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)

My Photo
Name:
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States

follower of Christ, husband of Abby, father of Christian, Georgia Grace, and Rory Faith, deacon at Kosmosdale Baptist Church, tutor with Scholé Christian Tradition and Scholé Academy

Monday, May 16, 2016

Progressive Covenantalism: A Reformed Baptist Reflection

This Saturday, May 15, I finished reading Progressive Covenantalism, a new collection of essays edited by Stephen Wellum and Brent Parker. (Thanks to my brother in Christ, Daniel Scheiderer, who let me borrow his copy.) There was much that I appreciated about this work, though I also have a few concerns. What follows in not a formal review, but some initial thoughts as I evaluate the book from the position of 1689 Federalism.

Positives:

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.

Negatives:

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).

Conclusion:

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.

Labels:

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Three Resources Reflecting on Close Communion

Within Baptist life, there are three major positions on who should be invited to the Lord's Supper. Some congregations practice open communion, inviting anyone who is a believer to the table. (I've heard that some liberal churches invite all people to the table regardless of faith, but according to Dr. Greg Wills, all Baptist congregations have historically seen faith as a prerequisite to the table.) Some congregations practice close communion, inviting any baptized believer to the table. A few congregations (including the famous Metropolitan Tabernacle in London) practice closed [or strict] communion, only inviting their own members to the table.

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: Chapter V, Section IV, "Open Communion".)

Labels:

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

The Lord's Supper and the Lord's Day in Redemptive-Historical Context


In Revelation 1:10, the phrase “the Lord’s Day” is a hapax legomenon: a phrase only occurring only once in the Greek New Testament. The particular word for “Lord” used in Revelation 1:10 is not the general root of “Lord” that is the common way of referring to Jesus Christ in the New Testament;[1] the term for “Lord” here, while it's not the general word κύριος, is the derivative possessive κυριακ, and the word is not a hapax legomenon in the New Testament: it's the whole phrase that's a hapax. Therefore, as a phrase, “the Lord’s Day” must be examined as a hapax legomenon, but the root for the word κυριακ (i.e., kuriakos) is used in one other place in the New Testament: in reference to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20). Now this parallel usage of terminology regarding “the Lord's Supper” and “the Lord's Day” suggests that, like the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day is a Christian ordinance of some kind; as Christians partake in a particular Supper that belongs to the Lord in a special way, so Christians recognize a particular day that belongs to the Lord in a special way.[2] This line of reasoning leads John Murray to conclude:

The two pivotal events in this accomplishment [of redemption] are the death and resurrection of Christ and the two memorial ordinances of the New Testament institution are the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Day, the one memorializing Jesus’ death and the other his resurrection.[3]

In addition to the grammatical connection, there are significant thematic similarities between both the background and the intentions for the Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper. Both are rooted in creation realities. Both find their fulfillment in the New Creation to be manifested at Christ’s return.

Man was originally created to enjoy everlasting life in fellowship with God. In the Creation Covenant, God offered Man life on the condition of perfect obedience, as signified in the tree of life (Gen 2:9; 3:22-23). Upon breaking the Creation Covenant, Man earned death (Gen 2:16-17; 3:19). The sentence of death was delayed, however, as Man—who had become ashamed of nakedness (Gen 2:25; 3:7)—was clothed by God in the skins of an animal (Gen 3:21). Instead of Adam and Eve immediately dying, an animal died to cover their shame. Following the example of God sacrificing the animal, righteous Abel sacrificed the first-born from his flocks (Gen 4:4). Thereafter followed a host of occasional sacrifices during the time of the patriarchs. These sacrifices indicated that the way for sinners to enjoy fellowship with God was through the death of a substitute. Under the Mosaic Covenant, the sacrificial system was codified. The sacrificial system in the Old Testament was fulfilled in the perfect work of Christ (Heb 10:1-14). Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance of His perfect sacrifice (1 Cor 11:25). The Lord’s Supper will be celebrated by Christ’s followers until He comes again (1 Cor 11:26), at which time it will give way to the ultimate fellowship with Christ at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Luke 22:15-18; Rev 19:7-9).

Man was originally created to enjoy the fellowship of everlasting rest in God. At Creation, God gave Man the ordinances of marriage, work, and rest. The ordinance of rest was attached to a specific day—originally the seventh day—which God sanctified (Gen 2:3). At Creation, God made the Sabbath for Man (Mark 2:27). Under the Mosaic Covenant, the Sabbath was codified, and it became the sign of the Old Covenant (Exo 31:13, 17). Having offered a complete and sufficient work through His death, burial, and resurrection, Christ was ultimately able to rest from His work (Heb 10:12). Through being raised from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1,19), appearing to His disciples on the first day (John 20:26), and sending the Holy Spirit on the first day (Acts 2:1-4; 32-33), Jesus established the first day of the week as the day that His disciples would commemorate His rest from His completed work. The earliest disciples began meeting together on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2) and referring to it as the Lord’s Day (Rev 1:10). This, in part, helps to define the “Sabbath-keeping” found in Hebrews 4:9-10 (rightly translated), which will give way to an everlasting rest when Jesus returns and establishes the new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:4).

Brothers and sisters, let us glorify the Lord. Let us make the most of every opportunity to meet together on the Lord’s Day, taking the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner. In the Lord’s Supper, let us truly remember His sacrifice, enjoying fellowship with one another, looking forward to everlasting fellowship with Him. In the Lord’s Day, let us remember His completed work, resting in Him now, and looking forward to complete and everlasting rest in Him.
 ---
[1] It's clear in the context that “Lord” refers to Jesus Christ.
[2]Waldron, “’Saturday or Sunday (Part 4).”
[3] Murray, Romans, 258. Concerning the phrase κυριακ μέρ [in Rev 1:10] BDAG 576 s.v. κυριακός states: “pert. to belonging to the Lord, the Lord’s… κ. μέρ the Lord’s Day (Kephal. I 192, 1; 193, 31…) i.e., certainly Sunday (so in Mod. Gk…) Rv 1:10 (WStott, NTS 12, ’65, 70-75).” Cited from The NET Bible [on-line]; accessed 14 July 2010; available from http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rev&chapter=1; Internet.

Labels: ,

Monday, May 02, 2016

Are prayers directed to Jesus biblically appropriate?

This post was originally published on 6/30/08. This issue came up again this past Lord's Day while teaching about prayer in my Sunday school class at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.

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: