You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February, 2007.
The Life of God in the Soul of Man by Henry Scougal is possibly one the greatest treatises I have ever read. As a new convert to Christianity, I read Scougal delightfully and repeatedly until his words about true religion helped radically transform the way in which I thought about God and the Christian life. I must say that I am indebted to Scougal for helping me to think biblically and Christo-centrically throughout the past 4 years of my life. I picked up the book today to read it again, and was refreshed and encouraged by his beautiful descriptions of what true religion is. Scougal explains that although the nature of true religion is talked about frequently, it is one of the most misunderstood and abused of biblical concepts. We can see that today in the sincere yet uninformed statements made by post-fundamentalists, “religion kills.” The problem is that when people make these kinds of statements, a specific interpretation of “religion” is attached to the word, nullifying and ignoring the fact that Christians of the past used this word in an entirely different sense. Religion, properly defined, is a good word to use and should be a part of every Christian’s vocabulary. As Scougal points out, religion doesn’t merely consist of theological speculation, a pursuit of virtue, or “rapturous heats and ecstatic devotion.” Problems arise when our definition of religion is entirely restricted to one of these concepts. Religion, properly defined, is “divine life.” I’ll let Scougal explain…
“I cannot speak of religion, but I must lament, that among so many pretenders to it, so few understand what it means; some placing it in the understanding, in orthodox notions and opinions; and all the account they can give of their religion is that they are of this or the other persuasion, and have joiined themselves to one of those many sects whereinto Christendom is most unhappily divided. Others place it in the outward man, in a constant course of external duties, and a model or performances; if they live peaceably with their neighbors, keep a temperate diet, observe the returns of worship, frequent the church, or their closet, and sometimes extend their hands to the relief of the poor, they think they have sufficiently acquitted themselves. Others again put all religion in the affections, in rapturous heats and ecstatic devotion; and all they aim at is to pray with passion, to think of heaven with pleasure, and to be affected with those kind and melting expressions wherewith they court their Saviour, till they persuade themselves that they are mightily in love with him, and from thence assume a great confidence of their salvation, which they esteem the chief of Christian graces. Thus are these things which have any resemblance of piety, and at the best are but means of obtaining it, or particular exercises of it, frequently mistaken for the whole of religion. Nay, sometimes wickedness and vice pretend to that name. I speak not now of those gross impieties wherewith the heathens were wont to worship their gods; there are but too many Christians who would consecrate their vices, and hallow their corrupt affections, whose rugged humor, and sullen pride, must pass for Christian severity; whose fierce wrath, and bitter rage against their enemies, must be called holy zeal; whose petulancy towards their superiors, or rebellion against their governors, must have the name of Christian courage and resolution. But certainly religion is quite another thing, and they who are acquainted with it will entertain far different thoughts, and disdain all those shadows and false imitations of it. They know by experience that true religion is a union of the soul with God, a real participation of the Divine nature, the very image of God drawn upon the soul, or, in the apostles phrase, ‘it is Christ formed within us.’ Briefly, I know not how the nature of religion can be more fully expressed, than by calling it a divine life.”
“The law, strictly moral, is a copy of his [God's] nature, transcribed out of himself, as well as with his own hands; and is a declaration of his will, and is stamped with his authority, and therefore must be good: the matter of it is good, it contains good, yea, great and excellent things; the matter of it is honestly and morally good, as to love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with God: and it is pleasantly good to a regenerate man, who loves it, and delights in it after the inner man, and serves it with his spirit; though the carnal mind cannot be subject to it, but rejects it, and rebels against it: and it is also profitably good; for though obedience to it is not profitable to God, yet it is to men; and though eternal life is not obtained hereby, nor any reward given for keeping it, yet in keeping it there is a reward; and that peace is enjoyed, which the transgressors of it are strangers to: it is good in the uses of it, both to sinners and to saints. To sinners it is useful for the knowledge of sin, to convince of it, and bring them to a sense of it, and concern for it, which is effectually done, when the Spirit of God sets in with it, or brings this commandment home to the heart; and if it has not this use, it is sometimes a means of restraining men from sin, which is the use of civil laws among men; and if it has not this, it is of use however to accuse men rightly of sin, and to pronounce justly guilty before God for it, to curse them as they deserve it, and to sentence to condemnation and death: and to believers it is of use, though they are not under it as in the hands of Moses, and as a covenant of works, and are freed from its curse and condemnation, and under no obligation to seek for life and righteousness by it; to them it is of use, to point out to them what is the will of God, and what should be done, and not done; and it is a rule of walk and conversation to them, as in the hands of Christ; and is as a glass to them to behold their own deformity, the impurity of their nature, the plague of their own hearts, and the imperfection of their obedience; by which they see the insufficiency of their own righteousness, how far they are from perfection, and what carnal creatures they are, when compared with this law: and as this serves to put them out of conceit with themselves, so it tends to make Christ and his righteousness more lovely and valuable in their esteem; who has wrought out a righteousness as broad and as long as the law is, and by which it is magnified and made honorable, and has delivered them from its curse and condemnation. And this law is good as it is holy, in its author, nature, and use; and as it is just, requiring just things, and doing that which is just, by acquitting those who are interested in Christ’s righteousness, and in condemning those that have no righteousness; and as it is a spiritual and perfect law, which reaches the spirit and soul of man, and is concerned with inward thoughts and motions, as well as outward actions; and especially the end of it, the fulfilling end of it is good, which is Jesus Christ, who was made under it, came to fulfill it, and has answered all the demands of it: so that it must be good, and which cannot be denied.”
I’m completely baffled by people within my circles who have the audacity to question the innerancy of God’s Holy Word. Here’s my response to one person who wrote this:
“I feel strongly that when we take the Bible in a inerrant and literal view, we lose the entire meaning and deep spiritual truth that is found within the text.”
Innerancy is simply the doctrine that every word of the Bible is without defect, error, or any kind of impurity. I agree with you that questioning is important. Yet questioning is not an end in itself. A question implies an answer, and if our questioning leads us into an understanding of the Bible which excludes innerancy, we are in a very dangerous place. It’s logically inconsistent to believe in a perfect God whose very essence is without defect or impurity, and then believe that His very own self revelation to us in the Scriptures contains error or defect. I would disagree with you that we loose the very essence and meaning of the Bible when we understand it to be innerant. In my understanding, and in the understanding of the Church Fathers themselves, taking away innerancy leads us to a erroneous and dangerous view of God Himself. How can you believe in the absolute perfection of God, and then say that His very own words to us contain error? It doesn’t make sense. It’s logically inconsistent and fallacious. Either believe in a perfect God whose words contain no admixture of error, and a perfect revelation from God the very essence of which is perfect and innerant, OR believe in an imperfect God whose very nature does contain defect and an imperfect revelation from God the essence of which is the same. Theology Proper and Bibliology can only be understood in light of each other. When one is understood erroneously, so will the other. I would posit this suggestion: when we understand the Bible as being anything other than innerant, we lose the entire meaning and deep spiritual truth found within the text. Your comment doesn’t even make sense. How does the Bible become more beautiful when we strip it of its very reliability and innerancy? Wouldn’t this be equating the Holy Scriptures with every other religious text written throughout history? Innerancy is essential to a proper understanding of God and our faith. Sola Scriptura.
Jordan
These thoughts were sparked by a discussion of narcissism in the White Horse Inn broadcast called: Narcissism Gone Wild. It would be well worth your time to listen to the broadcast. Here’s the link… http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/the_white_horse_inn/
Whenever narcissism becomes the defining essence of our Christian faith, we are ultimately allowing “law” to govern our idea of what it means to be Christian. This idea of “law” is not the same as the law of God. It’s a much gentler, softer, and more appealing law. Yet law it is nonetheless. Narcissism’s death grip has created an atmosphere of perpetual “action”, where we must search out and find those things which are most appealing to us, and then claim them as our own. Truth is, the law is what’s most familiar to us because its written upon our hearts by nature. Therefore, narcissistic people will always allow this idea of law to govern their faith (what can I do, what’s best for me?) Sad thing in all of this is that the gospel is stripped of its sweetness, and the true and holy law of God is stripped of its power. Post-modernism, narcissism, emotivism- all of these schools of thought will ultimately leave man empty and unsatisfied. When we buy into an understanding of truth which is grounded in the autonomous self and its corrupt desires, we’ll never be conquered, amazed, surprised, and taken aback with a truth outside of ourselves and foreign to us. That’s what needs to be re-claimed. Truth and meaning cannot be found through an introspective attempt to locate it within ourselves. Truth is outside of us, un-natural to us, and blind to us by nature. This truth is fully embodied in Jesus Christ Himself, the divine logos of the Father. Jesus is truth and the foundation upon which all reality is grounded.
As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m currently reading a book by Vladimir Lossky called Orthodox Theology. Last night in my modern/western philosophy class, we were discussing Descartes’ proof for the existence of God, and whether his metaphysics really and truly held up once you examine them carefully. I thought this quote was particularly interesting, especially coming from an Eastern perspective. I have to say that I agree with much of what he says. The foundation upon which reality is built, and upon which our theology is constructed, is the God who has revealed Himself to us through the Incarnation of His Son Jesus Christ. Philosophical speculation without a prior reference to reality itself will not suffice. When we understand this, the driving motivation of philosophers come into question. Enjoy…
“God speaks to us through His Son, the Incarnation accomplishes revelation: it reveals and it constitutes revelation itself. To think theologically is not to think of this revelation but by means of it. The Fathers often invoke “our philosophy.” In fact, the method of this “philosophy” (which properly denotes theology) is based on an approach opposite to that of speculation. Theology starts from a fact: revelation. “God has spoken to us finally through His Son.” (Heb. 1:2) The philosophy which speculates on God starts, on the contrary, from an idea. For the theologian, the point of departure is Christ, and it is also the point of arrival. The philosopher raises himself to an idea from another idea or from a group of generalized facts according to an idea. For certain philosophers, the search for God corresponds to an inherent necessity in their thought: God must exist so that their conception of the universe might be coherent. There follows the search for arguments to demonstrate the existence of this necessary God- whence these “proofs of the existence of God”, “proofs” which the theologian can well do without. It is therefore not surprising that the notion of that absolute should be very different according to the philosophers. The God of Descartes is a mathematician’s God: to justify the innate ideas of mathematical truths, a supreme mathematician who has calculated everything in all eternity is necessary. It is by the will of such a God that two parallel lines never cross. For Leibniz, God is necessary to justify the pre-established harmony between our perception and reality. For each person constitutes a closed world. Hence, that all these worlds may correspond, that they may form but a single one, there must be a supreme Monad in which the monads converge and order themselves harmoniously, in such a way that the truth of perception for one coincides with that of perception for all. Only God, it has been said, could write the Monadology. Kant’s entire thought questions metaphysics: we know only our perceptions, and Kant, to explain the possibility of knowledge, does an analysis of its conditions. But he needs the idea of God in the moral sphere: for him, in his Critique of Practical Reason, God appears as the necessary postulate of moral life. In his private life, Kant was a professing and practicing Lutheran. In his metaphysics, he refuses all speculation upon God. But, in his ethics, he postulates God’s existence. The God of Bergson is a God of creative evolution. It is the vital impulse, an absolute in becoming. It is more difficult to discover God as the intellectual keystone in the philosophers of antiquity. Even here, nonetheless, the God of Aristotle is the unmoved mover postulated by the existence of movement. He is also, in his speculation on being, primary substance- thought which thinks itself and moves itself, the pure intellectual act. Plato never speaks-or almost never- of God. However, it was necessary for him to give foundation to a certain very concrete idea: the possibility of a just man, of a sage. Socrates was condemned by the city because he practiced a different justice, the true one. How then was one to justify true justice, how to construct a State where this just man had his place? Raising himself thus from this fundamental demand towards the knowledge of that which really is, Plato discovers stable reality in the world of ideas which thought alone can grasp. Going even higher, he has a presentiment of the “Good which is beyond being”: when he reaches this point, he forgets the search for a just State, and justice itself in contemplation. The point of departure and the point of arrival, nevertheless, remain human…..Theological procedure is quite different. Since God reveals himself to us, our whole thought- really our whole approach, our conversatio- should respond and correspond to this fact, should conform to this revelation gathered in faith. Philosophers construct an idea of God. For the theologian, God is someone Who reveals Himself and who cannot be known outside of revelation. One must open oneself to this personal God, to encounter Him in a total involvement: that is the only way to know him. But this concrete and personal God contains the abstract and impersonal God of philosophers who is not, most often, a mere mirage, but also a reflection in human thought of the personal God. Certainly, starting from this reflection, by reflection or by speculation, it is impossible to know the real God. The procedure of faith is necessary, fundamental, primordial. But then this God of the philosophers takes his place in the total reality of the living God: as Clement of Alexandria wrote: “He will grow unto the plenitude of Christ.” Christ is the perfect measure of all things: He breaks the closed systems in which the philosophers imprison and denature the reflection of the living God in human thought- but He also brings His accomplishment to the intuitive attention which the philosophers have devoted to this reflection”
-Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in* the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)
What is baptism? If this question could be answered simply and easily, the ongoing debates which have raged for centuries would come to a halt. Yet although baptism might not be a doctrine treated with unmistakable clarity within the New Testament, it is still a matter of great importance which our Lord instituted Himself in the Great Commission, quoted above. At the outset, I want to clarify to all that I am just beginning to work through these weighty issues, and am by no means convinced by either the credo-baptist or the paedobaptist positions. As of now, I simply don’t know where I stand on this issue, and am currently focusing a lot of my mental and intellectual energy upon baptism and other ecclesiologically related doctrines which will eventually determine whether I’m a Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.
John Murray begins his work by discussing the import of baptism, and some of the central ideas which must be understood first before analyzing the mode, recipients, and efficacy of baptism. Central to a proper understanding of baptism is the idea of union. Jesus’ words in the great commission reveal an important truth about the nature of baptism, subtly hidden within his other words. “Baptizing them in” is an important concept which must not be overlooked. On the surface we can see that baptism as a sacrament or ordinance (whichever you prefer) entails an intimate union with all three persons of the God-head. Before entering into discussion about the other aspects of baptism, we can know that in its very nature, it is a unifying sacrament/ordinance which effectually creates a relationship between a person and the Triune God. What this relationship is, comes later in the book. Murray states that, “Baptism, by the very words of institution, signifies union with the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and this means with the three persons of the trinity, both in the unity expressed by their joint possession of the one name and in the richness of the distinctive relationship which each person of the Godhead sustains to the people of God in the economy of the covenant of grace.” I Cor. 10:2 describes the people of Israel as being baptized into Moses, in 1 Cor. 1:13 Paul asserts that our union is found in Jesus Christ and reveals the stupidity of people boasting about, “being baptized into the name of Paul.” Other passages confirm this conclusion. More specifically though, baptism signifies union with Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Murray states that, “of this union baptism is the sign and seal.” The second essential element of baptism is the idea of cleansing. The very fact that baptism is dispensed by the application of water reveals that in some sense, Baptism is an ordinance/sacrament expressive of cleansing. Murray logically argues that, “since baptism is washing with water, and since it involves a religious use of water, and because regeneration is expressed elsewhere in terms of washing, it is difficult, if not impossible, to escape the conclusion that this washing with water involved in baptism represents that indispensable purification which is presupposed in union with Christ and without which no one can enter into the kingdom of God.” Baptism not only signifies and seals union with Jesus Christ, but also represents the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit within the hearts of God’s elect. The third aspect, a uniquely Reformed interpretation of baptism states that baptism, “is the circumcision of the New Testament.” Colossians 2:11,12 links baptism and circumcision in such a way which makes it difficult to escape the conclusion that baptism, in some sense, is the New Covenant equivalent of Old Testament circumcision. Yet this is not something I am personally convinced of, and I am currently studying this particular theological concept (baptism and circumcision). The fourth aspect of baptism is a representation of the purification from guilt and sin. Murray appeals to passages like Acts 2:38, 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 for support of his claim that baptism stands in a similar relation to the remission of sins. This aspect of baptism is similar with John the Baptist’s baptism, although John’s baptism shouldn’t be equated with Christian Baptism. “We may, therefore conclude that baptism represents the remission of sin or, in other words, purification from the guilt of sin by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ.” Yet at the end of this section of his book, Murray is careful to explain that although these various ideas are and should be connected to baptism, the idea of union with Jesus Christ must be the most prominent and the one most emphasized. “The emphasis must be placed, however, upon union with Christ. It is this that is central, and it is this notion that appears more explicitly and pervasively than any other. Hence our view of baptism must be governed by this concept. Anything less that that kind of union expressed in the formula of institution will provide too restricted a conception and will distort our view of what is exhibited and sealed by this ordinance.” All to often, Baptists accuse Presbyterians and other Reformed paedobaptists of understanding baptism exclusively in terms of circumcision. Although Reformed paedobaptists do indeed believe that baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision, the governing idea or concept dominating their understanding of baptism is essentially Christ-centric: union with Christ. Murray’s understanding of baptism is essentially multifaceted, containing various elements and significations. Yet this idea of union with Jesus Christ is the dominating idea or concept within a Presbyterian understanding of baptism.
Solus Christus
My friend at work is Eastern/Greek Orthodox and has given me a book to read in order to better understand the central tenets of the orthodox position. I’ve done some reading on Eastern Orthodox Theology before, but this book is a standard work within Orthodox Theology, and is supposed to be one of the best introductions to it. I’ll probably be reading the book for the next few weeks, and am taking advantage of the opportunity to record some of my thoughts online as I work through it. The other work that I’m focusing the majority of my mental energy upon right now is Christian Baptism by John Murray. I’ve read a good portion of the book already, and find it both informing and compelling. I’ll be reviewing each section as I finish them. I’m doing this for the individual benefit of recording my thoughts in writing, in an attempt to better understand the positions set forth in each work. Yet I hope this might profit anyone who reads. More posts will follow…
Jordan
This week is the yearly annual missions conference at Baptist Bible College, the school which I attend. Without criticizing the conference too much, I will say that nearly every year, something is evidently missing in all of the sessions, workshops, and other activities which take place. That something, is the Triune God, whose sovereign work in the salvation of sinners is usually overlooked for a more emotionally driven approach which focuses almost entirely upon man’s work, to the exclusion of God’s. Without meaning to do so, many of our churches have, to their shame, become radically unbiblical in their teaching, resulting in an almost implicit open theism which exalts the power of man’s autonomy to, “change the outcome of eternity.” Truth is, people don’t want to talk about God’s sovereignty anymore. It’s an uncomfortable doctrine which is usually affirmed shamefully under people’s breath, but barely ever rejoiced in or preached on. The problem is that without a Biblically informed understanding of God’s sovereign work in the salvation of man, missions has no foundation and will ultimately crash and burn. That’s why I’m hesitant to become so Gung-ho about organizations like ABWE, BMM, or EBM. The work they are doing is commendable, and I’m happy to see that many people are being saved by God through the preaching of His Word in foreign lands. Yet I’ve looked at the pamphlets which these organizations give out, and never once have I ever seen anything even remotely similar to a strong emphasis on Calvinistic Soteriology within their pages. We must never forsake these precious doctrines which are the foundation and pillars of our Christian faith. We must never make some kind of half hearted compromise with the heresies of open theism or Armianism, for the sake of a comfortable yet shallow “theology” of missions which begrudingly assents to Sovereign Grace, while never focusing upon its beauty and necessity in the life of any Christian Missionary. Think for a moment of some of the greatest missionaries throughout history: David Brainerd, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, John Patton, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield. What do these great missionaries have in common? All of them believed in, rejoiced in, basked in, savored, preached on, and affectionately loved the doctrines of Sovereign Grace, and looked to them as the foundation and pillars for all of their missionary work. Let us never forget: Man hates God, God has chosen a remnant for Himself, Christ has particularly redeemed His people, the Spirit is the sovereign agent in man’s regeneration and sanctification, and the Triune God keeps and preserves His people forever, to the praise of His glorious grace! May 5 point Calvinism again flourish within hearts and minds of our missionaries.
Soli Deo Gloria
I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. This video is definitely worth watching. Straight out of Pensecola College, from which the excrement of legalism and arminianism arises, comes a song about a poor little god who is powerless when confronted with the autonomy and omnipotence of man’s free will. I think this picture is appropriate. It’s as though our wills are powerful beyond measure, even powerful enough to take God into our hands and decide, in our power, what we want to do with Him. Enjoy…
Note: I frequently employ the phrase “Regular Baptist” because the doctrines set forth by many dispensational Baptist’s are entirely different from historic Baptist beliefs. Regular Baptist Ecclesiology, found in GARBC circles, is a recent innovation and cannot be linked to historic Christianity (prior to 1830).
A common consensus among evangelicals is that ecclesiology doesn’t matter. Perhaps some evangelicals think that as long as you love Jesus, and go to church on Sundays, questions as to what the church actually is don’t really matter. This grievous error needs to be addressed, and one way to start is by asking a few fundamental questions about the nature of the church and its implications for Christians today. The six specific foundational concepts which need to be addressed are: the word ecclesia and its definition, the nature of the universal church, baptism and the point in time in which a believer enters the church, the relationship between Israel and the Church, the beginning and completion of the Church, and the local church as a subset of the Universal Church. First, it is important to discuss the meaning of the Greek word ecclesia, and its significant usage within the New Testament itself. An etymological and historical understanding of the word can both help us gain insight into the nature of the church and protect us from the errors of ultra-dispensationalism whose confusion and misunderstanding on this point are unbiblical, to say the least. First, ecclesia is a Greek word derived from two other Greek words, “ek” and “kaleo.” The specific meaning of “ek” is, “called out with a purpose”, while the meaning of “kaleo” is, “call or summon.” Historically, this word could be used in two senses. The first and less common usage of the word mean to, “congregate by yourself.” The second and more common usage of ecclesia, employed in 75% of the text of the New Testament meant, “called or summoned for a purpose.” It is undoubtedly clear that ecclesia should be properly understood in this latter sense as a group of people called or summoned for a purpose. The church is not a group of well meaning people who gather together to worship on Sundays, or a social justice organization whose only purpose is to feed the poor and clothe the homeless. The church is an organism created by God with a specific purpose and function, unlike any other “group” which has ever existed or will exist.
The next issue which needs to be addressed is the particular nature of the universal church. Eph. 2:19-22 describes the nature of the church in terms of an organism or an organization, firmly rooted in the person of Jesus Christ Himself. In the opening section of this chapter, Paul describes in great detail the miserable plight of believers before their conversion, and the glorious work which the Holy Spirit performed in us when we became regenerate. The connection between Paul’s vivid description of regeneration, and the last two verses describing the nature of the church, reveal that the universal church is made up entirely of born again believers. Eph. 1:22-23 specifically asserts that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and that the church is, in a very real sense, his body. This means that because Christ has risen, the church is the visible manifestation or the living ambassadors of the Son of God Himself.
The doctrine of Spirit baptism can be seen in a number of different passages, including Matt. 16 and Luke 3, where John the Baptist testifies that Jesus would uniquely baptize “with the Holy Spirit.” Spirit baptism occurs at regeneration, when the Holy Spirit enlivens the totally depraved heart of God’s elect, and gives Him a new heart “of flesh” unlike his former, “heart of stone.” A dispensational understanding of Spirit baptism and entrance into the church asserts that only those saved under the New Covenant, from Pentecost forward, are a part of the church. Yet the Bible is unambiguous in its claims that all of God’s elect are saved in the same manner, by predestination, redemption, regeneration and justification by faith alone. To assert that Old Testament believers were saved in a different way than New Testament believers is biblically unjustifiable and an inroad to heresy. A peculiarly baptist understanding of entrance into the church states that a person is ushered into the universal church when He is regenerated or baptized in the Holy Spirit. Yet a Reformed understanding of entrance into the church states that both believers and their children are a part of the church. Obviously, infant children have not been saved and so, are a part of what the old confessions called, “the visible church.” The visible church are those who visibly and openly confess their faith before God made up of some who are believers and others who are reprobate and wolves in sheep’s clothing. This position has much more warrant than some Baptist’s give it credit for. Peter attests that the promise of salvation is not only offered to believers but to their children, revealing that the principle of family solidarity found within the Old Testament should not be abandoned by the Church of Christ in the New Testament. Also, the New Testament makes mention of household, family baptisms when the text only testifies to one or a few specific salvations. Whatever the case may be, Baptist’s assert that only those who have been regenerated by the Spirit become apart of the church.
The relationship between Israel and the Church has been a matter of heavy dispute for about 223 years, ever since John Darby came on the scene and started promoting a different understanding of the church which made strong distinctions between Israel and the Church. The Regular Baptist understanding of the Church states that Israel and the Church, “cannot even be compared”, and are totally and completely distinct from one another. Dispensationalists appeal to texts like Eph. 2 for support of this particular understanding of the church. Yet many dispensationalists fail to realize that the Reformers aren’t saying that the theocratic and earthly nation of Israel is the same exact thing as the church. Likewise, the Reformers aren’t asserting that all of Israel’s practices are carried over into the New Testament. What historic Christianity has asserted when upholding a relationship between the two, is that the theocratic nation of Israel was a type or picture of Jesus Christ and His Church, formed around a conditional suzerainty treaty which stated that the nation would be cut off if they failed to obey God’s laws. The church then, is the antitype or fruition of the earthly nation of Israel, the true “Israel of God” The New Testament couldn’t be clearer on a very real relationship between Israel and the Church. Paul asserts that the church is the “true circumcision” (Rom 2), Peter describes the church in language taken directly from Ex. 19:6 when he labels the church a chosen race and a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9,10), Paul asserts that Christ and His people are the true seed of Abraham (Gal. 3,4), and also takes a promise originally given to the nation of Israel in Is. 52:11 and Lev. 26:12 and openly says that the promise is for the church! (2 Cor. 8:16-7:1) In my understanding, the Regular Baptist position on the relationship between Israel and the Church is erroneous.
The Regular Baptist position on the beginning of the Church states that the church began at Pentecost and will be completed at the “rapture.” This arises logically from a distinct understanding of Israel and the Church. A text used to support this view is Matt. 16, where Christ, in the future tense, states that He will build His Church. Yet the Bible testifies to the fact that everyone saved throughout all history are His true and chosen people. Hebrews 11 certainly doesn’t make this kind of distinction when describing the saints of old and their perseverance in the faith. The Bible unanimously states that all those saved from the fall to the return of Christ are His true people, and thus, a part of the church. At Pentecost, those saved within the nation of Israel are visibly brought together with the Gentiles to form the New Covenant body of Christ. Yet still, those who were saved within the nation of Israel and prior to Pentecost are the true people of God and thus members of His church.
Historically, Baptist’s have distinguished between the local church and the Universal Church, the local church being a subset of the universal church. Those who desire to join a local church must be regenerate, and those who make up the universal church are, without a doubt, truly regenerate and saved by God. Yet within the local church, the wheat grow together with the tares. Therefore, it is possible for the reprobate to exist among the regenerate while on this earth. At the second coming, and the last judgment, the sheep and the goats will be judged, the former to everlasting blessedness, the latter to eternal conscious punishment.
Regardless of my disagreements with the Regular Baptist position set forth in class, we can all unite around our belief in the importance, significance, specific function, and beauty of the Church of Jesus Christ. An understanding of ecclesiology is vitally important for all Christians, especially in light of the post-modernism which has plagued and blinded the minds of self proclaimed “emergents” seen in our world today. An understanding of what the church is, and how the church functions, is vital to a proper understanding of the Christian faith.
