Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Welsh pastor in London in the first half of the Twentieth Century. His books (which are basically just his sermons) have helped me to read the Bible better. I would recommend anything with his name on it.
In his sermons on Philippians he notes the following:
"Thank God, my hope of that day of Jesus Christ and his glory does not rest upon my own will power or upon my own desire or understanding. It rests upon this fact that he would never have started the work if he had not decided to finish it...What Paul means (in Rom. 5:10) is this: if Christ died for you when you were an enemy and a rebel and hated him, if he died for you in that condition, how much more, then, will God keep and sustain and hold you, and finish the work by the love of Christ--it is unanswerable logic. The character of God guarantees the completion of the work."
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
MODE OF BAPTISM?
For Baptist churches the mode of baptism has been viewed as a very important part of the ordinance. By-in-large we believe that Scripture is clear enough that immersion--that is, submerging the candidate under the water-- (as opposed to effusion or sprinkling) is the proper way to be baptized. As a result, Baptist elders have encountered a handful of tricky theological and ecclesiological questions. For instance, when do you consider someone's previous 'baptism' as invalid and thus require a "rebaptism"?
EASY SITUATIONS:
1. He/she was baptized before conversion.
2. He/she believed the baptism was saving.
3. He/she was baptized by a non-Christian “church”.
In all of these situations I would say that his/her "baptism" (if the quotation marks haven't given it away) wasn't a genuine baptism at all. He/she should be baptized.
A DIFFICULT SITUATION
He/she was baptized as a believer by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Here's a hypothetical situation. We have a girl named Libby Brighton who wants to join our Baptist church. She was baptized upon conversion in a PCA church by sprinkling. She had a proper understanding of the ordinance as a symbol representing a spiritual reality. Everything about her baptism fits the biblical description except for the mode. Should she be ‘rebaptized’?
MY REASONS TO SEE LIBBY'S PREVIOUS BAPTISM AS VALID
1. We wouldn’t say the Lord’s Supper is invalid simply because the mode isn't precise: grape juice instead of wine.
2. There is no EXPLICIT command in Scripture to be immersed--the Lord could have used more explicit language. We take our practice from what we consider to be very strong implicit evidence, from the physical accounts in the Gospels and Acts and the symbolism of baptism as going down into the grave and being raised with Christ. But even so, immersion isn’t explicitly commanded in Scripture.
3. She was baptized under the care and authority of her Gospel-believing elders. As a young believer she was submitting to her leaders, which in any case, we would say is the proper default (Heb. 13:17). I believe for this reason alone, this baptism was a true and genuine baptism with which the Lord was pleased.
4. There were baptisms in the first century when candidates were sprinkled because of a lack of water and these were seen as valid. Historically, immediacy has been given priority over precision of mode.
5. Out of all the details for a Christian baptism given in Scripture, mode seems to be the most inconsequential:
a. Baptized by a Gospel-preaching church under the authority of elders.
b. Had proper understanding of the ordinance as not saving, but symbolic of a spiritual reality
c. Was a believer when baptized
d. Baptized by immersion
6. A 're-baptism', even with an explanation could cause unhelpful doubt among the other members of a congregation.
7. Scripture seems to deal less severely with those lacking in knowledge: Luke 12:47-48, Matt. 11:20-22, James 3:1.
In my opinion Libby's situation is not preferable, but not enough to overturn a one-time ordinance. One caveat however: It is important to remember that conscience is key and while a good conscience doesn’t necessarily mean one shouldn’t be baptized again, a consistently guilty conscience over time would necessitate this.
EASY SITUATIONS:
1. He/she was baptized before conversion.
2. He/she believed the baptism was saving.
3. He/she was baptized by a non-Christian “church”.
In all of these situations I would say that his/her "baptism" (if the quotation marks haven't given it away) wasn't a genuine baptism at all. He/she should be baptized.
A DIFFICULT SITUATION
He/she was baptized as a believer by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Here's a hypothetical situation. We have a girl named Libby Brighton who wants to join our Baptist church. She was baptized upon conversion in a PCA church by sprinkling. She had a proper understanding of the ordinance as a symbol representing a spiritual reality. Everything about her baptism fits the biblical description except for the mode. Should she be ‘rebaptized’?
MY REASONS TO SEE LIBBY'S PREVIOUS BAPTISM AS VALID
1. We wouldn’t say the Lord’s Supper is invalid simply because the mode isn't precise: grape juice instead of wine.
2. There is no EXPLICIT command in Scripture to be immersed--the Lord could have used more explicit language. We take our practice from what we consider to be very strong implicit evidence, from the physical accounts in the Gospels and Acts and the symbolism of baptism as going down into the grave and being raised with Christ. But even so, immersion isn’t explicitly commanded in Scripture.
3. She was baptized under the care and authority of her Gospel-believing elders. As a young believer she was submitting to her leaders, which in any case, we would say is the proper default (Heb. 13:17). I believe for this reason alone, this baptism was a true and genuine baptism with which the Lord was pleased.
4. There were baptisms in the first century when candidates were sprinkled because of a lack of water and these were seen as valid. Historically, immediacy has been given priority over precision of mode.
5. Out of all the details for a Christian baptism given in Scripture, mode seems to be the most inconsequential:
a. Baptized by a Gospel-preaching church under the authority of elders.
b. Had proper understanding of the ordinance as not saving, but symbolic of a spiritual reality
c. Was a believer when baptized
d. Baptized by immersion
6. A 're-baptism', even with an explanation could cause unhelpful doubt among the other members of a congregation.
7. Scripture seems to deal less severely with those lacking in knowledge: Luke 12:47-48, Matt. 11:20-22, James 3:1.
In my opinion Libby's situation is not preferable, but not enough to overturn a one-time ordinance. One caveat however: It is important to remember that conscience is key and while a good conscience doesn’t necessarily mean one shouldn’t be baptized again, a consistently guilty conscience over time would necessitate this.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
CORRECTIVE CHURCH DISCIPLINE
I come to two different passages of Scripture teaching in detail on the process of church discipline: Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. On a simplistic reading, the two don't seem to fit neatly together. Jesus in Matthew 18 outlines very clearly that a brother/sister shouldn't be excommunicated until three levels of intervention have occurred: A single individual approaches the brother, a group of 2 or 3, and finally, the entire local congregation. Only at that point should the sinner "be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 however seems (on a simplistic reading) to bypass both initial steps and moves directly to step 3: instant excommunication. Some would argue that Paul's 'bypass' is because this particular sin (a man sleeping with his father's wife) is in a different class than some other sins--namely because it was a 'public' and 'heinous/gross sin'. I don't think the text warrants this distinction. My reasons:
1. Matthew 18 is clear and didactic, whereas 1 Corinthians 5 is situational and relies in part on information that we aren't privy to (5:9's "I wrote to you...")--namely, a previous letter to this church. In any case, Paul's direction in this specific case when we aren't given all the details isn't reason enough to bypass the clear teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18.
2. Corrective discipline is a potentially disastrous tool. 2 Corinthians 2 says about a man who was under such discipline: "For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him." Corrective discipline is designed by the Lord to shame and sorrow the sinner. Therefore, this is one topic where local churches should be particularly careful in their proceedings.
3. Every other example of the process of discipline or potential discipline in the New Testament stresses these initial steps.
4) Finally, it's instructive to see where Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, places Jesus' teaching on church discipline--between the parable of the lost sheep and the unforgiving servant.
18:10-14 is the parable of the lost sheep--the point being that the shepherd will leave the ninety-nine, symbolizing his willingness to do anything to gain this sheep back. 18:21-35 is Jesus' parable of the unforgiving servant--the point being that a Christian should forgive their brother 'seventy times seven times' and "forgive your brother from your heart."
These parables corroborate the teaching in the rest of the New Testament that a believer is never to delay in any way forgiveness to a brother or sister as long as he/she is repentant.
1. Matthew 18 is clear and didactic, whereas 1 Corinthians 5 is situational and relies in part on information that we aren't privy to (5:9's "I wrote to you...")--namely, a previous letter to this church. In any case, Paul's direction in this specific case when we aren't given all the details isn't reason enough to bypass the clear teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18.
2. Corrective discipline is a potentially disastrous tool. 2 Corinthians 2 says about a man who was under such discipline: "For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him." Corrective discipline is designed by the Lord to shame and sorrow the sinner. Therefore, this is one topic where local churches should be particularly careful in their proceedings.
3. Every other example of the process of discipline or potential discipline in the New Testament stresses these initial steps.
a) Revelation 2:20-21: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality."
The text is particularly helpful because this sin is the same kind as that of the man in 1 Corinthians 5--gross public and heinous sexual sin. However, John in this text makes it clear that he had given her "time to repent" and presumably would have discontinued the process of corrective discipline if she had. Important verse for this discussion!
b) 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15: "If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn his as a brother." (Next post will be on what it means to "have nothing to do" with "your brother"... Kind of confusing)
This instruction follows the commands of Paul in his first letter to the Thessalonians in which he says, "And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all" (1 Thess. 5:14) He also notes his public teaching from his last visit to them: "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). What we see in the case of these rebellious Thessalonians is that they had at least two previous rebukes/appeals by Paul and the Thessalonian Christians. There is more reason to believe that in this way the steps of Matthew 18 had been taken than not.
c) 1 Timothy 5:19-20: "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear."
Once again, there is no exception given which would lead to instant discipline. It is only when the offender "persists in sin" that discipline (in this case the public rebuke of an elder) takes place.
d) Titus 3:9-11: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."
Same as above.
4) Finally, it's instructive to see where Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, places Jesus' teaching on church discipline--between the parable of the lost sheep and the unforgiving servant.
18:10-14 is the parable of the lost sheep--the point being that the shepherd will leave the ninety-nine, symbolizing his willingness to do anything to gain this sheep back. 18:21-35 is Jesus' parable of the unforgiving servant--the point being that a Christian should forgive their brother 'seventy times seven times' and "forgive your brother from your heart."
These parables corroborate the teaching in the rest of the New Testament that a believer is never to delay in any way forgiveness to a brother or sister as long as he/she is repentant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
