Baptism, Baptist History, and Church Membership

Both Dr. Mohler and Justin Taylor have posted today on the direction John Piper has led Bethlehem Baptist Church on the issue of Baptism and Church Membership. Mohler mentions that some allege that Calvinism may lead Baptists away from believer’s baptism. Baptist history can help us here.

Tom Nettles (The Baptists, 138–42) describes how the “Father of Particular Baptists” (i.e., Calvinistic Baptists), William Kiffin (c. 1616–1701), engaged in controversy with John Bunyan over the latter’s move toward open church membership. Like Piper today, Bunyan wanted to allow non-baptized persons who could give sufficient evidence of having been born again to be members of his church. Nettles notes, “Consistent apostolic practice, according to Kiffin, is the same as biblical regulation. The apostles never admitted anyone to the breaking of bread without the initiatory ordinance of Baptism” (140). Nettles explains,

Although Bunyan did not accept infant baptism and taught that none but those whose faith was clearly articulated and experientially credible should be admitted to baptism, his practice of communion tended to render baptism itself unnecessary. . . . How strange, Kiffin contended, that the supposed loving practice of a Christian minister tends to the overthrow of the throne rights of the Sovereign. Christ commands baptism, but Bunyan says that it is but a minor thing and can be dispensed with. . . . That regeneration by the Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ far exceeds baptism in importance in no sense makes dispensable the divine command or the absolutely consistent apostolic practice of baptism (141–42).

It seems that William Kiffin’s response to John Bunyan speaks to both the situation at Bethlehem Baptist Church and to those who cite it as evidence that being Baptist is incompatible with being Reformed. One of Kiffin’s arguments was that Bunyan was violating the regulative principle (something usually only held by reformed people). Interestingly, one Presbyterian has recently written to defend the regulative principle against “the charge that consistency will make us all either exclusive psalm singers or Reformed Baptists!” (from Derek Thomas’s essay in Give Praise to God, 91). Such a statement gives the lie to any claim that being Baptist cannot be consistent with being Reformed. In fact, it is the Reformed who are not Baptist who are inconsistent. The early Baptists Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, and Benjamin Cox joined together in a writing project that argued this very point, saying to the paedobaptists, “But your Infant baptisme is a religious worship, for which there is no command, nor any example, written in the Scripture of truth; Ergo, your Infant baptisme is Will-worship, and unlawfull” (Nettles, The Baptists, 159, quoted from Benjamin Cox, Hanserd Knollys, and William Kiffin, A Declaration Concerning the Publike Dispute. . .Concerning Infants-Baptisme [London: published privately, 1645], 8.).

How to Share the Gospel with a Muslim

There are, of course, many ways, but Thabiti Anyabwile posted a great letter in the comments section of the last post. You can view it here (scroll down to “Thabiti says”).

The Greatest Danger Facing the Church

Is probably not what most of us expect. We expect some sort of direct challenge from without, something like The Da Vinci Code. But I think the greatest danger that we face is from within, and I think it comes from well meaning pastors.

How could well meaning pastors pose the greatest threat to evangelical churches today?

Do they deny the truth?

No, the pastors who pose the greatest threat to the church today will all confess belief in the right things. They will say they believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, that Jesus saves, and even that Jesus is the only way of salvation.

So how can these guys who mean well and make the good confession pose such a threat to the church?

Many pastors are a threat to their churches because they show from what they say and do that they do not understand what Christianity is. They think Christianity is the best form of therapy. They think Christianity is about self-help. They think Christianity is about better marriages, better parent-child relations, better attitudes and performance at work, and on and on. You can see that this is what they think because this is what they preach. Fundamentally, they think that Christianity is about success here and now. Also, for them, when it comes to how we do church, what the Bible says does not matter. What works best is what we should do.

But Christianity is not primarily about any of that. Christianity is primarily about the Gospel: about how a holy God has created a good world, in which the humans he made to worship him and enjoy communion with him have rejected him as King and sought to set themselves up as god in his place. Christianity is about these humans deserving the almighty wrath of God, and instead of judging them God sends his Son Jesus to take the punishment rebels deserve. Christianity is about telling this true story in the words of the Bible so that by the power of the Holy Spirit people come to see the world and themselves correctly.

Christianity is about the Triune God and the two natures of Christ. Christianity holds that humans are hopeless sinners but God has sent the Savior. Christianity is about the Holy Spirit supernaturally causing people to be born again so that they love this story and find in it their hope and joy. Christianity is about trusting the Word of God with all our hearts and not leaning on our own understanding—or our own ideas about what works or what is relevant. Christianity is about longing for the return of Christ, who, when he comes, will set up his Kingdom, which means that this is not our home.

Pastors who present Christianity as therapy and self-help do not present Christianity. They are like the liberals that J. Gresham Machen denounced. Machen said that people who don’t believe the Bible should be honest and stop calling themselves Christians because they have in fact created a new religion that is not to be identified with Christianity.

Similarly, the promoters of the American religion of self-help and therapeutic pop-psychology ought to be honest: they don’t believe the Bible is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). If they believed that the Bible really does contain everything we need to be saved and to live lives that are pleasing to God, they would preach the Bible from their pulpits. Not only would they preach the Bible trusting that God has revealed what he thinks his people need, trusting that God knows better than they do what is relevant, they would organize their churches according to the dictates of the Bible rather than the dictates of the market analysis and what works in the corporate world.

So how do you avoid winding up with a pastor who will harm the church by turning Christianity into the American religion of self help therapy?

1. Look at the biblical qualifications for men in the ministry (1 Tim 3:1–7; Tit 1:5–9), and ask pastoral candidates direct questions about whether they meet these qualifications. Ask the man’s references whether he lives up to these statements. Do not assume that every candidate will meet these qualifications, and don’t assume that every candidate understands these qualifications. Ask him to explain the qualifications.

2. Since the feature that most distinguishes the qualifications for an elder (pastor) from the qualifications for a deacon is that the elder be “apt to teach” (1 Tim 3:2), pay close attention to his teaching. Seek to discern whether this man “holds firmly to the trustworthy word as taught,” whether he knows enough theology “to be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Tit 1:9, ESV).

3. Based on what you have heard of his preaching, ask yourself these questions:

a. Was the main point of the text he was preaching the main point of his sermon? (If he did not preach a text, happily remove his name from consideration).

b. Does God rest heavily upon this man? Is it evident that he fears God? Can you tell that he knows that “teachers will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1)? Does he “tremble at the Word of God” (Isa 66:2)? Is the Word of God like a burning in his bones that he cannot hold in (Jer 20:9)?

c. Does he think that his main task is the explanation of the Bible, which is useful and relevant (2 Tim 3:16), or does he think that he needs to organize the Bible according to his wisdom in order for it to be useful and relevant?

d. Is this man going to help us to understand and live on the great truths of Christianity?

e. Is this man a theologian, or is he a just a gifted speaker with a good heart?

f. Do I trust this man’s ability to interpret the Bible and tell me what it means?

4. Ask direct questions about what he understands pastoral ministry to be about:

a. Is pastoral ministry about “the ministry of the Word and prayer” (Acts 6:4), or is it about building a massive corporation that is successful by worldly standards?

b. Is pastoral ministry about the power of the Spirit of God through the Word of God, or is it about “persuasive speech” and slick presentations? (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–5).

c. Is the great commission (Matt 28:18–20) about notching decisions on our belts or about making disciples who have been taught all that Jesus commanded?

d. Are Jesus’ instructions about church discipline (Matt 18:15–18) to be taken seriously or is he not going to practice church discipline since it might be bad for business?

e. Is church membership mainly about a big number for us to report, or should church members really take the “one another’s” in the New Testament seriously?

f. Are the main tasks of pastoral ministry prayer, teaching, and shepherding souls, or is pastoral ministry more about growing the business and managing a conglomerate of campuses?

g. What are his plans for doing evangelism?

h. What are his plans for doing discipleship?

i. What are his plans for praying for the members of the church?

Paul told the elders (that is, the pastors) of the church in Ephesus that wolves would arise from within their ranks to destroy the flock (Acts 20:29–30). Jesus said that the false prophets would be like wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15). It might be hard to recognize these well meaning pastors as wolves, but Jesus said we would know them by their fruits (Matt 7:16–20).

Let me add that I am not necessarily saying that every pastor who does not preach the Bible and who arranges the church according to the business model rather than the biblical model is intentionally trying to destroy the flock. No doubt some of these guys are evil. They are in the ministry for their own advancement, they don’t like the Bible, and so they preach the religion they prefer and they pursue church according to their preferences. But not all are openly hostile to Christianity.

So what do we say about well meaning pastors who propagate an un-Christian, un-biblical, worldly kind of Christianity? I think the words that Jesus spoke about those who corrupted the Old Covenant are fitting: “Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit” (Matt 15:14, ESV).

Let us heed the words of Jesus about what a good shepherd does, “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Only Jesus can lay down his life for the sheep in the way he did at the cross. But his under-shepherds can lay down their lives for the sheep as they take up their crosses and follow in the footsteps Jesus, loving, teaching, discipling, evangelizing, praying, and protecting the sheep from the wolves. No servant is greater than his master (John 15:20).

Prayer of the Month

The Lord blessed me with a good idea the other day, and perhaps it will bless you as well. I decided to pick a New Testament prayer and try to pray through it every day of the month. This will probably lead to the memorization of the text, which never hurts, and I hope that it will deepen my prayers. Praying inspired prayers is a sure way to pray in accordance with God’s will! So here are the texts I picked for the next year:

July, Ephesians 3:14–21

August, Philippians 1:9–11

September, Colossians 1:9–12

October, 1 Thessalonians 3:11–13

November, 2 Thessalonians 1:11–12

December, 1 Timothy 1:12–17

January, Philemon 1:6

February, Jude 1:24–25

March, 2 Corinthians 13:7–9

April, Ephesians 6:14–20

May, 1 Thessalonians 5:23–25

June, Hebrews 13:18–21

Theology in the Local Church

I was extremely encouraged to read this news story, which tells of a 4,300 member church that “has 480 people who participate in weekly theological reading groups that study through Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.”

Wow! May the Lord bless us all with so many people willing to engage in serious theological study!

Dallimore on Why He Wrote the Biography of Whitefield

“Yea, this book is written in the desire—perhaps in a measure of inner certainty—that we shall see the great Head of the Church once more bring into being His special instruments of revival, that He will again raise up unto Himself certain young men whom He may use in this glorious employ. And what manner of men will they be? Men mighty in the Scriptures, their lives dominated by a sense of the greatness, the majesty and holiness of God, and their minds and hearts aglow with the great truths of the doctrines of grace. They will be men who have learned what it is to die to self, to human aims and personal ambitions; men who are willing to be ‘fools for Christ’s sake’, who will bear reproach and falsehood, who will labour and suffer, and whose supreme desire will be, not to gain earth’s accolades, but to win the Master’s approbation when they appear before His awesome judgment seat. They will be men who will preach with broken hearts and tear-filled eyes, and upon whose ministries God will grant an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit, and who will witness ‘signs and wonders following’ in the transformation of multitudes of human lives” (Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield: The Life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the Eighteenth-Century Revival, vol. 1 Banner of Truth, 1970, 16).

O God please raise up such men. . .

Are Big Churches Bad?

I get the definite impression that many people who are careful about theology and earnest to obey the commands and examples of the Bible think that bigger churches are bad churches. Several observations are relevant here:

First and foremost, let’s remember that the Jerusalem Church had over 3,000 after the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). The Lord was adding to their number daily (2:47), and they were all together (2:44). In Acts 4:4, the number of the men is about 5,000, and then Luke resorts to words like “multitudes” (5:14) and “increasing in number” (6:1) and “multiplied greatly . . . many . . .” (6:7). [Lest those of us in smaller settings become discouraged, let’s also recall that Paul seems to have had a pretty small crowd in Philippi (Acts 16:12–13) and in Athens “some men joined him and believed” (17:34)].

Second, let’s observe that the Apostles apparently remain with the Jerusalem church (Acts 8:1, everyone is scattered except the Apostles). Even though the Jerusalem church has Apostles, however, it also has “elders” (see Acts 11:30; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 21:18). These “elders” are apparently regarded by Luke as equivalent to “pastors” and “bishops” (see Acts 20:17, 28). The most natural reading of this evidence about the Jerusalem church is that there is one church, which does have a hierarchy—James seems to respected by all (Acts 15:13–21). But this hierarchy looks “organic” rather than “institutionalized” (in other words, James seems to be first among equals because of his wisdom and spiritual authority). I take it that the Apostles and elders shepherded the Jerusalem church through oversight, teaching, and correction, and I take it that they did a good job of it (see especially Acts 2:42–47).

Third, let’s remember that some of our heroes in the faith have pastored pretty big churches. In his excellent book, The Baptists, Tom Nettles notes that Benjamin Keach’s (1640–1704) church eventually had to move to a meeting place that would hold nearly a thousand people. And how many thousands were in Spurgeon’s church?

So we must not automatically conclude that big is bad. Worldly is bad. Unbiblical is bad. But big, if God-centered, Christ-exalting, Bible-saturated, disciple-making, and suffering for the cross is certainly blessed!

Mohler on the SBC

I've been eagerly anticipating this since I heard whispers of it at Together for the Gospel.

Dr. Mohler has begun a new blog that will discuss issues facing the Southern Baptist Convention: Conventional Thinking. Let's pray that God will give him strong eyesight and insight to lead us well for many years to come. 

HT: Justin Taylor

The Blogosphere Gains a Bock!

Some people clearly do not respect the blogosphere. For them, blogs are operated by dropouts who are unable to get themselves published in “legitimate” arenas. When these people refer to “bloggers,” the word is spoken with the same scorn with which they dismiss the “punk kids” or the “ignorant malcontents” who are simply not worth the time it takes to engage.

I think this attitude fails to recognize the revolutionary impact that the blogosphere has had and will continue to have, and I think it also reflects a failure to approach “bloggers” with a pastoral heart that seeks to show them love and contribute to the process of their discipleship.

In contrast to the dismissive response of some, other prominent evangelicals have recognized the opportunity afforded by the blogosphere, and by entering into it with thoughtful and quality contributions, they elevate the discussion and engage the contemporary scene.

Quality blogs are run by the likes of Al Mohler, Russ Moore, Denny Burk, Justin Taylor, Mike Bird, Michael Haykin, and many others. Now Darrell Bock has recently joined the fray. Interestingly enough, Bock is not only an NT prof but a professor of Spiritual Development and Culture.

Baptist History, Multiple Services, and Multiple Campuses

Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity (Beginnings in Britain), recounts a debate between the early Baptist Hanserd Knollys and one of his Presbyterian contemporaries, John Bastwick:

Bastwick argued that the Jerusalem church had only one body of elders over several assemblies or congregations. Believers meeting at the Temple in Acts 2:44, 46 and at Solomon’s Porch in Acts 5:12 proves for Bastwick that different groups of believers met in various places under the authority of the one group of elders. Knollys did not argue against the existence of one body of elders. Instead, he used the very verses backing Bastwick’s argument against him. In Acts 2:44, Scripture states, ‘All that believed were together.’ Verse 46 states that they were at the temple. Acts 5:12 reads, ‘And they were all with on accord in Solomon’s Porch.’ These are but one congregation (note the use of ‘all’) meeting in different areas, not many congregations in different areas (Nettles, 158).

We have seen multiple services in Baptist churches for a long time, and I wonder if churches that do multiple servises—where essentially a different congregation gathers for worship at each different service—have ever paused to consider whether there is any biblical warrant for having one group of pastors serve more than one congregation?

We are now seeing a sort of movement among large Baptist churches where churches have not only multiplied services/congregations, they have multiplied campuses.

Let me be quick to say that I am all for multiplication. Praise God for the growth of the church. But if we multiply services/congregations/campuses and do not ALSO match these services/congregations/campuses with their own pastors, have we maintained a cherished Baptist distinctive: the autonomy of the local church? Have we implicitly taken a step in the direction of Roman Catholic polity—where a Bishop presides over a group of churches? Have we even stopped to consider whether a new service/congregation/campus should be matched by a new set of pastors for that local church? Have we thought about what our Baptist forbears have done with these kinds of issues? Have we considered what the Bible has to say on this?