Presbyterian church, and so should immediately be rejected as the proper understanding of what Peter is saying. (Note: for comments on why this verse doesn’t teach baptismal regeneration, see my earlier words here.)

Next, we see that baptism is done in the full Trinitarian name of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  This is Jesus’ clear command on what to do in the Great Commission, particularly Matthew 28.19.

Then we get to the crux of why we do it.  I think this is so crucial.  It seems to me that some people in the Southern Baptist church cling to baptism so strongly simply because it is one of our distinctives and so is what sets us apart from the other denominations, specifically from Catholics and Presbyterians.  As a whole, this is a crumby reason to be sold out on believers baptism by immersion.  The true reason, the biblical reason, why our holding up the symbol of baptism in this way should always be because of what it signifies.  Believers baptism by immersion is not just some form of Baptist hazing ritual.  If we don’t take to heart why we are doing it then we are no better than anyone else who corrupts this act.  At the end of the day, performing the correct mode and method of baptism are honestly unimportant if the symbol is still obscured.

That said, what does the BF&M say is the symbol of our baptism?  It says that baptism symbolizes “the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.”  This can be easily justified in the biblical teachings on baptism found in Romans 6.3-5 and Colossians 2.12.

Finally, we see that baptism is a “prequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”  This, as I have argued previously, is most clearly seen in the order of events for the first members into the church of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.  It says in Acts 2.41, “So those who [first] received his word were [then] baptized, and [afterwards] there were added that day about three thousand souls,” where we should understand that the “three thousand souls” were added to the initial body of 120 (Acts 1.15) to make up what was the church at that time.  In tomorrow’s post on the Lord’s Supper we shall see a practical controversy which is arising out of the statement that baptism “is prerequisite . . . to the Lord’s Supper.”

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

So, it looks like we get that the members must be “baptized believers” and that they are responsible to Christ as Lord.  Sounds good, right?  Well, what about where the New Testament talks about people obeying the teachings of the Apostles and the consequences for not doing so (2 Thessalonians 3.14-15)?  What about the admonitions to break fellowship with “baptized believers” who are sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, a drunk, or a partier (1 Corinthians 5.9-13)?  What about the call to not neglect meeting together for edification and encouragement (Hebrews 10.24-25)?  All these things, loosely what may be said to be the believers responsibility to the church, are simply left out of the article altogether.

As it stands, one could reasonably argue that the BF&M allows for people to be members in good standing of a church with no more than a quick dousing in the baptismal and a tacit acceptance that they really are trying to serve Christ as Lord, but the Bible itself seems to ask more.  Therefore, this past year a resolution on church membership, Regenerate Church Membership (RCM) to be exact, was offered and passed at the annual SBC meeting. The full text can be found here, but this is the gist of it: because of tradition and the clear call of the Scriptures, the SBC “urge[s] churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members.”

The road to get this passed was long and well fought, and thankfully in the end this measure went through.  Unfortunately, given the nature of the SBC, as resolution like this does not have any real teeth as far as implementation, but the fact that the SBC is now on record as doctrinally calling for a regenerate body in the local church, it is just another nail against the easy believism, Free Grace theology which has prevailed among many congregations over the last quarter to half a century.  Thankfully the SBC, though late in addressing it, finally got around to calling for more responsibility in the church among the leadership for keeping tabs on who genuinely is among us that is among us.

As I said to my Men’s Bible study this morning, I fully believe that Scripture teaches it to be easier to be in good standing in heaven than it is to be in good standing in the local church.  This is the way it should be, since God can truly see the heart, but the only evidences men have is by seeing the fruit.  Some will argue that this is all the more reason for Free Grace and avoiding judgment, but I see no way in which that position can be made biblically tenable.

On paper this was a good step and to be applauded.  Now it is necessary to make sure it is put into practice widely enough to make a difference.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42,47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23,27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11,21; 5:22-32; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-14; 3:1-15; 4:14; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Revelation 2-3; 21:2-3.

To start, I do not like the way this paragraph is set-up. Yes, I agree that “[t]he New Testament speaks of the church as the Body of Christ” and that the New Testament speaks of the church universal, but I do not believe that these two things are meant to be synonymous, as it seems to me this paragraph is implying. Specifically, I do not believe that the New Testament speaks of the Body of Christ as being only that which is the universal church; I believe that the Body of Christ is also fully present in each local manifestation of the church, else by the argument in 1 Corinthians 12, we would be unable to say that each local autonomous congregation is fully equipped to do the work of the ministry of Jesus Christ.

As for the idea that there exists a manifestation of the church on a universal level, I believe that this truly is a biblical notion.  In Hebrews 12.23 we see mention of “the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven,” where the word ‘assembly’ is actually the word ‘ekklesia‘ from which we often translate as ‘church.’  Similarly, there are many mentions of ‘the church’ in places where the idea of meaning one specific, local body seem to make no sense, such as Ephesians 1.22-23 (“And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all“).

The idea of a universal “invisible” church (“invisible” meaning that its exact boundary is unknown, not that it is wholly hidden from sight) also plays out in the illustration of the church as the flock of God, whose Chief Shepherd is Jesus Christ.  In this metaphor, we see but that there is one flock being gathered under one shepherd (John 10.16), but for a time this flock is scattered about and being tended to by many smaller shepherds awaiting his return (1 Peter 5.1-4).

One thing from yesterday’s post that I would like to add.  At the end of the post we were considering  anything which we felt was missing from the “minimum” definition of the local church given by the BF&M and I left out something which at the time I felt was right but could not think of any Scriptural justification for it, that being that the church is to be noted by the presence and blessing of the Holy Spirit.  Some places where we see this indicated are 1 Corinthians 3.16, which says, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?”, and Ephesians 2.22, “In [Christ Jesus] you[, the Gentiles and the Jews,] also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.”

In closing, I would like to give you the affirmation of “The Church” from the Abstract of Principles, which I feel is as clean and sufficient a declaration of what the constitutes the church as could reasonably be made:

The Lord Jesus is the head of the Church, which is composed of all His true disciples, and in Him is invested supremely all power for its government. According to His commandment, Christians are to associate themselves into particular societies or churches [i.e. the local church]; and to each of these churches He hath given needful authority for administering that order, discipline and worship which He hath appointed. The regular officers of a Church are Bishops or Elders, and Deacons.

VI. The Church

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

One should probably start in their analysis of this passage by taking it to be the minimum definition which the SBC believes is required for a body of believers to be considered the church. If this is the case, we must look at each portion of the article and ask if that indeed is part of the minimum criteria for a church as displayed in the New Testament, and then in the end if there is still more that needs to be said.

“A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation . . . ” This we believe to be true, in light of the fact that people in the NT, though given instruction at times by the Apostles, were free to practice the actions of being a church through the observance of the elders which had been appointed to them. They are clearly local as the fact that there are letters addressed to local churches by both Paul and by Jesus attests.

” . . . of baptized believers . . . ” A place I would turn to justify the idea that the members of a local congregations must be baptized believers is in Acts 2. Verse 41 says, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Clearly by the context this here means “there were added to the church . . . ” and so here we see the practiced (and thus prescribed?) order: belief, baptism, membership in the church.

” . . . associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel.” It is important that the church be alike in beliefs. I am first among those who dislike denominationalism and think that churches today are too at ease breaking away from a denomination than standing and fighting for orthodoxy, but at the same time, the denominations exist to help us align more closely with a specific set of doctrinal beliefs. This is also the point of confessions which people ascribe to, such as the BF&M. If the church is to be unified, then it must be in accord on its doctrine, and this means obeying the words of Paul when he says, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”

“observing the two ordinances of Christ.” By the language of Acts where we see the churches baptizing new converts who then become members, and by that in 1 Corinthians 11 where it talks about the Corinthians “com[ing] together as a church” (v.18) and partaking in the Lord’s Supper, we would agree that the church is called to observe both of the ordinances established by Christ and the Apostles in the NT.

“governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word.” All of this I would classify under having a high view of Scripture, a trait promoted by 2 Timothy 3.16-17 when it says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

“and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.” This is the Great Commission/Acts 1.8, a command which was given to the disciples and early followers and was carried out by the gathering of people at different times and places. Christ gave this in a unified context (the church), and hopefully every effort will be made to maintain this unity in its fulfillment.  Working to fulfill the Great Commission is a must for any NT church.

“Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.  In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord.”  I believe the call for the church to fall under “the Lordship of Christ” is clear by the teachings about Christ being given as “as head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1.22; which is addressed later as well in Article VI).  However, I am unsure of any clear verse teaching democratic decision making in the church, though would be glad to be corrected if one exists.  This does not mean that I do not feel it is the best form of rule, but I simply am unable to justify that as a hard and fast requirement of the church for myself.  Thus, moving on to the idea of “each member [being] responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord,” I do not think this applies in any more specific sense in the church than it does in general in the life of a Christian, which is supposed to be lived under the declaration that “Christ is Lord” (Romans 10.9).

“Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”  I agree with this wholly.  It is a shame that we must make a declaration about the exclusion of women from the pastorate, particularly since this means we are singling out one among many qualifications for an elder in the church, but at the end of the day I am glad that the SBC is not leaving that one up for interpretation, since many interesting interpretations abound.  Still, there needs to be sufficient emphasis on the qualifications for elders, and the fact that the BF&M does not include Titus 1.5-9 among the supporting Scripture for this article is frustrating.  We must not skip on the required criterion for our leadership, as their qualification and purity are of utmost importance both for our local congregations and for the cause of Christ in the world.

Concluding this all, I can not think of anything right off which I feel is missing from the minimum definition leveled here, though I did point out one or two places where I felt they went too far.

Defining the church is of greatest importance for Christianity.  Many today are wont to recreate “church” in a fashion and practice which is in no way biblical or beneficial for the Christian believer, and without a firm idea of what we are to be looking for, we have no standing for declaring that body to be illegitimate.  This is a rampant problem and one that needs to be addressed more fully as time goes on.

V. God’s Purpose of Grace

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

To have been a fly on the wall when this was discussed.  Of all the points of contention between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, Election has to be the most violent (with the extent of the Atonement coming in a near second).  So, faced with such a hotly contested topic, what did the Study committee do?  They punted.

Honestly, this article could not be any more general.  It is a great illustration of the way the earth must have looked in the beginning: without form and void (Genesis 1.2).  To their credit, this rendering does not put anybody on the outside (save those who would deny election at all, which is clearly unorthodox).  Also, to be fair, it was not this committee which chose such nondescript descriptions for this doctrine.  Yes, they did perpetuate it, but this type of catch-all doctrine of election has been the standard in the BF&M ever since the first drafting.

Historically, we see that the Abstract of Principles clearly affirmed the Calvinistic view of Unconditional Election (“Election is God’s eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life-not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ”).  Upon first look at the New Hampshire confession, one would think that it is the same as what we find in the BF&M, and they would be write mostly.  However, the second half of the NH election article is largely left out of the BF&M and it is in perusing this part that we find out how the NH authors perceived God’s decree.  In saying things such as election  “is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence,” the New Hampshire confession shows its hand, since if they allowed election by foreknowledge of a future choice then how does our election provide “assurance” or benefit in “ascertain[ing]” it?  Clearly they are affirming Unconditional Election as well.

I will say, though I think this is basically a useless article since it gives basically no theological guidance, I am at least pleased to see the statement made that “[election] excludes boasting and promotes humility.”  This should be the prevailing attitude with election, particularly among Calvinists, and any person who attaches pride to their election demonstrates just how poorly they understand what they are really saying.

A. 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.

Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.

Let’s just take it slowly.

“Regeneration, or the new birth . . .” Okay, I’m on board with that.  I agree that regeneration is new birth.  Thom Schreiner, in his commentary on 1 Peter says specifically that it is “rebeggeting” and not simply “being born anew.”  We were sinless in our creation, received Adam’s guilt and then our own in the world, and then regeneration is being returned to the state that we originally held.

“Regeneration . . . is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.” This I agree with mostly, save maybe some of the language.  Certainly regeneration is only possible by the grace of God, else it is us who are doing the renewal, which is contradictory to all that we believe about salvation.  I also agree that it, in accordances with what I said in the previous paragraph, regeneration is the making of new creatures.  However, saying that it is how “believers” are made into new spiritual beings is tricky.  If we mean looking back, those who are believers now became so by the work of regeneration making them new creations then I’m in.  But, if what we mean is that these are believers first who then are regenerated, then I disagree.  This is the argument present between regeneration preceding faith and faith causing regeneration, which will pop-up again later.

“It is a change wrought by the Holy Spirit . . . “ Again, a statement which I wholly affirm.  This is clearly what is taught in Titus 3.5 (“ . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit . . . “).

” . . . through conviction of sin . . . “ This statement becomes another statement which needs qualification.  What I would say is that the Holy Spirit brings about regeneration and the immediate sin of this is true conviction of sins.  This is opposed to the system which says that when you become convicted of your sins then you act in a way which initiates regeneration.  That idea comes into prominence next.

“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.”  Here’s the line in the sand.  Does this say, and more importantly does the Bible say, that first there is conviction of sins, “to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” and this causes regeneration; or, first is there regeneration which causes true conviction of sin, this conviction being that “to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ”?  I am convinced of the second interpretation, which is the regeneration precedes faith, or RPF, view.

The reason why I am convinced of RPF is because of what I see in Scripture.  I won’t show it all out here, but just hit the highlights.  First, the Bible is very adamant that “no one seeks for God” (Romans 3.11) and that prior to being saved we are “dead in [our] trespasses and sins . . . following the course of this world” (Ephesians 2.1-2).  Accordingly, this does not seem like something we are just snapped out of one day by our own desire, or even by the persuasion of a gospel preacher as some would claim.  Second, the Bible says that it is God who “made us alive” (Ephesians 2.5), “caused us to be born again” (1 Peter 1.3), and “saved us . . . according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3.5), all of which leave off any hint of man’s involvement in causing this to occur.  I am unaware of any Scripture that tells us that man causes himself to be born again, but have given at least three which say God causes it.  Therefore, since none come to God until he has sent the Holy Spirit to regenerate them, it reasons that as well none have come to faith prior to this action.

“Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.” This is another statement which I have no problem with.  I do not believe that one can experience regeneration, which as we have said is a work of grace, without being moved to repentance and faith in Christ.  For me this is also a point against the hyper-Calvinist who will argue that men may be regenerate without even realizing it.

“Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.” This second paragraph is pretty uncontroversial, at least from where I stand.  However, I would be interested, as I was yesterday in the subpart relating to sanctification, what amount of Southern Baptists actually agree with the last sentence.  This is basically Lordship Salvation as stated, and I know that that is not the prevailing view in a lot of SBC circles.  Still, it’s what’s written, both in the BF&M, and I would argue in Scripture as well, and so I am glad to see it there.

IV. Salvation

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

Let’s talk about the good stuff first. Speaking of salvation as including “the redemption of the whole man” is a very strong statement. There should be no part of our life untouched by salvation. God is not redeeming our souls while condemning our bodies. It is a total, all or nothing deal here. Also, making it clear that “eternal redemption” was obtained by Christ’s “own blood” is a statement which, unfortunately, many people who say they are Christians would reject today, even though it is clearly affirmed in Scripture (Hebrews 9.11-14). I agree whole-heartedly with the four broad aspects of salvation, and am thankful that justification, a key component of God’s working of salvation, is recognized individually in this version instead of as a piece of regeneration as in 1963. Lastly, that “[t]here is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord” is a beautiful idea and coincides with Peter’s wonderful declaration of such in Acts 4.12.

With all of that good, unfortunately there comes some bad as well. Already from the beginning we catch the awkward language being used here. We are told that “Salvation . . . is offered freely to all who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.” That just sounds weird. It makes it seem as if we accept Jesus as Lord and then God says “Now, do you want salvation?” It seems as if salvation is guaranteed of all who accept Jesus by faith, and instead what this is trying to say is that, “We believe that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel,” as it is stated in the New Hampshire Confession. I;m not sure why this change was made, though we can look back and see that it first arose in the 1963 version, so possibly the reasoning has passed us now.

Also, saying that Christ, by “His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer” makes me curious. Certainly the last doctrine which the authors of this text would all agree on would be limited atonement, or else called particular redemption, and yet by way of not saying anything more, one may be left with this impression from what is written. My instinct is that they would argue that it is the word “eternal” which makes the difference. A person holding to universal redemption would simply claim that Christ obtained redemption for all and eternal redemption for those who believe on him, but still here, the eternal part of the redemption is conditioned upon the receivers faith, not the givers work, and persists in sounding funny in a passage which is talking solely about what the giver has done. Again, this is a creation specific to the 1963 version and later.

I will now list parts B, C, and D of this article as they are all solid and I really have no complaint on any of them. I am saving part A, Regeneration, for another post because it will require substantially more space than I would devote to it in this post.

B. Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.

C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person’s life.

D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.

Genesis 3:15; Exodus 3:14-17; 6:2-8; Matthew 1:21; 4:17; 16:21-26; 27:22-28:6; Luke 1:68-69; 2:28-32; John 1:11-14,29; 3:3-21,36; 5:24; 10:9,28-29; 15:1-16; 17:17; Acts 2:21; 4:12; 15:11; 16:30-31; 17:30-31; 20:32; Romans 1:16-18; 2:4; 3:23-25; 4:3ff.; 5:8-10; 6:1-23; 8:1-18,29-39; 10:9-10,13; 13:11-14; 1 Corinthians 1:18,30; 6:19-20; 15:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17-20; Galatians 2:20; 3:13; 5:22-25; 6:15; Ephesians 1:7; 2:8-22; 4:11-16; Philippians 2:12-13; Colossians 1:9-22; 3:1ff.; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 2 Timothy 1:12; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:1-3; 5:8-9; 9:24-28; 11:1-12:8,14; James 2:14-26; 1 Peter 1:2-23; 1 John 1:6-2:11; Revelation 3:20; 21:1-22:5.

These are all three excellently done pieces, maybe the nicest theology we’ve seen so far in the BF&M. My favorite part is the statement in the blurb on sanctification which says, “Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person’s life.” I don’t know that all Baptist’s actually believe this (like those who hold to Free Grace Theology) but I believe it to be the truth and am happy to see our confession take such a clear stance on the matter.

]]> http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/what-we-believe-article-iii-man-part-1/ Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:59:47 +0000 Todd Burus http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/what-we-believe-article-iii-man-part-1/ This week we are picking up on the third article of the Baptist Faith & Message, the section concerning anthropology. It reads as follows:

III. Man

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.

To be fully honest, this is the first article of the BF&M which I really just don’t like.  It is not that I disagree with what is said in toto, but just that I feel an agenda was being brought to the table in this article which led to the writers simply saying too much.

Let’s begin with some positive stuff though.  The statement that “By his free choice man sinned against God” is well received, even by Calvinists such as myself, who recognize that the fall was wholly attributable to Adam’s failure during the probationary period in the Garden.  There may be a deeper philosophical argument as to why Adam failed, but the fact is we see this as being the free choice of man to deny God.

As well, we must heartily affirm the fact that “Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God.”  Again, an area where Calvinists and Non may disagree on the specifics, but where we should all stand in accord on the principle.

Finally, the statement that “The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image” strikes me as a very powerful understanding of the imago dei.  What does it mean to be created “in [God's] own image”?  Surely we know we are not claiming that God looks like us, since God the Father is not even flesh and bones.  Then what we are left with is that man is consciously in the image of God, reflecting God’s attributes in our spirits, not our bodies.  We can love like God, we can be angry like God, we desire justice like God, we desire unity like God.   It is the spiritual aspect of our being, not the physical, which shows the glory of the image of God in us.

That is the basic extent of the pieces I found positive and enlightening here.  Tomorrow I will try and show which parts I think are either wrong or just unnecessary for the development of this article on man.

]]> http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/what-we-believe-article-ii-god-part-3/ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:42:12 +0000 Todd Burus http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/what-we-believe-article-ii-god-part-3/ The final subarticle of Article II of the Baptist Faith & Message deals with the last member of the eternal Godhead, the Holy Spirit:

C. God the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the guarantee that God will bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.

Genesis 1:2; Judges 14:6; Job 26:13; Psalms 51:11; 139:7ff.; Isaiah 61:1-3; Joel 2:28-32; Matthew 1:18; 3:16; 4:1; 12:28-32; 28:19; Mark 1:10,12; Luke 1:35; 4:1,18-19; 11:13; 12:12; 24:49; John 4:24; 14:16-17,26; 15:26; 16:7-14; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4,38; 4:31; 5:3; 6:3; 7:55; 8:17,39; 10:44; 13:2; 15:28; 16:6; 19:1-6; Romans 8:9-11,14-16,26-27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-14; 3:16; 12:3-11,13; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30; 5:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:19; 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 9:8,14; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 4:13; 5:6-7; Revelation 1:10; 22:17.

I am not afraid to admit it, and I am sure that my past statements have revealed this, but I am a big fan of the Holy Spirit. Now, I know that sounds weird, and truly I am a big fan of the whole Trinity, it’s just that I feel like the Holy Spirit is oft neglected and we as Southern Baptists would do well to pay attention to just what it says about him in Scripture. As the BF&M states, the Scriptures were inspired by the Spirit, conviction is administered by the Spirit, and regeneration is “wrought by the … Spirit” (this actually is quoted from Article IV). It is the indwelling of the Spirit which endows believers with and empowers them to execute spiritual gifts. This indwelling occurs at the moment of regeneration and perseveres until our final reconciliation with God.

One part that I would like to address is near the end when the BF&M states that “[the Holy Spirit] seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the guarantee that God will bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ.” This most definitely comes from the the passage in Ephesians 1.13-14. As you may have seen here before, this issue of assurance is a big deal for me, and what we have here in the BF&M is a statement which I feel I can be fully on-board with.

This does then however make me wonder about how a person who espouses a Free Grace theology could stand under this confession? Here is how I see it: the one phrase that was added to the Holy Spirit subarticle in the 2000 that was not in the 1963 is where it says, “At the moment of regeneration [the Spirit] baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.” This would then be the baptism of the Holy Spirit referred to by Christ in Acts 1.5, a process in which the Holy Spirit comes down to take residence inside the believer. This would also allow for a theologian who holds to decisional regeneration to say that at the moment of decision then regeneration is effected and from that point the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer’s heart. Thus, when they speak of the presence of the Spirit as being “the guarantee” of salvation they have no need to require the Spirit “bear[ing] witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8.16) but instead are able to fall back upon their claim that the Holy Spirit is only around because the person believed in the first place.  Therefore, it really is just the persons knowledge of trusting in Christ which is their assurance, not some subjective spiritual experience. Coming at it this way it is no wonder the Spirit is so impotent in many baptist congregations.

No, I am certainly in favor of a much more sovereign Holy Spirit. How is God sovereign and yet the Spirit constrained by human decision? Was it not Jesus who said, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3.8)?

A. God the Father

God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. He is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and all wise. God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men.

Genesis 1:1; 2:7; Exodus 3:14; 6:2-3; 15:11ff.; 20:1ff.; Leviticus 22:2; Deuteronomy 6:4; 32:6; 1 Chronicles 29:10; Psalm 19:1-3; Isaiah 43:3,15; 64:8; Jeremiah 10:10; 17:13; Matthew 6:9ff.; 7:11; 23:9; 28:19; Mark 1:9-11; John 4:24; 5:26; 14:6-13; 17:1-8; Acts 1:7; Romans 8:14-15; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 4:6; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:6; 12:9; 1 Peter 1:17; 1 John 5:7.

I do not believe that this statement could be improved upon. They accurately represent as God as sovereign over “human history,” directing things “according to the purposes of His grace.” I particularly like how they emphasize the nature of adoption, saying that “God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.”

The final comment, that “[God] is fatherly in His attitude toward all men” is interesting in the fact that I think there is an increasing movement among evangelicals to include more here. Just look at all of the arguments around for “God the Mother,” drawing off of brief images and nuances of speech in certain OT passages (cf. Isaiah 49:14-15; 66:13; Psalm 131:2-3). Even supercool Rob Bell has a supercool Nooma video out entitled She which asks “”When we omit the feminine, are we missing a very fundamental part of [God's] nature?” However, what I think people are missing here is that the idea of God the Father is most prevalent from the way that Christ relates to him. Yes, God may and does have “feminine” characteristics, but in relating to his people, say for instance in “The Lord’s Prayer” (Matthew 6.9-13), God is portrayed as Father alone. There is a major difference between displaying feminine qualities and assuming a feminine role and when we overlook that or ignore it we begin to venture off into awkward, if not bad, theology. It is simply a symptom of our hyper-perverse and scatterbrained culture that we become so adamant to force this secular egalitarian philosophy into everything, even places were it clearly does not belong.

The second subarticle has do with God incarnated as Christ:

B. God the Son

Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord.

Genesis 18:1ff.; Psalms 2:7ff.; 110:1ff.; Isaiah 7:14; 53; Matthew 1:18-23; 3:17; 8:29; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16,27; 17:5; 27; 28:1-6,19; Mark 1:1; 3:11; Luke 1:35; 4:41; 22:70; 24:46; John 1:1-18,29; 10:30,38; 11:25-27; 12:44-50; 14:7-11; 16:15-16,28; 17:1-5, 21-22; 20:1-20,28; Acts 1:9; 2:22-24; 7:55-56; 9:4-5,20; Romans 1:3-4; 3:23-26; 5:6-21; 8:1-3,34; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2:2; 8:6; 15:1-8,24-28; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; 8:9; Galatians 4:4-5; Ephesians 1:20; 3:11; 4:7-10; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:13-22; 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; 3:16; Titus 2:13-14; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-15; 7:14-28; 9:12-15,24-28; 12:2; 13:8; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 3:22; 1 John 1:7-9; 3:2; 4:14-15; 5:9; 2 John 7-9; Revelation 1:13-16; 5:9-14; 12:10-11; 13:8; 19:16.

Again I believe this is a wonderful description of the life and workings of Jesus Christ. The writers make sure to emphasize his virgin birth and full deity, two aspects of Christ which many Christians throughout history have felt were up for debate, particularly in our current period of modernity and “scientific enlightenment.” We are also treated to the triple picture of Christ as prophet (he “perfectly revealed and did the will of God”), priest (“He is the One Mediator . . . in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man”), and king (“He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God”). As well, his second coming in glory, “to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Hebrews 12.28 ) among other things, is foretold.

One important addition that we find in the 2000 revision of the BF&M is in the passage that talks about Christ’s death. The 2000 version reads, “in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.” Where this differs from the 1963 version is in the inclusion of the word “substitutionary.” Such a small word but such a big deal. There are so many theories abounding today which proclaim Christ’s death on the cross as simply an example of suffering or as a mistake which God later turned to his good, all the while trying to deny a substitutionary atonement on claims that to necessitate Christ going through such a thing would be nothing more than “cosmic child abuse” by the Father. We can breath a sigh of relief then knowing that, at least on paper, the standard of orthodoxy in the SBC recognizes that not only did Christ die on the cross, but that it was foreordained and necessary for him to do so in order that he might be “made to be sin” on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5.21a) and so “the record of debt that stood against us” may be canceled (Colossians 2.13-14), allowing us to “become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5.21b).

II. God

There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.

This prologue serves as a most basic statement about the God of the Bible, the “one living and true God.” We are introduced to him first by his characteristics (“intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being”) and then by his offices (“Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe”). God’s infinite nature is proclaimed, as well as his omniscience. We attest God’s worthiness to be praised and obeyed. Finally, we are informed of God’s triune nature, God in three persons, as the hymn says; each part distinct and functioning, and yet at once in whole accord and coeternal unity.

Of the general descriptions given here of the Godhead there is only one thing that really sticks out to me as unusual and that being the insistence in the middle of the paragraph that “[God's] perfect knowledge extends to all things . . . including the future decisions of His free creatures.” In understanding the history of the BF&M we must know that it was simply an adoption of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, “revised at certain points and with some additional articles growing out of certain needs” (from the Preamble of the BF&M 2000). That said, the New Hampshire Confession makes no mention of God’s perfect knowledge. Neither did the 1925 or 1963 incarnations of the BF&M.  It was only in this 2000 revision that we get talk of God’s perfect knowledge, and to such an extent. I would be curious as to the reason for this new inclusion, as I can see only two.

The first reason I would see for including this would be to combat the teaching of Open Theism. This is highly likely since the real firestorm over this idea kindled in evangelical circles around 1994 and so would have been pressing at the time of the BF&M revision. The second reason I might see for such language is to accommodate the Arminian view of election, which typically speaks of God’s foreknowledge (as seen in Romans 8.29 and 1 Peter 1.2) as God’s knowledge of our future free willed decisions, allowing proponents to say that election is simply God choosing those that he foreknows will freely choose him (an interpretation of foreknowledge which I would emphatically reject). This is likely given the makeup of the theologians assigned to update this document.  In the end, I believe it was probably both of these things that played a part in the decision to include the new sentence in the BF&M 2000.  In as much as it shoots down Open Theism I support the claim, but to the extent that it is used to argue against unconditional election I am still weary of its inclusion.

Now, on the surface this doesn’t seem so contentious, and it is easy to see the justification for placing such a claim in the BF&M. Romans 1.16 says that “[the gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Acts 4.12, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven [than Jesus] given among men by which we must be saved.” Thus, if it is only by Jesus’ name that we are saved, and Jesus is the central theme of Scripture, then it would make sense to say that the end of the Scriptures is to reveal the name which will get you saved, or simply “salvation.” This is also confirmed by Romans 10.17, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ,” since it is by faith alone we are saved and by the Scriptures alone that the gospel concerning Christ is revealed.

But I claim this is contentious. No, not because I disagree with it. No, actually, it is because I agree with it that the problems arise. See, as we have hammered and hammered and hammered here, there is a fierce divide in some parts of the SBC right now over whether or not a Southern Baptist should hold to Calvinistic beliefs. And, after hearing many of these non-Calvinist Southern Baptists express their opinions a few months ago at the infamous John 3.16 Conference, I came to realize that because of the limited role of man in the Calvinistic view of salvation, many non-Calvinists believe that their Calvinist brethren deny that the end of the Scriptures is salvation. Or to say it another way, they believe that Calvinists see other means to salvation aside from simply faith in the hearing of the gospel and God’s Word, or maybe even no human means at all. This, in general, could not be any further from the truth.

I will give the benefit of the doubt here and say, yes, there do exist types of Calvinists who believe this. They are more popularly known as hyper-Calvinists, and, to the best of my knowledge, I do not personally know one. The typical hyper-Calvinist view of salvation maintains that God effectually saves the elect irregardless of earthly circumstances, rendering a general call to repentance and faith as well as to global evangelism pointless. As good 5-point non-hyper-Calvinists we must be prepared to call out this form of hyper-Calvinism as unbiblical, and thus, if this were the majority view of “Calvinism” that the SBC non-Calvinists were upset over then we should be in full agreement with them on that point.

However this is not in general what they are referring to. Instead, this claim that Calvinists deny the end of the Scriptures as being to reveal God and Christ to us that we may believe seems more or less to be directed at all SBC Calvinists. Engaging recently in a dialog with a well-known non-Calvinist blogger, he kept trying to establish the point that Calvinists who hold to a view of God effectually calling the elect and the elect only and working regeneration before faith, must then necessarily deny that their is any merit in the proclamation of Scripture. He was adamant that it is contradictory to claim on the one hand that God is sovereign in election and regeneration and on the other that gospel teaching and hearing is necessary for faith. But, to the true Calvinist this is not contradictory at all. To a Calvinist who believes that God is sovereign over all of providence (say as claimed by Proverbs 16.33 or Romans 8.28), then there is no difficulty in rectifying man’s necessity to hear the Word preached and respond in faith with God’s independence in working the salvation of the elect. God has decreed that it is by the preaching and hearing of the name of Jesus Christ that men shall be saved. That was his prerogative to decide, there was no necessity in such a charge. However, once he commanded that, it then became essential to salvation. Thus, if God is to see men saved, even if he is sovereign in the entire salvific act, then he is bound by his Word to seeing salvation occur within the context of believing on the gospel. God could have willed that it is simply true that some men are saved from birth and some aren’t, irregardless of any events in their lives (as is maintained by hyper-Calvinists), but he didn’t. He chose to use the means of the gospel call to be the environment in which his Spirit moves, and so be it. This does not add to or take away from the role of man in salvation, God is still sovereign to see that his will gets accomplished.

Therefore, though there seem to be many voices speaking to the contrary today, I do not see any problem of either Calvinists or non-Calvinists affirm the words of the BF&M as it pertains to the Scriptures and their end.

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine
revelation.

Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

We must first note importantly what things this statement affirms. It affirms the inerrancy of Scripture (“It has . . . truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter”), it affirms the centrality of Scripture (“[It is] the true center of Christian union”), and it affirms the authority of Scripture (“[It is] the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried”). To be honest, coming right out of the gate, this is one of the reasons why I am proud to be a Southern Baptist. I myself am too young to recall a time when the SBC seriously questioned the inerrancy or authority of Scripture, though I know it did occur, but now, in a “Christian” realm full of men like Brian McLaren and Bart Ehrman, I am thankful that this issue does not even seem to be considered in our SBC congregations or seminaries.

I am also enamored by the final line of the statement: “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” There are few things more important in this present age of emergent/post-modern confusion to understand than that it is not just the four gospel accounts of the incarnation of Christ that matter, but that we also need to be focusing on the other 62 books which have Jesus, though not necessarily the incarnate son, as their subject matter. It is easy to look at the Jesus who healed blind men and ignore his wrath in the coming judgment. It is not so easy to do that when looking at the Jesus of Revelation. It is easy to blame the cross on the foolishness of man when seeing Judas, in a moment of time, sell out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. It is not so easy to deny God’s sovereignty in crucifying his son when reading Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53. Jesus and his work, both in incarnation and exaltation, are supremely the focus of the whole Bible and unless we treat it, read it, and preach it as such we are doing a great disservice to God’s glory in manifesting his revealed Word to us.

My plan is, starting with the article on Scripture this coming week, to quote what the document says, walk through some of the supporting verses, and provide brief commentary to further specify what it affirms and/or to state where I would personally go farther. I will also be referring to other confessions which are of the Baptist tradition including the Second London Confession, the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, and the Abstract of Principles, as well as other documents such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

I am really looking forward to this as I am a firm believer in knowing where we have come from and having the ability to concisely state what it is that we believe. I also agree with Spurgeon when he said (about the Second London Confession) that such confessing documents are “not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith, whereby [we] are to be fettered, but as an assistance to [us] in controversy, a confirmation in faith, and a means of edification in righteousness.” These should be used in order to help us better fulfill 1 Peter 3.15, but never as a replacement for the Word itself.

For easy reference I have added a Resources tab which contains links to these various documents on the internet (most of which, as well as many others I won’t be referencing, can be found at The Reformed Reader).