Readings on autonomy, associations and affiliation

Served up to go with my post on Denominationalism. The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

Associations-Fellowships-Conventions, Are They of God or of Men?
Baptist Autonomy: Difficulties and Benefits
Baptists Believe in Church Autonomy
Congregationalism
Scriptural Church Association
Smith, Brooks, Moran on Baptist associations
The Church: Baptists and their Churches in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
What is the Association
What Makes a Baptist Church an Independent Baptist Church?
Why I am not Southern Baptist

Baptist Denominationalism

Bart Barber, whom I consider an internet friend[1] and a biblical Christian, has recently written about “monochurches”. He also has a well-thought and well-argued chapter[2] on denominationalism in Upon This Rock: a Baptist Understanding of the Church. Nevertheless, I don’t agree with his conclusions. Reading and interacting at his blog provides the background for my discussing this here.

Hoping to represent him fairly, I’d say Bart concludes that denominations are a tertium quid, a “third thing” which stands somewhere between local church ministry and parachurch ministry (p. 134).[3] He further concludes that denominations are both biblical and useful.

Brother Barber addresses the elephant in the room that is too often assumed or ignored. What makes a denomination? How do we define it? He ties denominational barriers to the boundaries of ministerial service and membership (pp. 136-137). I will address denominations in this way. Denominations for the practical purpose of this blog post are groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, American Baptist Churches in the USA, Baptist Missionary Association of America.[4]

I have no problem with “associations” and “conventions” as advisory councils. While I wish not to “fight” them, I believe conventions and associations as continuing organizational entities are neither biblical nor useful. Unlike councils or presbyteries which meet to conduct business/give advice[5] and cease to exist, denominational organizations linger on “to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of the denomination...”

I find three problems with denominationalism as commonly practiced by modern Baptists.

1. Denominationalism that rejects normative biblical practice is disobedient (violates orthopraxy). Here modern Baptists are distinctly deficient, and are weighed and found wanting. Baptists who once based their practice on New Testament practice now find the vast majority of New Testament practice to be “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive.” This is a nice little deflection from saying they believe their own convolutions are better than those of the apostles and prophets. “We live in a different world; that won’t work anymore.” Such a rethinking will eventually rethink Baptists out of existence, and even already has for a number of them. Are we free to develop our own organizations any more than our own orthodoxy? That is the question. Is it of any consequence that there are no national or denomination-wide organizations in the New Testament? The majority of Baptists seem to have already answered that is of no consequence – we are free to develop our own methods to suit our own needs. If so, biblical orthopraxy is of no consequence. But if apostolic practice is normative, not only our doctrine but also our practice should be guided by the New Testament. Time and again we read statements such as “so ordain I in all churches,” “as in all churches of the saints,” “be ye followers of me,” and “ye ought to follow us.” I contend that these commands direct us in seeking the old paths of the apostles and New Testament churches rather than carving out our own.

2. Denominationalism that usurps church authority is unscriptural (violates orthodoxy). The autonomy and authority of the local church is a distinct Baptist precept. Let me hasten to say that there is one sense in which Baptist denominationalism generally and consistently does not violate church authority. Baptist churches enter voluntarily into their associations and conventions, and they participate or do not participate in the part or parts of the denomination each particular local church chooses. The area in which denominations usurp church authority is that of taking on themselves the work given the churches. The majority of Baptists recognize the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) as a church commission, yet many of these same Baptists operate within organizations which do the work themselves (e.g. operate seminaries) or decide who can do it (e.g. elect and send missionaries). Also at question here is whether churches may delegate the authority given them by their Lord to another entity for that entity to carry out. The apostles never organized another entity to carry out the work given to the churches. If so, why should we?

3. Denominationalism that separates sister churches is sinful (violates orthokardy). Denominationalism separates sister churches by artificial means. The tendency is for members of a particular Baptist denomination (convention, national or general association) – unless they are highly ecumenical – to view all churches which are affiliated with their denomination (SBC, for example) as sister churches and view those outside their denomination not as sister churches. This inserts a non-biblical third party between churches as a deciding factor in whether they are of like faith and order. Instead, the biblical faith and practice of particular local churches ought to be the deciding factor as to whether they are of like faith and order. If not, we deny the autonomy and independence of local churches that we profess. Organizations should not artificially divide God’s churches. Faith and practice not according to the Scriptures should be the only matter separating churches.

This “tirade” against denominationalism is not an indictment against cooperation and interdependency of biblical churches. A scan of the New Testament shows that without any denominational organizations, autonomous churches operated in the spirit of family, love and cooperation. Without instant communication, Christians across the Roman Empire knew about, prayed and cared for one another, and labored in unison of service and purpose. Much of the so-called independent Baptist movement in the Western world has turned New Testament Christianity on its head by exalting isolationism, ignorance and self-confidence above the obvious New Testament example of autonomous interdependence. On the other hand, churches with tight denominational connections also fall short of the true New Testament practice of orthodoxy (right doctrine), orthopraxy (right practice), and orthokardy (right heart). In these cases the true denominational influence is not a bonded brotherhood but simply the common use of the same machinery which drives “fraternal” relations. With Brother Barber, I approve the “cooperative connection among New Testament congregations.” We just haven’t yet found agreement on exactly how all that plays out in denominational life. To me it might look something like this:

Ideally – churches of New Testament caliber which move under the direction of the Spirit & the Word and need no organizations to elicit, combine and direct their energies. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and I don’t expect the developments of several centuries to suddenly dissolve into thin air. Yet Baptist churches that take their autonomy, independency and interdependency seriously and that exalt the Saviour first of all might learn to hold His churches in the highest esteem; to regard them not on the basis of affiliation with an organization, but rather affiliation with Christ, His Word, His faith, His practice, and His love.

Let “Back to the Bible” be our cry, as it was for our forefathers. May all false systems fall before the sword of the Spirit, the word of God!

Footnotes

[1] Since we’ve not met face to face.

[2] Chapter 6, A Denomination of Churches: Biblical and Useful

[3] A cooperative ministry of multiple congregations similar to an ordination presbytery

[4] In the area of taxonomy, I consider these to be “sub-denominations” of Baptists.

[5] The business of the council is to give advice.

Readings on Sovereignty

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

Calvinists sometimes make the worst Calvinists
Determinism and Responsibility  
Do Arminians Believe in the Sovereignty of God?
Neither Calvinists nor Arminians, but Baptists
Sovereignty, not Determinism
The Legacy of Jacob Arminius
The Sovereignty of God- the Basic Principle of the Reformed Faith

Mercy displayed

"The Old Testament reading includes the story of Mephibosheth and how David took him into his (David's) house and let him eat at the king's table all of his life.  The New Testament reading includes the story of the Prodigal Son--how a son left his father's house and lived out in the world for several years until bad times came and then returned to his father's house hoping to become a servant but instead being returned to his former state as a son in the house.

"Two stories reached on the same day by reading through the Bible that reveal how we as such vile sinners welcomed into our Father's house and allowed to eat at His table and receive the blessings of His house as adopted sons." --  Michael Hackfeld on PB-MB group, April 20, 2012

There is a period

There is a period known to God
When all his sheep redeemed by blood;
Shall leave the hateful ways of sin
Turn to the fold, and enter in.

At peace with hell, with God at war
In sin's dark maze they wander far;
Indulge their lusts and still go on
As far from God as sheep can run.

But see how heav'n's indulgent care
Attends their wand'rings here and there;
Still near at hand, where'er they stray
With piercing thorns to hedge their way.

Glory to God--they ne'er shall rove
Beyond the limits of His love;
Fenced with Jehovah's shalls and wills
Firm as the everlasting hills.

Th' appointed time rolls on apace
Not to promise, but call by grace;
To change the heart, renew the will
And turn their feet to Zion's hill.

John Kent (1766-1843)

A hello and a good-bye

This week our extended Vaughn family welcome one new member and say good-bye to another. Welcome Ezekiel William Vaughn. Good-bye Calvin Coolidge Vaughn, 1924-2012. May the Lord comfort all your family.

Why has Obama changed?

According to Olivier Knox's article on Yahoo, President Obama told ABC News: "I had hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient, that that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and other elements that we take for granted, and I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, you know, the word 'marriage' was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth."


None of that has changed, so why has President Obama changed?

Dear Abby

In the Monday April 30 newspaper "Dear Abby" received a letter signed "Somewhere in the U.S.A." Somewhere's son last year had revealed that he considers himself a homosexual, and she was trying to come to grips with it. Though the family was accepting, she and her husband were struggling with God's view of homosexuality. She didn't exactly understand the Bible, and did not want to talk to her pastor. So she turned instead to Abby to ask, "Do you believe a gay person will go to heaven?"


Usually Abby will take the liberal and anti-biblical stance. She did once again. Missing the mark of grace, she said, "I believe that entrance to heaven is based upon a person's character, not his or her sexual orientation." Her confidence is based on "modern scientific studies." According to Abby, "we know more about homosexuality than was known when the Bible was written." What do we know from these "modern scientific studies?" "That sexual orientation is not a 'choice'."


Modern scientific studies and Abby notwithstanding, what we really do know from science, the Bible, nature, observation and common sense is that humans are born as men and women. Whether they engage in heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, or any sex at all is a choice that each person makes.

Dear Abby may not be all that relevant, but the issue is; especially in light of the fact that our President has come out in support of homosexual marriages.

Singing in Tull

On the third Sunday in May, Tull will host its 127th "Old Folks' Singing" from the Christian Harmony. 

Singing in Tull, AR 
Tull turns out for 126th singing

I Reckon

Romans 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Here in East Texas and the Southern United States, it was once very common to get the response "I reckon." When we say or said that the meaning was "I think" or "I suppose". When Paul uses these words in Romans 8:18, he may sound like a Southerner, but he means something much more definite than supposing. Paul is accounting, had calculated or counted up the situation and is confident of the truth he proposes. If we study Romans chapter 8, we can find the things he counts toward the truth that present sufferings have no right or realm to compare to further glory.

Sufferings have a purpose. Christians have a future. Seen in that light, we see small sufferings and resplendent glory. In ourselves we focus on and maximize the bad. But the reckoning clears away the fog that we see Christ only.

There is a future hope, vs. 19-25
There is a present intercessor, vs. 26-27.
All things work together for good vs. 28-30.
All is grounded in God and His promise, vs. 31-39.

Readings on Burial and Cremation

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

Christian Burial: A Case for Burial
Cremation and a New Kind of Christianity
Cremation and burial in the Bible
Cremation or Burial: A biblical perspective
Does It Matter If We Bury Or Burn?
Does it matter if we're cremated or buried?
Good Question: Cremation Confusion
Is it alright for someone to be cremated?
Is It Wrong to Cremate?
Should Christians be Cremated?

In our country and among Christians, cremation was once a rare exception. Today, especially because of the high and rising costs of burials, many are looking at the cremation option. With that look comes the question, "Should Christians be cremated?" Most of the links above favor burial over cremation, whether or not dogmatically so. That is my position as well.

God

Genesis 1:1-5

God is. In the beginning God, v. 1
God does. God created, v. 1
God moves. the Spirt of God moved, v. 2
God commands. And God said, v. 3
God judges. And God saw...that it was good: and God divided, v. 4
God names. And God called, v. 5

Missing teen

Lauren Ashley Martin is a recently missing Gregg County, Texas teen. A brief article and picture can be found HERE.

If anyone has any information on the whereabouts of Lauren Ashley Martin, please contact Cecil Shelton with the Gregg County Sheriff's Office at (903) 237-2531.

Baptist Sermon Notes in History

Since I maintain preaching without notes, sometimes I am asked about this from the Baptist historical angle. I am not aware of anything written specifically on this subject, but one can pick up bits and pieces about it when researching historical material. Also there are older folks who can recite their memories of it relating to their time and place.


Old-timers here (who are mostly gone now) have said the preachers did not use notes back in the early 1900s. I think this is pretty accurate for the times, though in some cases preachers may have used them and folks just didn't know it. I would guess that it became popular among the Missionary Baptists in Texas in the 1930s or so, and probably earlier for Southern Baptists. I think most Primitive Baptists do not use them to the present. A couple of MB preachers in our area who started preaching in the 1930s used notes. Their notes were published in print form. One lived 1891-1974 and the other 1901-1972. In these cases they were quite sparse, only a few sentences -- main points they wanted to get across. One might wonder whether they even looked at these in the pulpit. Quite possibly they were study notes rather than pulpit notes. They were not detailed outlines like many use today.


But I recall reading some early American and English Regular Baptists who even used full manuscripts at times. Z. N. Morrell mentions one Baptist in Texas in the mid 1800s who did so. This practice is something that has varied at different times in history. I have no doubt the Separate Baptists were one of the biggest influences against preaching from notes. Most of them believed in being led by the Spirit at the time and place of preaching for their thoughts and topic. Seminary training is one of the big contributors to the use of sermon notes.

The Life that Sings

Psalm 104:33 I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
Psalm 146:2 While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.

I've heard the expression "the life that sings", but don't know the source. I'm thinking maybe a poem or book title. But I want to use it today as a metaphor for joyful and hilarious service to the Lord, as opposed to mere dutiful and mechanical service.

As with the hymn writer S. R. Penick, I hope I can truly say "My soul's delight has been to sing..." It wasn't always that way. I was raised in a home and family where singing was as essential as the the warp and woof of woven fabric. If there was a singing in the area, we would most likely be there participating. As a small child this was merely an unquestioned normal part of life. As I grew into a teenager I realized there were other things to do and that most other people were doing those other things. My life became not "a life that sings," but one that wanted to be somewhere else doing something else. Physically I was present; begrudgingly I was there. Finally a time came when the choice was mine, and I no longer attended and participated in singings. Then, with neither plans nor expectation, in a few short years my whole life changed. Like a boomerang I came back. I can't pinpoint a particular experience or trigger, but imperceptibly it all came back to me. I settled into "a life that sings" by choice, in exhilaration, and with love. I want these lines inscribed upon my tomb: "Here lies the dust of R.L.V., his spirit sings at home."

Every Christian is not a singer. Not only are there literal "lives that sing," but also spiritual lives that sing. That person may be tone deaf to earthly sounds of music, yet lives a life to joyfully and hilariously serve God. Not because he or she has to, but because they want to. Not just for duty, but for love.The "life that sings" is one that serves from a love springing deep within the heart. What duty is, the heart wants. We can and ought to be obedient children, faithful spouses, dutiful church members and sincere Christians. But does your life sing?

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.


Without love we are nothing. With love, the life sings.

Now shall my inward joys arise,
And burst into a song;
Almighty love inspires my heart,
And pleasure tunes my tongue.
(Isaac Watts)

The table of our Lord

HYMN 20, C. M.
The provisions of the table of our Lord.

Lord, we adore thy bounteous hand,
And sing the solemn feast,
Where sweet celestial dainties stand
For every willing guest.

The tree of life adorns the board
With rich immortal fruit;
And ne'er an angry flaming sword
To guard the passage to 't.

The cup stands crowned with living juice,
The fountain flows above,
And runs down streaming for our use,
In rivulets of love.

The food's prepared by heav'nly art,
The pleasures well refined
They spread new life through every heart,
And cheer the drooping mind.

Shout and proclaim the Savior's love,
Ye saints that taste his wine
Join with your kindred saints above,
In loud hosannahs join.

A thousand glories to the God
That gives such joy as this;
Hosannah! let it sound abroad
And reach where Jesus is.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
Hymns and Spiritual Songs, Book III, 1707

Tipping cows

"Some also argue that numbers are important because souls are important, but if you really care about souls, you’ll labor to make disciples, not to merely baptize unrepentant, salvation-ignorant people who do not understand the lifelong commitment they’re making." 

When I saw the title Ten Contemporary Sacred Cows that Need to be Tipped, I feared this was some young whippersnapper debunking fundamental truths Christians have held for centuries. I was pleasantly surprised. I highly recommend this to my readers.

Seeking the Old Paths

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. 

The old paths should be looked for.
The old paths should be asked for.
The old paths contain the good way.
The old paths should be walked in.
The old paths offer rest.

The Lord commanded this. The people, whether or not they stood and looked, did not walk therein and did not find rest for their souls. Neither would they heed God's trumpet (v. 17). There remained a certain fearful looking for judgment (vs. 15, 19).

Frequency of the Lord's Supper

The Lord's Supper, also known as the Lord's Table and communion, is a supper meal instituted by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to be repeated in remembrance of His death on our behalf. Because this is a continuing observance, the frequency of repetition is a source of discussion and debate. The Bible should be both the source of that discussion and the final arbiter of our decision.

The relevant texts are those on the origin of the Supper, those which discuss the theology of it (some of which are the same), as well as a few others which relate to the Lord's Supper in some way. The texts that I find related to the observance are the following:
Origin: Matt 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-30; 1 Cor 11:17-34
Related texts: Acts 2:42,46; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 10:16-21
Other texts: John 13:1-18; 1 Cor 5:7,11; Heb 13:10; 2 Pet 2:13; Jude 12

Some texts are straightforward and unquestionably foundational to the biblical doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Others are traditionally accepted, but may be questioned as to their relevance -- such as certain "breaking of bread" texts in Acts. Those I have listed as "other texts" are or may be related to the Lord's Supper, but seem to offer little or no detail (yet John 13 is related to the time of the institution of the Supper). Old Testament verses on the Passover are not listed, but are brought to bear by those who support annual observance at the Lord's table.

Command
The Lord's Supper is commanded. An inspection of the texts reveal imperatives such as: "Eat." "Drink." "This do." The synoptic accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper contain and emphasize the Lord Jesus Christ's command to continue to observe this rite. Paul repeats it and expands on it, with teaching on the matter flowing from its observance in the Corinthian church.

Precept
The bread represents Christ's body, and the wine His blood. The observance is a  remembrance of the Lord's death until He returns. Contained within the precept itself is the idea of a continuing observance -- "till He comes." Unlike immersion, which is a one-time event, the repetitive nature of the Lord's Supper insures it will have a "frequency", whether or not this is connected to a specific frequency such as weekly, quarterly or annual. It will be observed "till He comes". How frequently is the question, which has been given numerous answers.

Example
There are few examples of observing the Lord's table in the New Testament. It was instituted by our Lord at the time of the Passover, and that record in the gospels gives us a look into what was practiced. Paul's instructions to the Corinthians gives some insight into what was taking place. Unless the "breaking of bread" passages refer to the Lord's Supper, there is no example of it in the book of Acts.

Passover
The institution of the Supper by our Lord at the time of the Passover may (and is used to) support the annual observance of the Lord's Supper. The Passover was observed annually by the Jews on 14 Nisan. Based on one's theory of the "three days and three nights", the founding of the Supper was on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Regardless, Jesus' institution of the Supper occurred in the middle of the week, and not on the first day of the week -- the most common time of observance in modern churches.

Acts 2 & Acts 20
"Breaking of bread" is possibly a reference to the Lord's Supper, and it is commonly viewed that way. I was taught that Acts 2:46 and Acts 20:7 meant the Lord's Supper. It is hard to become "unattached" to that way of thinking. Certainly bread was broken in the institution of the Lord's Supper and will be broken in its continued observance. Yet the communion consists not of bread alone, but the cup as well. No obvious communion passage mentions only the bread to the exclusion of the cup. "Breaking of bread" often means a common meal and not the Lord's Supper. Cf. Luke 24:30,35 and Acts 27:35, for example. I have trouble leaving the past teaching behind, but the context in Acts 2 and Acts 20 seems to be meal sharing.

Whatever happened in Acts 20:7 occurred on the first day of the week. This is the most cited reference for observing the Lord's Supper weekly. The Acts 2:46 reference, on the other hand, was to a daily occurrence.  If the Acts passages are not communion events, the case for annual communion around the time of Passover becomes stronger. If these are communion events, combined with institution midweek we find either the examples are contradictory or they need to be reconsidered and understood in a way that reaches agreement of the source material.

Reconciling the facts
If the Lord's Supper under Christ and His apostles was observed on a Tuesday evening, on the first day of the week, and daily, then what might that tell us? One way these various events might agree is that we should observe the Lord's Supper every time we meet. A comparison of the totality of gatherings of God's people recorded in the New Testament doesn't seem to support that conclusion. Several meetings have no evidence of the observance. Another way they might agree is that the Lord is telling us not to observe the Lord's Supper on a certain day, but that it  was a central part of the worship of the early church and that they thrilled to observe it frequently!

Conclusion
Unless and until I receive further light on the matter, I conclude that there is neither command, precept nor example that requires the Lord's Supper to be observed every time a church meets, weekly, monthly or annually -- that is, with any such exacting level of repetition. The command, precept and example, though, supports it being observed more rather than less. Jesus' words exude the imperative of command. Paul's word "often" cries out for frequent observance.

"as oft as ye drink it...For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord..." May we, by God's help, often "shew the Lord's death till He come."

Readings on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

The linked readings deal with the frequency of which the Lord's Supper is observed. I have divided the links into the following categories: annually, monthly, weekly, often, and daily. In some cases it represents only the practice of the author rather than a dogmatic position for which he stands. In other cases it may represent a plea for the Supper to be held at a certain time -- only weekly or annually, for example. I do not purport this be exhaustive view of all the frequencies used for the Lord's Supper. Other churches observe it quarterly or semi-annually (twice a year), and some may do so only randomly or seldom. A few Baptists hold it annually on 14 Nisan (Passover), but I found no online defenses of that position. It is worth noticing that those who maintain the same practice do not always conclude to do so for the same reasons. For example, some may deduce weekly communion because the Lord commands us to break bread every time we meet. Another may do so because they believe it should be observed every Lord's Day, while another may choose weekly communion simply because they think it should be done often. The linked articles represent various viewpoints that are solely those of the authors. This blog makes no endorsement of any of the linked sites. At the end I have included a brief reference to the Roman Catholic Mass because they are the only ones that I know that practice a version of communion daily. I do not recognize their practice as a valid representation of the biblical ordinance; neither would I of some of the other authors/churches whose views are linked. But the "frequency" discussion is an important one. That the majority of the readings favor or promote weekly communion is a reflection of the fact that weekly communionists are likely to be either more dogmatic or more zealous for their viewpoint.

Annually
Individual Preparation For The Lord’s Supper/ (Scroll down to "Why We Observe “The Lord’s Supper” Once a Year On The Tuesday Before Easter")
The Lord's Supper (once a year the Tuesday before Easter)

Monthly
We Celebrate the Lord's Supper Frequently But Not Weekly
Worshipping through the Lord’s Supper: Frequency

Weekly
How Often Should a Church Take the Lord’s Supper?
How Often Should Christians Observe The Lord's Supper?
How often should we celebrate the Lord’s Supper?
Thoughts on Weekly Communion
Three Arguments for Weekly Communion

Often
How often should the Lord’s Supper-Communion be observed?
The Frequency of Communion Calmly Considered

Daily
The History of Daily Mass in the Roman Catholic Church

The tongue, by Daniel Park

Proverb 15:2 The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, But the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness.
In the preceding proverb we saw the tongue of the gentle person contrasted to the tongue of the harsh person.  In this proverb we see the tongue of the wise person contrasted to the tongue of the foolish person.  A foremost lesson to be observed is this: The wise man is in command of his tongue, but the foolish man is under the command of his tongue.

1. The wise man knows when to speak and when to be silent; but the fool speaks incessantly and never knows when to shut up.
2. The wise man knows what to say and what to leave unspoken; but the fool knows nothing and tells all.
3. The wise man’s tongue is his servant for imparting knowledge; but the fool’s tongue is his master for dispersing nonsense.
4. The wise man’s tongue is used for the benefit of his hearers; but the fool’s tongue uses him for the amusement of his hearers.

-- Let us all in this regard imitate Jesus Christ (Matthew 8:28): “And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” – From Daniel E. Park, via Mike McInnis

The synagogue of Satan

Rev. 2:9b I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev. 3:9   Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.


What do we know of the synagogue of Satan? As with the Nicolaitanes, there is plenty of supposition. John Gill believes they "were false Christians, nominal professors, and shunned persecution for the Gospel." Matthew Henry says that "the devil has his synagogue...Those assemblies which are set up in opposition to the truths of the gospel, and which promote and propagate damnable errors..." H. A. Ironside thought it referred "to the Judaizing movement that came into the church in the early centuries." In the IVP New Testament Commentary Series,  J. Ramsey Michaels wrote "that the synagogue of Satan consisted of Gentile Christians who had Judaized, that is, who adopted Jewish ways or even converted to Judaism, perhaps in order to avoid persecution by the Romans. These represent some of the more "sane" interpretations. (I ran across some really wild ones scattered across the internet.)

The specific term "synagogue of Satan" is used on two times in the Bible, both in the book of Revelation. From those passages we are able to learn:
1. The synagogue of Satan is an identifiable people known to the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia.
2. The synagogue of Satan say they are Jews but are not.
3. The synagogue of Satan are liars.
4. The synagogue of Satan are blasphemers.
5. The synagogue of Satan were enemies of the churches.
6. The synagogue of Satan will be judged, will worship God in the presence of the Philadelphians, and will know whom God loves.


A good many take the synagogue of Satan to mean literal Jews in the flesh, thinking there may be some comparison  with John 8:33-45, where Jesus speaks of those who take pride in being Abraham's seed. He says they really are of their father the devil. Also compare verses such as Rom. 2:28-29; Rom. 9:6-8; Matt. 3:9; etc. This could be in view, as Paul demonstrates "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart." But this is a theological and spiritual understanding held by the churches of God. Why would some Jews in the flesh outside the church claim to be spiritual Jews when they would have no reference point for such a claim? On the other hand, Gentiles who had passed through the churches and then embraced a sort of Judaism would have more reason to "claim" they are Jews, though they are not.


Regardless, the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia had real enemies who made a false Jewish claims. These synagogues (assemblies) belonged to Satan and did his work. They opposed the churches of God. God knows what will come and will be with His people. In Smyrna He commands them to endure persecution, trials and tribulations. Be faithful even to the point of death. He who commands this is He who was dead, and is alive. Fear not! The church in Philadelphia must also suffer tribulation, but God has set an open door that no man can close. No not even those of the synagogue of Satan can do so. In the end these false assemblies will be humbled, and know whom Christ has loved and whom He has not.

Another missing person

77-year-old Billy Heartsill went missing around 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday in Butler County, Alabama. We don't know him, but know people who do. We hope he will soon be found. Those with any information are encouraged to contact the Butler County Sheriff’s Office at (334) 382-6521 or (334) 525-0361.  

Man with Alzheimer's missing in Greenville  

BCSO to continue search for man

Depravity

"The depravity of the human heart is at once the most empirically verifiable fact and at the same time the most intellectually resisted." -- Malcolm Muggeridge (English journalist, author, and satirist)

Missing person

Jimmy Tidwell of Mt. Enterprise went missing in late February and still has not been found. Anyone with any information should contact the Rusk County Sheriff's Office at 903-657-3581. His picture can be found at both links below. 

Reward offered for info on missing Mt Enterprise man 

James Tidwell: Missing from Texas

Readings on KJV, translations, originals

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

N. T. Wright: Bible Study, Original Languages, Favorite Books, and More  
Plain Reasons for Keeping to the Authorised Version  
The Profit of Employing the Biblical Languages: Scriptural and Historical Reflections  
The Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon  
The Translators to the Reader  
What today's Christian needs to know about The Greek New Testament  
Why Study Biblical Languages?  
Why Study NTGreek?
Why You Should Use The King James Bible  

The Nicolaitanes

Revelation 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.


Who are the Nicolaitanes? Some ideas are:
1. A sect who followed the teachings of a man named Nicolas.
2. Those who believe in exerting hierarchical authority over the church/people/laity, from the meaning of the name “one who conquers the people.” The word Nicolaitanes (Greek: Νικολαΐ́της) is made up of Nikos/conquest, victory and Laos/people, with the ending making a proper name.
3. A sect named from the Greek word Nicolah (meaning "let us eat") who encouraged the eating of things offered to idols.


The second view is the one that I have heard most, but that is probably just my limited experience. From the information given in the Scriptures we cannot establish any of the preceding views. But we can gather the following:


1. The Nicolaitanes were an identifiable group/sect/people known to the churches in Ephesus and Pergamos.
2. The Nicolaitanes had doctrines and deeds known to the churches in Ephesus and Pergamos.
3. God hated the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
4. Those of Ephesus hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes.
5. Those of Pergamos tolerated the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.


Is it possible that we spend so much time and energy trying to identify exactly who these people are that we weaken or miss the clear point of the passages? God hates the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes!


We should not tolerate the things which God hates. We should hate what God hates and love what God loves.

Stars are angels

Rev. 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Rev. 2:1, et al. Unto the angel of the church of....write...

Who are the ‘angels’ in Revelation 2-3? A common interpretation -- perhaps the most common -- is that the seven angels represent the seven pastors of each of the seven churches of Asia. Baptist, Evangelical and Protestant commentators provide some examples:

“The candlesticks represent the churches; the stars represent the messengers or pastors of the churches...” -- B. H. Carroll, The Seven Churches of Asia
“...the seven stars which John saw in Christ’s right hand, represent the angels, or pastors of the seven churches of Asia, and in them all the pastors and ministers of the churches in all the periods of time until Christ’s second coming.” -- John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible
“These messengers were probably the pastors of these churches or prophets through who the message was to be delivered to the congregation.” -- John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ
“With the meaning of the seven stars, that they are the ministers of the churches...” Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible
“But by Angel in this and all the other epistles written to the seven churches in Asia, we are to understand the episcopacy, presbytery, and ministry in each particular church, unto whom the charge, oversight, care and government thereof was committed by the Holy Spirit...So the word ‘Angel’ in all these seven epistles, is a noun collective, comprehending all the bishops and presbyters, called elders, in this Church of Ephesus, so in all other churches of Christ in Asia, and elsewhere.” -- Hanserd Knollys, An Exposition on the Book of Revelation

The notion that angels represent pastors runs very deep in the mindset of many. But the deep-seated nature of that interpretation may disguise a lack of proof that pastors are angels or that angels are pastors.

Revelation 1:20 is “epexegetical” -- that is, it interprets itself; or (perhaps more technically) it is a verse in which the explanation or interpretation is supplied. John hears a voice, sees a vision. It is the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end, He who was dead and is alive forevermore. In the vision John sees Him -- the Lord Jesus Christ -- in the midst of seven golden candlesticks, holding seven stars in His hand. The vision ends with a command to write -- and an explanation of the mystery of the seven stars and seven candlesticks. The seven candlesticks are the seven churches of Asia to whom John is commanded to write. The seven stars are the angels of those seven churches. Now at once we must decide: has Jesus given the interpretation of the mystery, or has He only interpreted half the mystery and left the other half for us to decide? All seem to agree that the interpretation of churches is churches. Yet perhaps only a minority accept that Jesus’s interpretation of stars as angels actually means the stars are angels. Some may accept angels on the surface. But rather than understanding angels as the spiritual beings we most commonly think of when we hear the word, they interpret them in regard to the basic meaning of the term -- a messenger. 

I believe the stars are angels:

1. Because of the interpretation of Jesus. If the stars are not angels, but rather pastors, that leaves the interpretation provided by our Lord as no interpretation or explanation at all. Stars are angels. Candlesticks are churches. The mystery is revealed. Or not?

2. Because the most common use of “angel” (Gk. angelos) means angelic/spiritual beings, ministering spirits. According a search engine I consulted (if done correctly), angel or angels occur 75 times in the KJV English version of the book of Revelation. 67 occurrences clearly refer to angelic beings. If 1:20, 2:1,8,12,18, 3:1,7,14 do not refer to angelic beings, they are exceptions to the rule throughout the book. Chapter 1 opens with an angel who is an angel. Chapters 2-3 do not clearly indicate any reason for a difference from the other usage throughout the book. The following chapters continually portray angels who are angels. It is unlikely that angel differs only in chapters 2-3, with no explanation. Everywhere in the book of Revelation the angels are angels.

3. Because the stars who are angels in Rev. 12: 3-9 are angelic spirit beings, not human beings. The dragon drew a third of the stars of heaven, verse 4. In verses 7 through 9 we find that the dragon is the Devil, and the stars are angels!

I do not believe the stars are angels who are angels who are pastors:

1. Because the interpretation breaks down. Rather than following the interpretation given by the Lord himself, one must continue on to reinterpret it. Jesus says the stars are angels. Men say the stars are pastors who are only called angels. If pastors are called angels here, we find no confirmation of it elsewhere in the Scriptures. Pastors/elders/bishops are not called angels in the Bible.

2. If the angels are pastors, the greetings/salutations of the letters to the seven churches of Asia are inconsistent with the greetings of other church letters found in the New Testament. No other New Testament church letter was written to the pastor alone. Rather, they were written to the church, i.e., the entire local congregation of saints in a particular place. Compare some of the salutations given by Paul in his letters: 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; and Philippians 1:1.

3. If the angels are single pastors the condition of these churches in Revelation is not consistent with the rest of the New Testament praxis. In Acts 20, for example, the church at Ephesus had several overseers/elders: Acts 20:17 “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” They were preaching/teaching elders: Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” During these days, there was a plurality of elders in every church (Acts 14:23). These elders were bishops, or overseers. Local assemblies in the Bible are consistently portrayed as led by elders, plural.

The popularity of the angel=pastor interpretation may arise for two main reasons: 1). The angels as pastors just “makes sense”. Why would God send the message to the church to an angel? When Jesus’s simple explanation of Rev. 1:20 finds hard ground, it is carried away and another substituted for it. 2). Familiarity and commonality breeds popularity. It is the interpretation we hear most; it is the interpretation we are taught. It “makes senses” and isn’t challenged, so why should we seek another interpretation?

Does it make any sense that the Lord would address the letter to the church to “the angel”? Does it matter whether it does? The Lord said the stars are angels. The star is the symbol. The angel is the interpretation. Perhaps there is a lesson here to accept what the Lord says at face value even if it doesn’t “make sense”!

Miscellaneous readings around the web

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

The First Baptist Church in America
Leland’s 8
Separation of church and state: last Baptist distinctive
Promoting the Historical Model of Church Planting
The Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism
The Resurrection: An 18th Century Defense for 21st Century Christians

Triablogue: Remember Lot's Wife

Triablogue: Remember Lot's Wife

Customized Baptist History Search Engine

About five years ago I created a customized search engine on Google -- Baptist History Search Engine. Just thought I'd remind you readers and invite you to visit. Try a search. Give me your comments on it. Perhaps you will get some benefit from it, and your comments might help me improve it.

Thanks.

Triablogue: Dr Wallace’s Problems with Protestant Ecclesiology

Triablogue: Dr Wallace’s Problems with Protestant Ecclesiology

Repairing the house of God

II Kings 22-23; II Chronicles 34


Josiah was the 15th king of the divided kingdom of Judah, one of the few good ones. He came to the throne when he was only 8 years old, about 316 years after the division of the kingdom of Israel into two nations. The division occurred after Rehoboam’s ascent to the unified throne. Josiah reigned 31 years. It is perhaps hard to imagine how wicked the people of God had become in these intervening years. At a young age Josiah began to seek the Lord, and in the 18th year of his reign (when he was 26 years old) he set about to repair the house of God.


By the time of Josiah the glorious temple of Solomon had been standing some 360 years. It had fallen into disrepair. Just how much I don’t know. But the repair required hiring carpenters, builders, and masons, and buying timber and stones. This implies a good deal of work that needed to be done. When the sincere young king undertook the project he could not imagine the events that were to be set off.


The book of the law of the Lord was lost in the house of the Lord. How sad to think, that right there in the very house of God the law of God was lost, misplaced, unread, unknown. Oh, how much like our day, when even churches are unfamiliar with the word of God.


The book of the law of the Lord was read after it was found. First the scribe read it himself. Then he read it to the king, and later the king read it to the people. The effect on the king was his tearing of his clothes in anguish and despair, realizing how far they had departed from the words of this book. Next he inquired of the Lord. Then he called the people together and read the book. There they made a covenant before the Lord.


The reform and its effects were great. Having made a covenant to keep the words of the book of the law, Josiah set about to reform the house of the Lord and the nation of Judah according to its words. Vessels of all sorts of false worship – from Baal to the grove to the hosts of heaven – were removed from the house of God. The houses of the Sodomites (apparently male homosexual prostitutes, since associated with worship) were torn down, and the ax was set at the root of false worship in every way possible. Afterward a Passover was held that was so amazing that there was not “such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah.”


When the book of the Lord is forgotten, the house of the Lord falls into disrepair, the feasts of the Lord are not kept up, and false worship invades. The house of the Lord can only be repaired by taking heed to the word of God. Our congregations, not the temple, are the houses of the Lord today. May God help us.

Readings on preaching

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

3 Guiding Principles for Preaching the Gospel in the Old Testament
Extemporaneous Preaching
Good Preachers Don’t Flatter
Is the sermon dead?
Never Neglect to Preach Christ Crucified
Preaching the Whole Gospel?
Preaching without notes
Scriptural preaching, without notes

Crooked 2 by 4's

Yesterday I commented on The Problem of Protestant Ecclesiology -- generally and specifically the post of that name by Daniel Wallace. In this piece and another, Wallace writes, “The ideal church can’t exist.” If I understand him correctly, I agree. While there is an ideal church concept in the Bible, a real church with real people will never be ideal. Actual congregations are hotbeds of redeemed sinners on whom God is still working.

Thinking on this today, I was struck with the similarity of looking for an ideal church in a world of churches and looking for a straight board in a bundle of 2X4's. I guess I'm a stickler for "straight" whether it's churches or lumber. Every once in awhile I conceive of a project -- which always requires straight 2X4's. So I head out to the lumber yard to find the same. After having put an eagle eye down the edges of half the bundle,* my standards begin to change. Having looked at a hundred or so bowed, warped, and twisted boards, I sadly realize -- another bundle of 2X4's without a perfectly straight one amongst them. The ideal 2X4 doesn't exist! So the new goal becomes not a perfectly straight 2X4, but one that is only slightly bowed from one end to the other -- nothing twisted or warped badly, and certainly nothing that would excel as a rocking chair bottom. If I don't find the ideal, I'll settle for what is the best among the less than perfect. 

"Settling" might not be a good term regarding finding a church home. But as Wallace says, the ideal church doesn't exist. If our standards are too straight we'll not find a congregational home. And we should find one. We need it. The assembly of God's people that you visit may have a few splinters, knots, and cracks. It might be a little too hot or too cold at times. It may not be perfectly plumb and square. Avoid all those that are twisted and warped, but exhibit wisdom, mercy and grace in your search, hoping to find the best among the less than perfect. (And as they say, if you DO find the perfect church -- don't join it, you'll mess it up.)

*If you pick through lumber, please re-stack it.

The Problem of Protestant Ecclesiology

I have read with interest and instruction some of the online writings of Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary (even though I’m not a big fan of DTS). From elders to alcohol to head coverings, his writings have been first rate and challenging. So I was excited to see his entry into the blog world. One of his first posts is The Problem of Protestant Ecclesiology. For my Baptist readers, your first thought may be “Yes!” Certainly we have problems with Protestant ecclesiology. But be not deceived, as best I can tell, he lumps everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox into this Protestant category – and Protestant problem.

The greatest immediate difficulty I have with the piece is the question “What is Protestant ecclesiology?” Most probably know that ecclesiology is the theological study concerning to the nature, structure and functions of a church. But there is not one monolithic Protestant ecclesiology. It varies from church to church and denomination to denomination. Wallace, who says, “I am unashamedly a Protestant” appears to greatly prefer Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiology. The blog post is challenging and offers a critique of “Protestant ecclesiology” that should be carefully considered. What can we glean from it to sharpen our thinking on ecclesiology? What are the bones we need to spit out? I find much on which to agree with Wallace. But I also find several lines of disagreement. In my response, I contrast Baptist ecclesiology with both Catholic/Orthodox ecclesiology and Protestant ecclesiology, though some Protestants have a congregational polity similar to that of many Baptists.

Lack of unity. “we can be more sensitive to...fellowship beyond our local church” “It doesn’t matter what Orthodox church or monastery I visit, I get the same...” Too often we glory in our lack of unity, taking pride in our stand for the truth. We should stand for the truth – and unity as well. No, we should not pretend. Our unity must be in spirit and in truth. Yes, “unity in falsehood is no unity at all.” But let us examine ourselves deeply and sincerely, to know whether our divisions that exist are solidly grounded in the truth as it is in God’s word rather than our opinions, preferences, misconceptions, petty jealousies, and self-interest. Congregational ecclesiology, autonomous governance, and independence should be followed, but void of the “me and my church” mentality so current in our age. Let love, fellowship and interdependence between the churches be seen. Before e-mail, Facebook, instant messages and smart phones, catch the vision of the band of brothers & sisters in Christ scattered across the Roman Empire who knew about one another, cared about one another, and who traveled & communicated in their limited ways in such a way that all men knew they were HIS disciples. Shame on us to withdraw into the coziness and familiarity of our local assemblies and never peer out to see our brothers and sisters.

Lack of history. “Church history for all too many evangelicals does not start until Luther pounded that impressive parchment on the Schlosskirche door.” Of necessity, the children of the Protestant Reformation have embraced a universal church idea for their identity and found their history in the post-Reformation. The greater body of Baptists has joined the Protestants in this, abandoning any thoughts of ancestors before the Reformation. “we dare not neglect the last twenty centuries unless we think that the Spirit has been sleeping all that time” I agree with Wallace and the Catholics that the Holy Spirit was not asleep from the first century till the Protestant Reformation, though I deny that either the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church are the church of the New Testament. They arrive too late and hardly resemble the kind of churches portrayed in the New Testament. If the Spirit was not asleep and Catholicism is not New Testament Christianity, to whom shall we look for ancestry, identity, history and tradition? Those bold dissenters who stood their ground and walked not in their ways. But weren’t there heretics and deceivers among them? Yes, but no less among Catholicism. Both must be judged in what we know of them by the Word of God. Many early “heretics” are judged by the words of their detractors rather than their own. And all “church fathers” claimed by Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not necessarily belong to them. Some of these “fathers” lived before Catholicism and Orthodoxy existed as distinct denominations.

Lack of accountability. “we can be more sensitive to the need for doctrinal and ethical accountability” Doctrinal and ethical accountability is sorely lacking, but why must we look for it in Roman Catholic (or Greek Orthodox) hierarchy? Can we not mend our ways, right our wrongs, and return to the doctrinal and ethical accountability of biblical times, which knows no ecclesiological structure in the nature and form of Catholicism. The Bible aside, why should we look to hierarchal structures, or claim their superiority in providing doctrinal and ethical accountability? What is more doctrinally diverse, biblically unsound, and unethical than Roman Catholicism? No doubt there is a somewhat consistent sound sent forth from Rome. However, has it not changed from century to century? From place to place? Mine the depths of the hearts of its people. Will we not find that the doctrines of individual members diverge by race, geography, social status, and other factors? American Catholic politicians are at once an example of both diversity of belief and lack of accountability. And need we mention recent priest sex scandals to completely blast the mirage of ethical accountability? Further, shall we not find some of the most biblically liberal denominations among the Protestants who govern through hierarchal means? If a local church goes astray, their influence will end not far beyond the church doors. When the top of an hierarchal denominational dam breaks, it carries most of its contents down the stream with it.

Lack of ecclesiology and lack of humility. “evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology.” Here I don’t agree word for word, but the sad fact is that for too many, ecclesiology has been relegated to the theological corner, a minor matter that should be stored away lest it be found disagreeable. The replies to Wallace’s post suggest a number of Protestants, Baptists, and/or non-denominationals may be looking for “something more” and ready to gravitate toward the comfort of Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Regular perusal of Baptist discussions on the internet has awakened me to just how disconnected we Baptists have become from our moorings. Once Baptists and their ecclesiology seemed almost inseparable. No more. Coupled with this lack of knowledge is the lack of humility concerning it. “be more sensitive about the deficiencies in our own ecclesiology” We need a real sense of humility. Let us not be proud purveyors of knowledge God has revealed. While knowing there are deficiencies in the ecclesiological systems of others, let us be mindful of the inelegant deficiencies in our own. Do we understand what our ecclesiology is? Do you put it into practice? Alan Knox has well said, “A person’s professed ecclesiology is often different from that person’s actual ecclesiology. The best way to determine what someone actually believes about the church is to observe how they live as part of the church.”

What I disagree with most are the elevation of liturgy, the lust for hierarchy, and recognition of Catholicism & Orthodoxy as The Church, coupled with looking to their traditions for history, identity, faith, and practice. Some of these have already been addressed, so I will not cover the same ground again. “embrace some of the liturgy that has been used for centuries” Where is the “liturgy” of the Bible that looks like the liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church? That case must be made before Bible-believers blindly follow and embrace it. To “get the same message, the same liturgy, the same sense of the ‘holy other’” may sound wonderful. Oh, that our churches did not have the confusion Wallace describes! Truly you don’t know what you’ll get when you show up at a church with “Baptist” on the door – clear and fundamental truth from the word of God or a freak show from the imaginations of men? We need to meditate on and apply Paul’s injunction – the same in all the churches. But getting the “same liturgy” and “same message” from church to church is not a virtue unless it is the same as the Bible’s liturgy and message!

Nearing his conclusion, Wallace writes, “The ideal church can’t exist.” Any assembly of sinful creatures will not be ideal. But far too many churches have no goal, no sights set to reach for an ideal church – even if they even think there is such a thing! The “ideal church” is the church relationships, nature, functions, faith, and practice of the churches of the New Testament. Sure, the New Testament churches were not literally pristine, because they were composed of redeemed sinful creatures too. But in the midst of it all there is an ideal picture of truth presented in God’s revelation. Our daily goal should be to be more and more like the churches of the New Testament. (Then we might be more “the same”.)

Wallace’s solutions fall into three categories: (1) be more sensitive about the deficiencies in our own ecclesiology; recognize that the two other branches of Christendom have done a better job in this area; (2) be more sensitive to the need for doctrinal and ethical accountability, fellowship beyond our local church, and ministry with others whose essentials but not necessarily particulars don’t line up with ours. (3) begin to listen again to the voice of the Spirit speaking through church fathers and embrace some of the liturgy that has been used for centuries.

My suggestions are: (1) be more sensitive to the deficiencies in our ecclesiology, and look to the word of God and the Spirit of God for illumination. Read what others have written. Charles Spurgeon once said, “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.” All truth is God’s truth, so learn it where you find it. But don’t model your ecclesiology after “other branches of Christendom” whose ecclesiology is not modeled after New Testament ecclesiology. Search the scriptures whether these things are so. (2) be more sensitive to the need for doctrinal and ethical accountability, fellowship beyond our local church, and ministry with others. Look for New Testament models of doctrinal and ethical accountability. Add to your doctrine of church autonomy the New Testament examples of relational interdependence and fellowship between churches. Discard the “us four and no more” mentality to embrace God’s larger work that He is doing. Study and discern at what point and why the New Testament Christians divided. Ecclesiologically, embrace no more than God embraces, and reject none He receives. (3) begin to listen again to the voice of the Spirit speaking through church fathers. But find out who are “the church fathers.” And subject all they say to the mirror of God’s word. Paul and the Bereans would expect no less.

No, we should not neglect the last twenty centuries, or despise all that went before us – lest we imply that the Spirit was sleeping all that time. But, “it must all be subject to biblical authority.” I am compelled to reject some of Dan Wallace’s thesis because I do not see the biblical authority behind it.

More on the mechanics of inspiration

Does it matter what view you hold concerning the mechanics of inspiration, as long as you hold verbal inspiration of the whole Bible? Perhaps not.

I have noticed one thing in several online discussions of the theories of inspiration that I find disturbing. Several articles that list false theories of inspiration include the dictation theory in these false theories right alongside the views that deny inspiration, such as the natural inspiration, illumination, and partial inspiration theories. UNLIKE these other theories, the “dictation theory” holds a high view the doctrine of verbal inspiration. That it differs from the “superintendence theory” does not make it a “false theory.” In fact, there may be more evidence of “dictation” than “superintendence.”

With a high view of inspiration and biblical authority, one must admit that at least portions of the Bible are dictated – because the Bible says so. Read and compare these verses of Scripture: Exod. 24:4; 34:27; Deut. 4:2; Isa. 59:21; Jer. 30:1-2; 36:1-8; Hab. 2:2; Gal. 1:12; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14. What verses state superintendence? Scriptures such as II Timothy 3:16-17 and II Peter 1:20-21 are agreeable with either view.

The chief objection to the dictation theory seems to be the accusation that it cannot explain the different styles and vocabularies used by the different human authors of the Bible. Proponents have explained, just not to the satisfaction of those who disagree. Yet, ultimately, the “superintendence view” can no more fully explain how the Bible is 100% the word of God without error, still fully the words that the writers chose themselves in their given situations. Either view holds some mystery not fully understood by human minds. Regardless of “mechanics” the influence of the Spirit of God over the writers of Scripture extended beyond their thoughts, or simple illumination or natural inspiration. His influence extended to the selection of the very words the authors chose (Deut. 18:18; Zech. 7:12), the tense (Matt. 22:32), the number (Gal. 3:16), and even the smallest marks (Matt. 5:17-18).

Whether or not you agree with the “dictation theory,” I urge you not to classify it with other theories of inspiration that actually deny inspiration. Dictation does not!

Inspired, how?

For those who believe the Bible is inspired (II Tim 3:16, et al.), an interesting question is, “How did God inspire the Bible?” That is, what means did He use to accomplish his purpose. Some ideas:

1. Superintendence theory. In Identifying Missionary Baptist Distinctives, “The Bible: Inspired by God and Without Error”, Robert Ashcraft wrote:

Missionary Baptists generally accept the “superintendence” view of the inspiration of the Scriptures. This view is in accord with II Peter 1:21 which states “...but having been borne along by (the) Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.” Therefore, each writer used words and expressions reflecting his own personality, background and style, yet the Holy Ghost so directed that the writer would be prevented from error. The “superintendence” view has traditionally been contrasted with the “dictation” view which suggests that the actual words were pre­scribed (dictated) by the Holy Spirit.

2. Dictation theory. John Calvin wrote:

“This is the principle that distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God has spoken to us and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak of themselves but as organs of the Holy Spirit uttered only that which they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. All those who wish to profit from the Scriptures must first accept this as a settled principle, that the law and the prophets are not teachings handed on at pleasure of men or produced by men’s minds as their source, but are dictated by the Holy Spirit...we owe to the Scripture the same reverence as we owe to God, since it has its only source in Him and has nothing of human origin mixed with it” (New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 10, p. 330).

3. Mantic theory. Philo of Alexandria believed “the human author becomes possessed by God and loses consciousness of self, surrendering to the divine spirit and its communicatory powers.” (The Oxford Companion to the Bible)

4.  Negative assistance theory. Jacques Bonfriere (and others) have posited that the authors expressed their thoughts in their own style and words, and that the Holy Spirit only intervened as needed in order to prevent them from making any mistakes.

There are other views, including many which effectively deny inspiration. Which view do you accept? Why? Does it matter?

Truth

For Christians, "every truth presupposes that God is, that he is the Creator of all that is, and that he sustains it." -- K. Scott Oliphint in Answering Objections to Presuppositionalism

Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility

In his sermon, "Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility," Charles Spurgeon wrote the following.

Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

Old Prospect Baptist Church has a new web presence. Please bear with us, because none of us are web builders!