The New Jerusalem or Heaven on Earth (Revelation 21-22) Part Two

Posted: January 25, 2012 in End Time Events, Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Now the angel giving John and us the guided tour takes us through the gates of pearl into the City to continue our worship and wonder at God’s greatness.

I. The New Jerusalem Described Externally (21:10-20) This is the aerial view.

II. The City is now Internally Described (21:21-22:5). Not only is God a master architect but He is also a skillful Interior Designer.

A. Streets of Gold (21:21)

What men die for and sacrifice health and family for (gold) will be asphalt in Heaven. The gold is transparent so that we can see through it but more importantly so that God’s glory can shine through it. Our eternal focus will not be on any literal material. Nothing in the City draws attention to itself. It is just a means for us to worship God.

This is no argument against the literalness of the City. My gold wedding ring which is never ending until broken by some outside force symbolizes my commitment to my wife till death us do part.

B. No Temple (21:22) or central place of worship as in the OT and NT

Now the entire City is the temple filled with God’s presence. We don’t go to worship as with other central places of worship because we are always in the presence of God to worship. The whole City has become the Holy of Holies.

The Shekinah glory that filled the Holy of Holies once a year will in eternity penetrate every corner in The New Jerusalem constantly.

C. No Need of the Sun (21:23)

Because there is no night the gates are never closed. Even Disneyland, “the happiest place on earth” closes its gates at night.  All who would disturb the city, all those who love darkness rather than light are now in the Lake of Fire (21:27).

D. River of Life (22:1-2a)

The River of Life constantly flows down from the throne of God right through main street symbolizing our never ending eternal life. This river of life is also crystal clear so we are not awestruck with this cascading waterfall as if we were standing at Niagara Falls.

The River of Life originates in the throne of God. There is no submersible pump continuously recycling the River of Life. The River of Life forever reminds us that our salvation also originated with God and is eternal.

E. Tree of Life (22:2b)

The Tree of Life spans the street of gold through which the River of life flows. The Tree of Life provides 12 different kinds of fruit each month for our enjoyment not preservation. This is perhaps is a reminder that God has given us “all things richly to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17) so that we unceasingly praise Him for all of His unspeakable gifts.

Not only does the fruit symbolize the luxuries of Heaven, but the leaves picture our eternal wellbeing. The River of Life symbolizes our eternal life while the leaves symbolize our eternal wholeness which includes physical as well as mental and emotions.

Joni Eareckson Tada, a quadriplegic, wrote of speaking to a class of mentally handicapped Christians. They thought it was great when she said she was going to get a new body. But when she added, “And you are going to get new minds,” they broke out into applause. They knew of their unique struggle; they knew of their limitations. Heaven offered for them unique healing.

Joni wrote further, “I still can hardly believe that I, with shriveled, bent fingers, atrophied muscles, gnarled knees and no feeling from the shoulders down, will one day have a new body – light, bright, clothed in righteousness, powerful and dazzling. Can you imagine the hope this gives someone like me? Or someone who is cerebral palsied, brain-injured, or who has multiple sclerosis. Imagine the hope this gives someone who is manic-depressive. No other religion, no other philosophy literally promises new bodies, new hearts, [new emotions] and new minds. Only in the gospel of Christ do hurting people find such incredible [promise] (Randy Alcorn, Heaven, p. 286).

The therapeutic leaves reminds that one day “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

F. Worship at the Throne (22:3-5)

So far in our tour of God’s City we have seen God’s glory penetrating through clear, diamond like walls that surround a transparent gold city and a crystal clear River of Life.

But now grand finale and the crescendo are reached in 22:4: “We shall see His face.” This is the text on which Charles Spurgeon preached a sermon entitled the Heaven in Heaven. This stands in contrast with John’s first statement of this subject in John 1:18, “No man has seen God at anytime.”

What Moses in his natural body was not permitted we in eternity in our resurrected and glorified bodies will be allowed.

Jesus promised, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

This is what suffering Job longed for, “though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.”

Walvoord believes seeing of God is behold His glory: “Immediate access to the glory of God will characterize the saints in the eternal state….The fact that they shall see His face demonstrates beyond question that these are glorified saints (1 John 3:2)” (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 332).

MacArthur similarly writes: “The saints in the New Jerusalem will also see God’s face. Being perfectly holy and righteous, they will be able to endure the heavenly level of the glorious light from God’s presence without being consumed—something impossible for humans on earth (Exodus 33:20) (Because the Time is Near, p. 327).

“Viewing the glory of God is a limited privilege in the here and now but barriers will disappear when the redeemed enter the bride-city” (Robert Thomas, Revelation 8-22, p. 487).

“This seeing of God ‘face to face’ has been called the beatific vision, meaning ‘the vision that makes us blessed or happy’. To look at God changes us and makes us like him: ‘We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is’ (1 John 3:2). This vision of God will be the consummation of our knowing God and will give us full delight and joy all eternity: ‘in your presence there is fulness of joy, in your right hand are pleasures for evermore’” (Ps. 16:11) (Grudem, p. 190).

Now we have access to God’s presence through prayer but then we will talk with Him face to face in His unfiltered and spectacular glory.

Pastor/People Relationship in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-14

Posted: January 24, 2012 in Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , ,
2

Billy Sunday once said, “I would rather preach than anything on earth. If President Harding should telegraph me tomorrow, and say, ‘Bill, will you change jobs with me?’ I’d say ‘Nothin doin, Warren.’”

Paul felt the same as Sunday as he expressed in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-14. Paul started the church at Thessalonica on his second missionary journey in Acts 17. In less than a month, he had won sinners to Christ and organized them into a local assembly. Problems were inherent in the young church that had mushroomed. Three of those problems are called by Paul in 3:10 “that which is lacking in your faith.” Paul identifies these deficiencies in chapter four.

Paul used the same word for deficiencies or “what is lacking” that Matthew used when he described James and John “mending” their nets. The fishermen knew if they did not repair their torn nets then the fish would get away. Charles H. Spurgeon desired for his church, Metropolitan Tabernacle, to be a “soul trap.” If a sinner got inside his church for a service, Spurgeon wanted the gospel to be so powerfully preached that the sinner would be trapped and would trust Christ as his Savior. But sin or spiritual deficiencies cause the gospel net to have holes so that the sinners will get away. Those spiritual deficiencies must be repaired and Paul is going to identify the problems and tell us how to fix them.

1. Immorality (4:1-8) because many of the Thessalonians were saved out of immoral paganism (1:9).

2. Idleness (4:9-12) because perhaps they had misapplied Paul’s teaching of the return of Christ. They had quit their jobs and were living off of handouts.

3. Sorrow (4:13-18) over some of their loved ones who had died since Paul had been with them and taught on the return of Christ. What would happen to their loved who died in Christ at the coming of Christ was their concern.

Since most of the people in the church were all saved at the same time there seems to have been the problem of submitting to pastoral leadership since they were all new converts. Paul addressed this sensitive relationship in 4:12-14.

First, Paul Deals with the Congregation’s Relationship to their Pastor in verses 12-13.

To begin, Paul admonishes them to “know” their pastors. Be aware of what is involved in the ministry. Realize that in just the area of sermon preparation much time is required if the pastor is to properly feed the flock of God and have a long term ministry.

Next Paul encourages the congregation to “esteem” their pastors. Paul lists three reasons congregations should appreciate their pastors:

1. Because pastors “labor among you.” Paul will later tell Timothy, “If any man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1). One church member said to his pastor, “You pastors have it made. You make a full-time salary and all you have to work is 30 minutes on Sunday morning, 30 minutes on Sunday evening, and 30 minutes on Wednesday evening.” That church member has no clue to what is involved in pastoring. The great preacher and teacher of preachers, Stephen Olford, once a year would take a service and explain to his congregation what was involved in the preparation of one sermon.

2. Because pastors preside “over you.” God has given the pastor the oversight of a congregation (1 Peter 5:2). He is to “equip the saints to do the work of the ministry” (Ephesians 4:12). The easy way out for the pastor is to do the work of the ministry himself rather than go through all the trouble of training others. But that is not God’s way. First, the pastor will burn out and the work of God will suffer. Next, the people of God will never be blessed by God for serving and using their God given gifts.

This is one of Henry Blackaby’s worthy goals leaders should maintain: Leading to Spiritual Maturity. When we lead our people to spiritual maturity they can since God’s will and ministries will originate with them rather than top-down (Spiritual Leadership, 130).

3. Because pastors “admonish you.” Paul reminded the Galatians, “If I yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (1:10). That means pastor must preach the Word which means we must reprove, rebuke, and exhort.

Finally, Paul commands congregations to “be at peace among yourselves.” Someone said, “Mom cannot cook a delicious meal in the kitchen if she is always having to separate fusing kids.” The same is true with pastors. A gift a congregation can give their pastor is gift if cooperating with one another in the work of God.

Second, Paul Deals with the Congregation’s Relationship with Each Other in verses 14-15.

Not only does the congregation have a responsibility to their pastor but to each other. In Matthew 18:15-17, when a church member has been  offended by another church member, the offended church member doesn’t first go to the pastor but to the offender. This is the point Paul is making in this section. The church at Thessalonians had three major problems which the pastor was not to solve, according to Paul’s instructions, but the congregation.

Congregations have the responsibility to “warn them that are unruly” who is the Idle from 4:9-12.

When these freeloaders show on our front porch asking for an handout, we are not to call the pastor, we are to tell them, ”Get a job!” This is the first step in Matthew 18:15-17.

Congregations have the responsibility to “comfort the fainthearted” who are those sorrowful from 4:13-18.

Church members who have experienced the death of a loved ones can much better comfort one another than pastors who have not. We buried my wife’s mother on Christmas Eve years ago. My wife can sit down and weep with you if your mother has passed. She can comfort much better than I can because my Mom is still living.

Congregations have the responsibility to “support the weak” who are those saved out immoral paganism and still struggling in 4:1-8.

Paul did not say support the wicked or those still living in immorality. But rather support the weak or those who want to be free from this sinful addition.

Someone said, “The perfect church is always 1000 miles away.” What looks like perfect churches from a distance are not once we get inside. There are no perfect churches but there are blessed churches that follow Paul’s guidelines for the a proper relationship with the congregation and their pastor.

I read this story about a man who seemed to be a A MIS-FIT PASTOR. His case had been solemnly discussed by his many conscientious church members, and the conclusion seemed inevitable—he just was not a man big enough for the fine church he was trying to serve. So a committee waited upon him from the elders of the church,  and in as kindly a way as they could, they told him of his shortcomings and that the only sensible verdict was that he was not cut out for as big a job as the responsibility of this important church.

It looked like the end for the discouraged pastor, but wait! Instead of dismissing him, the committee informed him that their decision was that they would meet in earnest prayer together for him until God did whatever was His will for the poor, ‘misfit pastor’. They were faithful—the prayer group got more and more under the burden and the power of God was more and more evident ni their own lives, and in the pastor’s. Out of that experience, this ‘inadequate’ pastor emerged to become the great Dr. J. Wilbur Chapman. Multitudes eventually owed their salvation to the work that the Lord did through this man of God! How much credit in heaven will go to him, and how much to the ones stood behind him in prayer?

The New Jerusalem or Heaven on Earth (Revelation 21-22) Part One

Posted: January 24, 2012 in End Time Events, Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

When a Sunday school teacher quizzed her fifth-graders about how one gets to heaven, she got all correct answers: One doesn’t get there by being good, giving away money, or being a nice person. “Well, then,” she asked, “how does one get heaven?” Before any of the regular students could answer, a boy who was visiting the class that week shouted out, “You gotta be dead!” (David Jeremiah. What You Always Wanted to Know about Heaven, 100).

The visitor was correct. “It is appointed to man to die.” If you are a believer when you die or are raptured, the last two chapters of God’s Word describes Heaven your future eternal home.

John ends his prophecy of end time events in the book of Revelation with two chapters devoted to Heaven. God reveals to John that there will be a New Heaven, a New Earth and a New Jerusalem. The New Heaven is the really the first and second heaven with the curse removed and the New Earth is our planet that has been renovated with fire (2 Peter 3:7). The New Jerusalem is the third Heaven, where God dwells now, but in eternity will be on earth in the New Jerusalem according to 21:2-3.

So literally, Heaven will be on earth in the New Jerusalem. An angel gives John a guided tour. The guided tour begins from a distance from an aerial view where the architecture of the City is described. Then the angel proceeds inside to admire the interior decorations of the New Jerusalem.

The point of the tour is not for us to be awestruck with the beauty of the City. The New Jerusalem is a literal city with symbolic meanings so we will be awestruck with God and His Lamb.

I. The New Jerusalem Described Externally (21:10-20) This is the aerial view.

A. The City is brilliantly illuminated with all the outward manifestation of all of God’s attributes i.e., His glory (21:11).

The City is crystal clear so nothing blocks God’s glory. The City is not the center of attention but God and Christ who light it up.

The City reminds us of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:14 and 16: “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” God lets His light shine for eternity for His glory.

B. A Great and High Wall (21:12).

When the walls of Jerusalem were down in the OT, God’s people were vulnerable to attack and thus God’s name was in reproach (Nehemiah 2:17). The enemy would taunt God’s people, “Can’t your god keep the walls up around His city?” This reproach on God fired Nehemiah to rebuild the walls.

When we see these massive walls around the New Jerusalem we will want to sing with great Reformation warrior for justification by faith, Martin Luther, “A mighty fortress is our God a bulwark never failing.”

C. Twelve Gates guarded by angels (21:12-13). Robert Thomas says these are large gate towers of which smaller gates were a part. On these gates are the names of the 12 Tribes of Israel who represent the Old Testament people of God.

The Old Testament people of God will be living in the New Jerusalem protected in this gated community with angels as security guards. These OT believers would remember that one angel in the OT killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night and was not even winded at the end.

We will be forever reminded of our eternal security in Christ.

D. Twelve Foundations (21:14) are visible unlike most foundations and bear the names of the 12 apostles who represent the New Testament people of God or the Church. Israel has not replaced the Church in this age nor the age to come.

Also in Ephesians 2:20, Paul says that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles.”

Those massive foundations will not let us forget that we are in Heaven because our lives are founded on the Word of God.

E. The City is 1400 miles square (21:15-16).

This is the city Abraham looked for according to Hebrews 11:8-10. If this city were to land on America instead of Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem would cover the USA from Canada to Mexico and from the Appalachian mountains to California. That is 2 million square miles of land area just on the bottom floor.

Randy Alcorn in his book on Heaven estimated if there are 12 feet between each floor there could be 600,000 floors which equal 1.2 billion square miles. There be will room enough for all the believers of all the ages and all the babies who have died or been aborted since Roe vs Wade in 1973 which is about 1 million each year.

The city is an eternal object lesson of the greatness of God’s grace.

F. Walls of Jasper are 216 feet thick (21:17-18).

John will now return and give additional information about the previously mentioned sections of the city. It is as though, John could not tell us everything at once about the glorious city. It would overload our circuit and blow all our fuses.

The wall is measured by an angel. A. T. Robertson interprets this phrase, “Though measured by an angel, a human standard was employed” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, VI, 474). The New Jerusalem is not a state of mind.

J. Oswald Sanders denies the literalness of John’s description: “Gates of pearl and streets of gold are plainly figurative and should be so interpreted. So, to the question, Is heaven a place? The answer is, Yes and no. It is not a place in the material since in which, say, Jerusalem is a place while heaven is not an actual city, it is like a city.”

Millard Erickson says the New Jerusalem is both a state of mind and a literal city. To which Wayne Grudem responds: “Something either is a place or it is not a place” (Systematic Theology, 1159). Jesus promised his discourage disciples in John 14:3, “I go to prepare place.” End of argument.

The walls like the city are crystal clear so again they will not filter the glory of God.

G. The Twelve Foundations are twelve different jewels which allow the glory of God to shine through like a giant prism of beauty (21:19-20).

While the wall is crystal clear each of the 12 foundations is a different color such as deep blue, bright green, red and white, deep red, gold, pale-green, sea-green, yellow-green, violet, and purple. The glory of God shines through these foundations like a spectacular prism reflecting the glory of God for all to behold.

H. The Gates are Pearls (21:21).

These pearls are not the size of peas strung together to make a necklace. These pearls are as big as large tower gates in a wall nearly as thick as a football field.

Pearls speak of beauty out of pain. The little oyster receives an irritation or a wound, and around this offending article that may be has penetrated and hurt it, the oyster layers over it and over it, again and again until it builds a pearl (Stephen Davey’s sermon).

As we go in and out of the City we will be prompted over and over again of the gigantic sufferings of Christ. “Those pearls, hung eternally at the access routes to glory will remind us forever of One who hung upon a tree (John Phillips, Exploring Revelation, 254).

These last two chapters are the climax to the Revelation of Jesus Christ so we are not surprised that Christ will be fully unveiled in the New Jerusalem.

In my next post we continue on our guided tour of the interior of the New Jerusalem.

 

        

The Church’s Missional Statement by Christ

Posted: January 19, 2012 in Church Ministries
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

All nationalities should be welcomed and accepted in our churches. This is what makes the church Missional. Missional church researcher Ed Stetzer warns against being missional in wanting to reach your local culture but not being Missions in wanting to reach those not in your culture. Some Missional churches are focused on the local not the global. Some Missions churches are only concerned with cultures an ocean away. The remedy is for the church to be “glocal” as Bob Roberts says in Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World. Driscoll, in Vintage Church, gives a good introduction to the Missional movement in chapter nine, “What is a Missional Church?” He strikes a balance: “It is unfortunate that foreign missions is not part of the vision of many missional churches….It is also unfortunate the local community is lacking from the vision of many missions churches….Subsequently, their youth spends ten days building a house in Mexico rather doing repairs on the run-down apartment building across the street” (page 242).

Christ’s mission statement for the Church is combined in five commission passages not just in the Matthew 28 version. We should interpret the great commission of Matthew 28:19-20 in the context of all five statements. The five commission passages were taught by Jesus over the 40 day post-resurrection period. The five statements combined give us the Great Commission:

We have been sent to make disciples by preaching the Gospel to every person which is the first step in making disciples which includes preaching repentance through the power of the Holy Spirit to the ends of the earth.

1.  We Have Been Sent (John 20:19) given on the first Easter in Jerusalem

2. To Make Disciples (Matthew 28:19-20) added two weeks later in Galilee

3. By Preaching the Gospel to every person which is the first step in making disciples (Mark 16:15) possibly stated at the same time of Matthew 28

4. Which includes preaching repentance (Luke 24:47) given just before His ascension in Jerusalem

5. Through the power of the Holy Spirit to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8) also stated just before His ascension

If our commission is to make disciple then we need to be able to profile a disciple.

1. A Disciple is an obedient follower of Christ.

In Matthew 28:1-15, the Jewish leaders reject Christ on the first Easter. In Matthew 28:16, at least two weeks later, the disciples obey Christ. Matthew juxtapositions these two responses by slicing them together with “But” to give the effect they happened one after the other to contrast disobedience and obedience.

Jesus describes a disciple as a believer who obeys His commands in John 15:8-10. The disciples who obeyed Christ to meet with Him in Galilee traveled probably by foot for five days from Jerusalem. Unlike all the other post-resurrection appearances, this one was announced and for this reason there were probably 500 believers there (1 Corinthians 15:6). Obedience is not always easy.

2. A disciple has a ministry to people to perform for the Lord. The Great Commission in Matthew was given in “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Matthew 4:15). The setting of the great commission was among unsaved Gentiles. The Reformers believed the Great Commission was given only to the eleven. In other words, we are not responsible to reach our generation for Christ. Why is the Reformer’s interpretation wrong?

First, because the eleven did evangelize all nations. They also did not evangelize unto the end of the age. Lastly, non-apostles like Philip and Stephen participated in the Great Commission in Acts.

Now that we have examined the remote and immediate context of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20 let’s unpack its content.

1. The Proclamation of Jesus’ New Authority (Matthew 28:18) 

All authority has been given to Christ in heaven and in earth because of His resurrection (Romans 1:4). There is no reference to Christ’s ascension to heaven in Matthew but Jesus speaks as one already in Heaven ruling over all creation.

Alexander McClaren writes of the investiture granted Christ: “And so the hands that were pierced with the nails wield the sceptre of the Universe, and on the brows that were wounded and bleeding with the crown of thorns are wreathed the many crowns of universal kinghood.”

2. His Plan for the Church (Matthew 28:19-20a)

The Great Commission based on the authority of Christ is seen in Jesus’ “Therefore.”

The great commission centers on the one imperative “make disciples.” We disciple “all nations” which is a plural collective that describes the whole world outside the community of believers (Luke 24:47).

The method for obeying our authoritative King for making disciples is laid out in the three particles (verbs that serve as adjectives).

A. The Method of Evangelization “Having gone”

1) Through confrontation as in Acts 8 when Philip goes takes the gospel to the Ethiopian bachelor. Sometimes  God opens the door to witness to a total stranger who sits down beside you on a commerical flight.

2) Through friendship as in John 1:40 when Andrew brings his brother Peter to Christ. The person who impacted my life more than anyone and was responsible for my salvation was my godly mother.

3) Through event evangelism as in Acts 10 when Peter preaches to the friends and family of Cornelius. Elmer Towns made popular “Friend Day” which has been by God to bring many to Christ.

B. The Method of Assimilation “Baptizing”

Baptism is a public pledge of our discipleship. Baptism identifies us with the local church as in Acts 2:41-42. Baptism is, however, more than getting the new convert all wet. Baptism is immersing the new convert into the life of the church. Entry level ministries like AWANA can help with getting them plugged in.

C. The Method of Education “Teaching them”

The Great Commission version in Matthew was given in the context of five major sermons in Matthew interspersed in the narrative of Matthew’s theme of the Messiahship of Christ.

The narrative in Matthew 3:1-4:25 discusses the Birth of the King

1st Sermon: Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)

The narrative in Matthew 8:1-10:4 presents the credentials of the King

2nd Sermon: Mission to Israel (Matthew 10:5-11:1)

The narrative in Matthew 11:2-12:50 records the first rejection of the King

3rd Sermon (Matthew 13) Parables of the Mystery form of the Kingdom for reaching Gentiles in this age

The narrative in Matthew 13:54-17:27 records the second rejection of the King

4th Sermon (Matthew 18:1-19:2) Principles of the Kingdom

The narrative in Matthew 19:3-23:39 describes the presentation of the King

5th Sermon (Matthew 24-25) Olivet Discourse/Future Return of the King

The narrative in Matthew 28:1-15 details the Death and Resurrection of Christ

Now that Jesus is ascended back to Heaven, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 commands the church to carry on the same teaching ministry. We teach people “them” not just lessons or sermons. We teach to transform them not just to inform them.

3. The Promise of His Enduring Presence (Matthew 28:20b) 

As we fulfill the Great Commission Christ promises to be with us in blessing our ministry. This is not just the omnipresence of Christ but the blessing of His approval as we implement the great commission. Paul experienced this presence in Acts 18:9-10.

It has been said that a church’s greatness is not in its seating capacity but in its sending capacity. As we understand and obey Christ’s mission statement God will bless us with disciple making disciples at home and around the world.

Labels are Important

Posted: January 16, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
2

Labels are important. If you don’t think so the next time you have a severe headache just close your eyes and reach into your medicine cabinet and pull out some bottle at random and start drinking or popping the pills. I just hope you don’t grab Imodium.

We use labels all the time outside of Bible interpretation and it doesn’t seem to bother us. We talk about modernism, post-modernism, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, public schools, private schools, and parochial schools.

Jesus used labels to make distinctions between the Herodians (Matthew 22:15), Sadducees (22:23), and the Pharisees (22:41). You do want to be like Jesus don’t you?

If you are going to study theology you must be familiar with labels. Read through the Glossary in any Systematic theology and note how many labels are used. I picked up Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology and started reading the Glossary. Just in the A section are the following labels: adoptionism, amillennialism, annihilationism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Arminianism, and asceticism. Grudem uses over thirty labels.

Although labels like Dispensationalists and Covenant theologians are manmade and not found in the Bible neither are the words rapture and Trinity found in the Bible. I don’t think we are ready to pull these words from our vocabulary.

Using these labels and noting the sharp differences between these two major views is also important because these two views reflect two radically different methods of interpreting Scripture. Do we interpret Scripture literally with the grammatical-historical method or do we interpret Scripture allegorically ignoring the normal sense of language? Is it important to make a distinction between Israel and the Church in hermeneutics? Is a future, literal reign of Christ on earth important? Is the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament covenants necessary? I hope you agree that these distinctions are critical to Biblical interpretation and if you do then it is helpful for us to use labels.

I am not ready to strip off all the labels of the prescriptions I bring home from CVS nor am I ready to discard labels in theology.

Should You Vote for Mormon Mitt Romney?

Posted: January 10, 2012 in News
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, unmasked the deep rift among evangelicals about the possibility of having to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate when he introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit. Some wrongly say Jeffress played the Mormon card with this statement:

“In a few months, when the smoke has cleared, those of us who are evangelical Christians are going to have a choice to make,” Jeffress said. “Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric, or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience, or one who is conservative out of deep conviction? Do we want a candidate who is a good moral person, or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?” To be fair to pastor Jeffress, he never mentioned Romney nor Mormon in his introduction.

This is not just a evangelical issue.

A new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that 25 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

Blogger Bob McCarty wrote the following post that I think helps us put this dilemma into perpective:

“’I’D RATHER BE RULED BY A COMPETENT TURK THAN AN INCOMPETENT CHRISTIAN’

Asked who he would support in the 2008 presidential race, a Southern Baptist friend of mine cited the statement above, made by Martin Luther the protestant reformer who lived five centuries ago, as a partial basis for his decision.

In explaining his decision, my friend cited Jimmy Carter, also a Baptist, as the epitome of an incompetent Christian who served as president of the United States.

So who is the ‘competent Turk’ my Baptist friend say he would support? Republican Mitt Romney, a Mormon.”

I heard a pastor who was preaching on leadership make the following observation: Suppose you have a brain tumor and there are two possible surgeons. You interview the first. He has a big black Bible on his desk. He gives you his testimony and has prayer with you. You ask him, “Doc, what is the percentage of patients who are living one year after you perform brain surgery. He answers, “85 % of the patience that I perform surgery on who have a tumor like your tumor is living one year later.” You interview the second brain surgeon. He has no Bible. He is an atheist. You ask him the same question. He answers, “99.9%.” Which do you ask? It is obvious to me. I ask the first doctor to come to the OR, stand in the corner and pray while the second performs the brain surgery.

Mike Duran applied this principle to other areas of life where we may already practice choosing a competent unbeliever over an incompetent believer. We probably would choose

  • “A competent atheist CPA is better than an incompetent Christian CPA
  • A competent Hindu heart surgeon is better than an incompetent Christian heart surgeon
  • A competent Kabbalist mechanic is better than an incompetent Christian mechanic
  • A competent Wiccan carpenter is better than an incompetent Christian carpenter
  • A competent Darwinian police officer is better than an incompetent Christian police officer”
I would prefer the Tim Tebow of the Presidential candidates, Rick Perry, was the Republican candidate, if he were electable, but it doesn’t look like this will be the case.
Apparently Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, agrees with the alleged Martin Luther statement because he has endorsed Romney.
The former Arkansas governor said, “I think Republicans and conservatives and the Tea Party need to get behind him and say, ‘You may not be our first choice, but between you and Obama, I’ll vote 40 times to get you elected.”

Should Baptism by Immersion be Required for Church Membership. The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 3)

Posted: January 9, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1

Sam Storm disagrees with Dever on the Lord’s Supper

Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan’s paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.

As best I can tell (and I’m open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer’s) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of “disobedience” and “unrepentant sin” (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord’s Table.

Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I’m disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord’s Table on such grounds.

I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don’t know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be “Together for the Gospel” rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord’s Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

Let’s be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ’s “presence” (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied “the forgiveness of sins” that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord’s Table we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ’s redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be “together” or “united” for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed “togetherness” or “unity” when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

In effect, this is the message that is sent: “Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like “together” or “united” or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.

For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, “We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save,” calls into serious question the significance of the word “together”.

I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.

One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: “The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.

In a similar vein, another comment asked: “why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?”

Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.

In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.

In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.

Does anyone see anything askew in this picture? I’d love to hear your comments.

Sam

Should Baptism be Required for Church Membership? The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 2)

Posted: January 4, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

As you read these theological heavyweights, answer these important church polity questions for yourself: Should our church allow unbaptized candidates be church members? Should our church allow unbaptized by immersion quests to participate in the Lord’s Supper?

Here is Piper’s Response to Grudem changed position:

No, Wayne, this is not true. I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism.

I would say to them: “Brothers, I think you are not baptized. But you believe on biblical grounds as you see them, with as much humility and openness to truth as God has given you, that you are baptized. Your understanding of baptism does not imply that Christ’s command may be neglected or that infant sprinkling is regenerating. You give good evidence of being born again and that you embrace Christ as your Savior and Lord and Treasure, and you manifest an authentic intention, on the basis of that faith, to follow Jesus as Lord and obey his teachings. Therefore, since there is good evidence that you are members of the Body of Christ, you may be members of this local expression of that body. But understand this: I will spend the rest of my ministry trying to persuade you that you and your children should follow through on the full obedience to Jesus and be baptized. In admitting you, I do not give up on my view of baptism. That is the whole point. We are finding a way to work on this disagreement from inside the body of Christ in its local expression.”

Piper formerly held to the immersion requirement for membership in a sermon May 25, 1997:

One might then ask: should you not then admit to membership those who are truly born again but who were sprinkled as believers? There are two ways to account for why we do not.

1) Should we call a manmade method of baptism “baptism,” if we believe on good evidence that it departs from the form that Christ inaugurated? Would this not run the risk of minimizing the significance that Christ himself invested in the ordinance?

2) Local Christian communities, called churches, are built around shared Biblical convictions, some of which are essential for salvation and some of which are not. We do not define our covenant life together only by the narrowest possible set of beliefs one must have to be saved. We believe rather that the importance of truth and the authority of Scripture are better honored when communities of Christian faith define themselves by clusters of Biblical convictions and stand by them, rather than redefining the meaning of membership each time one of their convictions is disputed. When different Christian communities can do this while expressing love and brotherly affection for other believers, both truth and love are well-served. For example, the fact that many of the speakers we invite to the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors could not be members of this church says that we take love and unity seriously and we take truth seriously.

Which non-essentials will be included from generation to generation in defining various communities depends largely on varying circumstances and varying assessments of what truths need to be emphasized.

Mark Dever jumped into the fray saying not only would he not allow Ligon Duncan to be a member of his church because he was not baptized as a believer, he would not allow him to participate in the Lord’s Supper.

Sam Brown has stated: “Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan’s paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist.”

Ligon Duncan, on the other hand, is a Presbyterian paedo-baptist. Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Dever has now posted briefly about his views:

Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:

Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]. Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P’s apparent “generosity” about membership. That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord’s Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ). John P wants us to admit to the Lord’s Table those that he and we all agree are not baptized. John has no doubt that infant baptism is not baptism. He is solid on that point. But I think that actually leaves his position unusually open to other difficulties–knowingly admitting the unbaptized to regular communion. I simply don’t want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus’ commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus’ commands). I especially don’t want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now. Baptism precedes the Lord’s Table.


The Baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3) Part Two

Posted: January 4, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , ,
0

I was baptized twice before I was saved. Once after VBS. The second time I was baptized, it was after some of us young people made false professions of faith in a church service. Finally, when I was genuinely saved at age 18, I then followed the Lord in believer’s baptism. The first two were duds, blanks, and empty of meaning. The last was an act of obedience that God blessed.

The importance of baptism is seen in the prerequisite for baptism and the person who was baptized.

I. The Prerequisite for Baptism (Matthew 3:1-12)

A. Only the repentant could be baptized.

John preached repentance. Repentance means to change your mind which results in turning from sin. We must change our mind about ourselves (we are sinners) and Christ.

John’s baptism caused a stir as seen in 3:4-6. Even though John was called the Baptist, he was not your typical Baptist preacher. He did not preach in a three-piece suit. He wore a camel hair mini shirt with a leather girdle. This is not what drew a crowd. I doubt if John’s hairy legs were provocative. He immersed Jews. In the OT only Gentile proselytes were immersed because they were considered unclean. A Gentile would make a profession of faith. Males would be circumcised. Then the gentile who was considered unclean would cleanse himself by immersing himself with a spiritual bath. John preached to the Jews, “It is not just gentiles who are spiritually unclean so are you.”

B. The unrepentant will be judged (3:7-12)

John refused to baptize the religionists who did not think they needed repentance (3:7-10).

There are two future baptisms that involve no water in 3:11-12. For future believers there is the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Today the baptism of the Spirit takes place at conversion (1 Corinthians 12:13). For the unsaved who do not repent there is a baptism of fire in the future judgment when the unsaved will be immerse in fire for eternity.

II. The Person who was Baptized (3:13-17)

All four Gospel writers mention Jesus’ baptism and together give us the complete picture of the importance of His baptism.

1) Mark informs us that Jesus came from Nazareth to Jordan river. Jesus travelled three days to be baptized (Mark 1:9).

2) Luke adds that Jesus publically was baptized (Luke 3:21).

3) John says that the Baptist knew he was baptizing the Son on God (John 1:28) and that knowledge was probably part of the reason he was hesitant to baptize Him.

4) Matthew gives the reason why Jesus was baptized.

A. Why was Jesus baptized?

Not because He was sinful. As has been said, John had refused to baptize the Pharisees because they were unworthy and now he refuses to baptize Jesus because He is too worthy (3:14). Before John baptized Jesus, John declared, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). How could baptize Jesus with the baptism of repentance who would take away sin?

Jesus was baptized because it was right to be baptized. Just as the Jews needed to identify with John’s Kingdom message so did Jesus as their Messianic King. Jesus set an example of obedience. This was Jesus’ first public act. Unlike the imputed righteousness in Paul’s epistles, righteousness in Matthew refers to practical righteousness as in Matthew 1:19 when Joseph thought he must do what was right in divorcing his out of wedlock pregnant bride to be.

It is right for believers to be baptized. In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus commanded the church to baptize. The early church followed Christ’s example and obeyed Christ’s command. F. F. Bruce says there are no unbaptized believers in the book of Acts. Neither should there be unbaptized believers in our churches.

B. How was Jesus baptized?

Practically baptism means to immerse, submerge or dip as in Luke 16:24. John was called the Baptist because introduced a new method. In Matthew 3:6, the text says that the Jews “were baptized of him in the Jordon” not “beside” the Jordon nor “with” the Jordon as in pouring or sprinkling but “in” as in immersing. “In the OT they washed only for religious significance. John immersed.

Doctrinally baptism means to identify. Jesus used the word “baptize” only two more times and both referred to His death on the cross (Luke 12:50; Mark 10:38).

Our baptism pictures our identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection according to Romans 6:1-4. Only immersion properly portrays the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

Our baptism also identifies us with a local church according to Acts 2:41-42. When we get saved and baptized we are publically committing ourselves to be disciples of Christ. The command of the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is to make disciples. We are not just getting all wet in water we are getting immersed into the life of the church. On the day of Pentecost the believers were baptized and joined the church and sat under the apostles teaching (Acts 2:40-41). Church membership is part of discipleship. It is our public commitment to discipleship.

C. What were the Results of Jesus’ Baptism?

Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit in 3:16. As Jesus was coming up out of the water in obedience at that precise moment the Holy Spirit was coming down to empower Him for His public ministry. Some call this a theocratic anointing just as David received in order to be Israel’s king (1 Samuel 16).

In Matthew 12:28, Jesus said He cast out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit. In Luke 4:18, Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel.” Obedience in our lives will also unleash God’s power.

Jesus was also approved by the Father in 3: 17. At the same time the Holy Spirit came down from Heaven God the Father spoke approvingly from Heaven. Our obedience pleases God. There is no higher nor important accomplishment in our lives. With God’s help we can bring Him pleasure: “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).

The Trinity showed up at Jesus’ baptism at the beginning of Jesus’s public ministry. Jesus also included the Trinity at the end of His public when He commanded His disciples to make disciples by winning sinners to Christ and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Baptism sounds important!

Should Baptism by Immersion be Required for Church Membership? The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 1)

Posted: January 3, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

If you had a couple came to your church who wanted to join, and they had only been baptized as infants, would you allow them to unite with your church fellowship? A few years ago this very issue sparked a debate between several heavy weight theologians: John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Dever and Albert Mohler.

John Piper argues that believers who have not been baptized by immersion, such as pedobaptism, should be allowed to join a Baptist church. Wayne Grudem disagrees. He has written that baptism by immersion 0r credobaptism should be requisite for church membership.

What is ironic in this debate is that both theologians formerly held to the opposite view. Grudem’s former belief is found in his first edition of Systematic Theology first published in 1994.

Wayne Grudem urged both pedobaptists and credobaptists “to come to a common admission that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith, and that they are willing to live with each other’s views on this matter and not allow differences over baptism to be a cause for division within the body of Christ.” Grudem used the example of the Evangelical Free Church in America (EFCA), which does not endorse one view over the other.

In a footnote, Grudem added, “Baptists and paedobaptists use very similar procedures as they seek to have a church membership consisting of believers only, and both love and teach and pray for their children as most precious members of the larger church family who they hope will someday become true members of the body of Christ.”

When Wayne Grudem changed his position on this in his 2004 edition of Systematic Theology and stated only immersed believers should be granted church membership.

Here is Wayne Grudem’s revised statement found on pages 982-983:

Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism? In spite of many years of division over this question among Protestants, is there a way in which Christians who differ on baptism can demonstrate greater unity of fellowship? And is there a way that progress can be made in bringing the church closer to unity on this question?

Much progress in this regard has already been made. Christians who differ over baptism already demonstrate their unity in Christ through individual fellowship, Bible studies and prayer groups in their communities, occasional joint worship services, cooperation in city and regional evangelistic campaigns, joint support of many mission agencies and other parachurch groups, joint sponsorship of youth activities, pastors’ fellowship groups, and so forth. Although baptism remains a difference, that difference does not generally lead to harmful divisions. In fact, most Christians seem to realize that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.

A very few denominations have decided that they would allow both views of baptism to be taught and practiced within their denominations. The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) does this, for example, as a result of a “compromise” reached in 1950 when the denomination was formed from two different groups that had different views on baptism. The EFCA allows ordination for pastors who hold to believer’s baptism and for pastors who hold to infant baptism. And they allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants in a Christian church, without requiring them to be baptized as believers before joining the church. If some parents want to have their infant child baptized and the local pastor does not hold to infant baptism, the local church invites some other Evangelical Free Church pastor who holds to infant baptism to come and baptize the infant.

Although the Evangelical Free Church continues as a strong, healthy denomination today, there still remain some difficulties inherent in this position. One is that there can be a tendency to minimize the importance of baptism: since members disagree on this topic, it is easier not to talk about it much or emphasize its importance.

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that it is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Notes

1. I realize that some readers will object to this sentence and will say that baptism is very important because of what the differing positions represent: differing views of the nature of the church. Many Baptists would argue that practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a church made up of believers only, and many paedobaptists would argue that not practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a covenant community which includes the children of believers.

I would encourage those who reason this way to consider how much they hold in common with evangelical believers on the other side of this issue — not necessarily with those far from them on other matters as well, but especially with those on the other side who agree with them on most other aspects of the Christian life. Many Baptists do encourage and demonstrate a valued place for their children within their churches, and many paedobaptists do pray for the salvation of their baptized children with the same fervency with which Baptist parents pray for the salvation of their unbaptized children. Regarding church membership, evangelical paedobaptists do require a believable profession of faith before children can become full members of the church (their term is “communicant members”; that is, those who take Communion). They also require a believable profession of faith before any adults are allowed to join the church.

When these procedures are functioning well, both Baptists and paedobaptists use very similar procedures as they seek to have a church membership consisting of believers only, and both love and teach and pray for their children as most precious members of the larger church family who they hope will someday become true members of the body of Christ.

2. I did not realize this difficulty when I first published this book in 1994. I have revised this entire section for the 2007 printing.

John Piper took Grudem to task over his changed postion on baptism by immersion as a requirement for church membership which formerly was Piper’s position at Bethlehem Baptist Church. In my next post I will give Piper’s rebuttal.


Older Entries