Call To Die
Then [Jesus] said to them all, "If anyone wants to come with Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of Me will save it. (Luke 9:23-24, HCSB)
- Name: Andrew Lindsey
Follower of Christ, husband of Abby, member of Kosmosdale Baptist Church, and tutor/staff member at Sayers Classical Academy.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
God's Will for Your Life
Labels: Bible study
Monday, May 16, 2016
Progressive Covenantalism: A Reformed Baptist Reflection
1. Abraham as the father of Jews and Gentiles. I appreciated Jason DeRouchie's discussion of Abraham's "seed" in Chapter 1. I believe that much of what he wrote is exactly what Reformed Baptists have been saying on this subject. I think it would be profitable to compare his discussion on this Abraham's "seed" with Reformed Baptist works on the same topic (for example, in Jeff Johnson's The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism). I believe that, starting from a point of basic agreement, discussions about Abraham's "seed" between Reformed Baptists and Progressive Covenantalists could lead both groups toward an even more precise articulation of the biblical teaching on this topic.
2. Typology. The most helpful feature of this book was its discussion and application of biblical typology. Brent Parker's chapter on the Israel-Christ-Church relationship was especially insightful. I do think that Reformed Baptists could benefit from Parker's work in this regard. Some language I've heard from fellow Reformed Baptists tends to follow our paedobaptist brethren in too readily equating Israel with the Church; we have not always consistently considered the typological development of Israel as fulfilled in Christ. The Church partakes in the promises made to Israel only as we are united to Christ, who is the true Israelite. (I doubt that any of my fellow Reformed Baptists would disagree with this statement, but Parker points out the typological relationships in a particularly clear manner.)
3. Warning Passages. I believe that Ardel Caneday's chapter on the "warning passages" in Hebrews is well-thought-out and biblical. Caneday's position is that the warning passages are effective means by which God prompts His people to perseverance. This is the only chapter that gives any positive attention to Historical Theology. Caneday mentions several Reformed pastors/teachers (I believe John Owen and Charles Spurgeon are mentioned) who have held his view.
4. Land Promises. The final chapter of the book, focused on the Old Testament land promises, is another specific example of applied biblical typology. Consideration of how God fulfills the land promises is crucial to a right understanding of a major scriptural theme. This chapter, written by Oren Martin, is useful in answering a key claim of Dispensationalists. Understanding how Scripture presents the fulfillment of land promises helps us in our worship, as we see how God is faithful to His Word and how He will magnify His glory throughout creation.
1. False Advertising. In both on the cover of the book and several times within the book, the authors/editors claim that they are "charting a course between dispensational and covenant theologies". There is even a diagram in the book depicting Progressive Covenantalism in the center of a line, with Dispensationalism on one side and Covenant Theology on the other. It is obvious that the authors/editors want an audience both from those who identify as Dispensationalists and those who identify as Covenantal.
HOWEVER, I'm certain that, both through a careful examination of what the authors write (in this book and its precursor Kingdom Through Covenant) as well as personal conversations I've had with a couple of the authors, the contributors to the book owe much more to Covenant Theology than to Dispensationalism. Along with Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism believes that there is one way of salvation in Scripture and that Scripture is structured by covenants. Dr. Wellum believes that it is proper to speak of the Covenant of Redemption and a covenant with Adam.
When it comes to Dispensationalism, Progressive Covenantalism is at odds with the foundational Dispensational claim that Israel and the Church are everlastingly distinct groups. In its typological reflections, Progressive Covenantalism runs counter to the Dispensationalists' overly literalistic hermeneutic. The single point of overlap between Progressive Covenantalism and Dispensationalism is that both hold to more discontinuity between the old and new covenants than what is recognized in [paedobaptist] Covenant Theology. It is deceptive, therefore, to suggest that Progressive Covenantalism is equally close to Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. In my view, Progressive Covenantalism is both an attempt to modify [paedobaptist] Covenant Theology and an outright rejection of Dispensationalism.
2. Lack of Historical Theology. Progressive Covenantalists view themselves as articulating a framework of how the covenants fit together that is more consistent with Baptist faith and practice than either Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology. (This is one reason that Progressive Covenantalism was published by Broadman and Holman Academic, an imprint of LifeWay, which is directly affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.) In this regard, it would seem that those holding to Progressive Covenantalism would want to make a diligent study into how previous generations of Particular/Reformed Baptists have understood the relationship of God's covenants. Sadly, this book lacks any interaction with Historical Theology within Baptist life AT ALL. With the exception of the chapter on the warning passages of Hebrews, the authors of Progressive Covenantalism seem startlingly unaware that previous generations of Baptists have wrestled through the same questions and have come to some of the same conclusions. Progressive Covenantalists could benefit from the insights of their Baptist forbears and possibly avoid some errors. At worst, this neglect of Historical Theology among Progressive Covenantalists may be seen as violating the spirit of the fifth commandment.
3. The Law. Speaking of the ten commandments, the great systematic theological weakness of Progressive Covenantalism is in its view of the Law. There is an almost flippant rejection of the three-fold distinction of the Law. Important works on this subject (for example: From the Finger of God by Philip Ross and In Defense of the Decalogue by Richard Barcellos) are entirely unmentioned. Also unmentioned: the foundational distinction between moral law (law that is everlasting, flowing from the character of God) and positive law (law that God institutes at specific times for specific purposes). The authors of Progressive Covenantalism would have us believe that the original audience to the Books of Moses couldn't have possibly recognized the prohibition against murder, the institution of the Levitical priesthood, and the injunction to build a parapet around the roof of one's house as three distinct categories of laws. Furthermore, the authors of Progressive Covenantalism give inadequate systematic reflection to why the New Testament authors apply different laws in radically different ways (compare: Gal 5:3, 1 Cor 9:9-10, and Eph 6:1-3).
I think that Progressive Covenantalism is a valuable book and that Progressive Covenantalists are valuable conversation partners with whom Reformed Baptists should engage. I hope that those holding to Progressive Covenantalism will begin to learn from their Particular/Reformed Baptist forbears, that they will not continue to ignore the writings of contemporary Reformed Baptists, and that they will reconsider their view of the Law. I pray that Reformed Baptists and Progressive Covenantalists can attain greater unity in the truth.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Three Resources Reflecting on Close Communion
I was raised in the close communion tradition, and I believe that this tradition is best reflective of biblical teaching. As an adult, my convictions in this regard have been reinforced by the training that I received at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Here are two resources in this regard:
The Baptism Panel Discussion from April 18, 2007.
"Should the Water Divide Us? Baptism, Church Membership, and the Glory of Christ" from April 25, 2007.
As a third resource, with sustained scriptural argument, I would also commend J.L. Dagg's Manual of Church Order on this subject. (View HERE: Section IV, "Open Communion".)
Labels: Bible study
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
The Lord's Supper and the Lord's Day in Redemptive-Historical Context
Monday, May 02, 2016
Are prayers directed to Jesus biblically appropriate?
On my team-blog, Strange BaptistFire, a commenter calling himself "Christian Brother" posted the following question:
In prayer, should we pray only to God the Father? Or are we permitted to pray to Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit, as well?
I am inclined, thus far, to agree with the former because nowhere in Scripture is there a commandment to pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but there is plenty of commandments to pray to the Father. And, as much as my knowledge admits, there is not a single example of any Christian in the New Testament making a prayer to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Yes, we are to give thanks in the Spirit or in Jesus, but we are always commanded to direct that thanks to the Father.
But I am very concerned about this because the heart of the question is this: What is an acceptable prayer? We would all hate to pray in a certain way, only to later find that we have been offering unacceptable prayers.
But on the other hand, if I have concluded that we should only pray to the Father, and the Bible permits us to pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, then I have been deprived of a fuller relationship with the Trinity.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
My response follows:
I believe that as followers of Christ we are regularly to direct our prayers to the Father (Matthew 6:9) in the name of Jesus (John 14:13-14) by the power of the Spirit (Romans 8:26-27; Ephesians 6:18). This normal model of how prayer is to be conducted is especially important in the local congregation, as in praying this way we teach one another about God through exploring the roles taken by the distinct Persons of the Trinity.
I do believe that Christians have the freedom to pray to Jesus, however, as I will explain below:
Though there are no commands to pray to Jesus Christ in the New Testament, there are, I believe, some clear examples of prayer to Jesus; many of these are indicated by David Peterson in his book Engaging With God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (148-149):
Prayer to Jesus as Lord was offered by Stephen (Acts 7:59-60), in a way that is striking when compared and contrasted with the prayers of Jesus to the Father (Lk. 23:34, 46). Ananias also prayed to Jesus as Lord (9:10-17, where v. 17 shows that the ‘Lord’ addressed was Jesus) and designated the followers of Jesus as those who call on his name (9:14; cf. 22:16). Again, it is most likely that Jesus is the Lord addressed in prayer by the disciples in 1:24. Paul is represented as calling upon him as Lord on the Damascus road (9:5; 22:10; 26:15-18) and in a subsequent vision in the temple (22:17-21). In this connection it is interesting to note that Paul habitually associated the name of the Lord Jesus Christ with that of God the Father in his prayers (e.g. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 1 Thes. 3:11-13; and 2 Thes. 2:16-17, addressed first to ‘our Lord Jesus Christ himself’). Christians could also be defined by Paul as those who ‘call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 1:2, cf. Rom. 10:9-13), adapting an Old Testament expression to indicate that Jesus Christ was the one in whom they put their trust for salvation and to whom they prayed (e.g. Gn. 12:8; Pss. 50:15; 105:1; Je. 10:25; Joel 2:32).
It is also important to note that the second-to-last verse of the Bible contains a brief prayer to Jesus: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20b). The church in the immediate sub-apostolic era apparently continued the practice of praying to Jesus, as their activities were described by Pliny the Younger (who was himself a pagan) as follows: “...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god…” [Pliny, Epistle 97].
So, in conclusion, I do think that Christians today are biblically justified in heartfelt prayers to our Lord Jesus, although the more normal pattern is to pray to the Father in Jesus’ name.
As far as I know, there is indeed no command or example of prayer to the Holy Spirit, and I believe His role is to convey and sanctify our prayers rather than to receive prayer as directed to Him.
Labels: Christian worldview
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
The Lord's Prayer in Latin, Marked for Translation
Looking online for helps regarding the Latin text of the Lord's prayer, I could not find any page that had the prayer fully marked for translation. Therefore, I've created my own marked text, seen below. I've marked it in the way that is most useful to me. I certainly welcome any questions/corrections.
3s PPS AccNS ^
sanctificetur nomen tuum.
3s PPS NFS ^
Fiat voluntas tua,
1p PAI DMP ^
dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
2s PAS (in+AccFS)
inducas in tentationem,
Labels: Bible translation
Monday, April 25, 2016
Impassibility and the Single Divine Decree
- God has affectional postures;
- God is on the roller coaster of time and can change.
Labels: Reformation Theology
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
"That Man of Sin"
Labels: Reformation Theology
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Suffrage Within the Church in Electing Elders
3 points about the above video:
1. Yes, it may have been made with sexist intention, and sexism is wrong.
2. It is, however, genuinely ironic and funny.
3. The real point is that most people have not been educated or prompted to consider their right to vote, and that definitions matter. (This is why I used to show this video when teaching Political Science; I think that someone could have just as easily gotten a bunch of guys to thoughtlessly sign a petition against men's suffrage.)
With that goofy introduction out of the way: this post is not about women's suffrage, or suffrage in general. This post is about suffrage within the church, specifically in regard to the election of elders. I believe that, just as people in society at large have not adequately thought through issues related to voting, we within the church have not adequately thought through the role that voting plays in our congregations.
Concerning suffrage within the church, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 declares: "Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes." In line with this statement, I was brought up under a tradition of regular church business meetings, wherein the congregation would vote on various issues facing the church. Though, at times, the business meetings were viewed as alternately either boring or contentious, no one questioned whether they should be occurring.
In college, I lived in a different town, and I became involved in an independent church, the pastor of which was very strong on the elder-rule model of church government. He basically believed that the congregation did not need to vote on anything. Whereas I remained convinced that the New Testament gives warrant for the congregation electing deacons, I followed my then-pastor's conviction that elders should be appointed by other elders, and that the elders should make virtually all of the decisions for the congregation as a whole; I did not see that the need for any church vote regarding the installation of elders. I believed that my conclusions on this matter were warranted from Titus 1:5, in which Paul instructed Titus (who was a pastor), "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you." This passage seemed to indicate the Titus himself, and not the various congregations, was in charge of installing elders for the congregations.
When I became a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, my thinking on elders unilaterally appointing other elders was challenged. Surprisingly, the decisive challenge (moving me back into a more historically Baptist direction) did not come from a Baptist, but from a Presbyterian. For a Missions class, I was required to read Robert Reymond's Paul, Missionary Theologian. In discussing aspects of church government seen in Paul's missionary activity, with specific reference to Acts 14:23, Reymond notes:
The idea seems to be that elders will initiate the choosing of other elders, but that the congregation will play an important role in confirming the calling of those elders. Practically speaking, this makes sense in at least two ways:
1. Men who may be considered for the role of elder might tend to put on more of a pious manner when around the already-appointed elders than when around others. Members of the congregation who are not elders may have insight into ways that a man's character does not line up with the qualifications of an elder.
2. In general, if the congregation does not respect a certain man (perhaps not through specific moral fault in the man, but rather through his not having labored among them for an adequate time), then-if that man is installed as an elder with no formal congregational input-it might be hard for the congregation to accept the new elder's pastoral authority.
John Calvin made a similar point as Reymond, in an even more expansive way, when he considered the question, 'Should a minister be chosen by the whole church, or only by colleagues and elders, or by the authority of a single pastor?' Calvin answered:
Those who attribute this right to one individual quote the words of Paul to Titus “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city” (Tit. 1:5); and also to Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man” (l Tim. 5:22). But they are mistaken if they suppose that Timothy so reigned at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, as to dispose of all things at their own pleasure. They only presided by previously giving good and salutary counsels to the people, not by doing alone whatever pleased them, while all others were excluded. Lest this should seem to be a fiction of mine, I will make it plain by a similar example. Luke relates that Barnabas and Paul ordained elders throughout the churches, but he at the same time marks the plan or mode when he says that it was done by suffrage. The words are, Χειροτονήσαντες πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ εκκλησίαν (Acts 14:23). They therefore selected (creabant) two; but the whole body, as was the custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. Thus it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates, for no other reason but because he received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election. Certainly it is not credible that Paul conceded more to Timothy and Titus than he assumed to himself. Now we see that his custom was to appoint bishops by the suffrages of the people. We must therefore interpret the above passages, so as not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church. Rightly, therefore, does Cyprian contend for it as of divine authority, that the priest be chosen in presence of the people, before the eyes of all, and be approved as worthy and fit by public judgment and testimony, (Cyprian, Lib. 1 Ep. 3). Indeed, we see that by the command of the Lord, the practice in electing the Levitical priests was to bring them forward in view of the people before consecration. Nor is Matthias enrolled among the number of the apostles, nor are the seven deacons elected in any other way, than at the sight and approval of the people (Acts 6:2). “Those examples,” says Cyprian, “show that the ordination of a priest behoved not to take place, unless under the consciousness of the people assisting, so that ordination was just and legitimate which was vouched by the testimony of all.” We see, then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the consent and approbation of the people. (Institutes 4.3.15)
After the above statement on suffrage within the church in electing elders, Calvin then gives the following important word: Other pastors, however, ought to preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult. (Ibid.)
With all of this in mind, I believe that when it comes to electing elders, the already-appointed elders should take a lead role in both bringing new candidates for eldership before the congregation and in presiding over the election of new elders. HOWEVER, candidates for eldership must be confirmed by the whole congregation. The biblical warrant for the congregation both electing officers and exercising church discipline (Matt 18:17) means that there is definitely a congregational aspect to church government.
I will say that I am still a bit uncomfortable with the Baptist Faith and Message declaration about "democratic processes," simply because the term "democratic" has such philosophical and historic baggage. HOWEVER, I fully concur with the statement in the Reformed Baptist Confession (1689):
The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands. ( Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; Acts 6:3, 5, 6 )
(26.9, emphasis added)
Labels: Reformation Theology