What Works or What the Bible Says?

In an insightful review of Chris Seay’s Faith of My Fathers, Bruce Keisling analyzes, exposes, and cautions against the pragmatism that can be seen in both the “Revivalistic Baptist” church methods of yesteryear and the “Emerging” methods that might prove to be this generation’s fad. I commend to you this review. May it be another spur toward a more biblical and theological ministry in our day. If we’re going to contextualize, we have to have something we’re contextualizing. If we abandon the Bible and theology and say we’re contextualizing our ministry, all we’re really doing is being conformed to the spirit of the age.

Naming the Sin of Liberal Christianity

Wow! This article by Charlotte Allen is so forthright it almost feels like a slap in the face. I can’t believe this piece, called “Liberal Christianity Is Paying for Its Sins,” got published in the Los Angeles Times.

I hope that all the evangelical scholars, teachers, and Ph.D. students who are so excited about flirting with liberalism will read this. They’ll probably be offended, but it might do them some good.

HT: Denny Burk

Baptism, Church Membership, and “Together for the Gospel”

Baptism and church membership go together. Baptism symbolizes that a person has been baptized into Christ Jesus, specifically, into his death (Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3). It is faith that unites us to Christ (Gal 3:26; Col 2:12). Baptism is a picture of this union with Christ, as it shows that what has happened to Jesus has happened to us because he is our substitute: we were buried with him in baptism and raised to live a new life (Rom 6:4). Someone who has not been united to Christ by faith cannot be truly baptized. You can put them under water, but without faith they’re just getting wet.

Baptism is not some magical process that ritualistically saves people who don’t have faith, and people can have true faith even if they never get baptized. But this does not change what baptism is. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ by faith that marks the initiation of a person into the body of Christ. People who are not part of the body of Christ by faith can get wet, but they cannot be baptized.

Again, Baptism symbolizes that we are united to Christ by faith: what has happened to him has happened to us. He died and was buried; we died and were buried in him. He was raised from the dead; we will be raised from the dead (Rom 6:1–9). If we got wet before we had faith, was our union with Christ pictured? Baptists do not believe it was. Baptists believe that Baptism is an initiatory rite that shows in picture form what is spiritually true: by faith, the baptized person is in Christ. Baptism is a public picture of union with Christ, and the baptized person is now part of the body of Christ, a member of the church.

To be a member of the church is to be a part of Christ’s body. It is true that not everyone who professes faith and gets baptized turns out to be a true believer (see 1 John 2:19). Church discipline functions to encourage true believers to be what they are, and it purges those who are not true believers from the membership roll. Without membership, we cannot practice church discipline, which the Bible clearly teaches.

Should we confuse membership by baptizing people who are clearly not united to Christ by faith (infants)? Baptists say no. We should not cultivate a situation where people who are not united to Christ by faith are regarded as members of Christ’s body.

If we have people who have not been baptized and do not believe they need to be baptized who want to join our church, should we muddy the waters of church discipline by accepting as members people who are not in submission to the church’s understanding of the Bible’s instructions regarding Baptism? Doesn’t this set a dangerous precedent for other points on which people might differ with the church’s understanding of biblical teaching?

We are not saying that non-Baptists are not Christians, but we are saying that because of our understanding of the Bible, because of the way that binds our consciences, and because of our love for them and desire that they align themselves with the Bible’s teaching, we cannot welcome them as members of a Baptist church. On the last day, we believe refusing them church membership will be seen as the most loving thing that we could do for them because we are thereby urging them to become fully obedient.

People who are part of the body of Christ by faith and who have not been baptized (e.g., regenerate paedobaptists) are failing to follow biblical instruction. We all fail to follow biblical instruction, but should failure to follow biblical instruction be brushed aside? Should we conclude that certain failures really don’t matter?

No one should think that refusing to follow biblical instructions on baptism is as offensive or hurtful as adultery (here I am responding to a comment on a previous post). The damage that different sins do, and the various consequences different sins have, point to their relative heinousness in God’s sight.

Ultimately, only God knows why some believers do not become convicted that they are responsible before God to be baptized as believers by immersion. We are not in a position to conclude that not being baptized by immersion as a believer is a sign of immaturity (again, responding to a comment on an earlier post).

What those of us who are convictional Baptists do know is that it is our responsibility to follow the Bible’s instructions and help others to do so. This is loving. This is pursuing unity.

As for uniting with non-Baptists at an event like Together for the Gospel, we can simply observe that Together for the Gospel is not a church. No one is going to get baptized at Together for the Gospel, there is no membership in Together for the Gospel, and I am confident that (as long as the current leadership is in place) we will never be invited to participate in communion at one of the conferences.

We can find much to admire and agree with in our non-Baptist brethren, but we are Baptists because we do not agree with them on ecclesiological issues. I close with a restatement of Mohler’s theological triage:

First order issues: things that make us Christian (Authority of Scripture, Trinity, Two Natures of Jesus, necessity of the new birth, justification by faith, substitionary atonement).

Second order issues: things that make us divide from other Christians (who gets baptized and how, what happens in the Lord’s supper)—disagreements over these issues do not result in the conclusion that those with whom we disagree are not Christian, but we do conclude that we cannot worship together in the same church.

Third order issues: theological disagreements over which Christians do not need to divide (when does the rapture happen? Is there going to be a millennium? Etc.).

Why Don’t Baptists Commune with Presbyterians?

In a recent comment a friend of mine raised the issue of whether the requirements for membership in the local church ought to be the same as the requirements for membership in the universal church. I take this to mean: we think that someone is saved if they make a profession of faith and show evidence of regeneration. Why are these not also the requirements for church membership? Why should one have to be baptized as a believer by immersion in order to become a member of a church?

Some other friends have sought further discussion as to why a Baptist would only welcome believers who have been baptized as believers by immersion to partake of communion. So here is my attempt to explain why Baptists don’t commune with Presbyterians—in other words, here is my attempt to explain why Baptists and Presbyterians form separate churches.

Baptists are convinced that when Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them . . .” (Matt 28:19), he meant for people who have become disciples—people who have been born again and voluntarily associated with other believers to obey everything he commanded (28:20)—to be baptized. Historically the Baptists separated from state churches, into which all persons born in the state were baptized as infants. No infant voluntarily associated with other believers. Today, I do not believe that infants are born regenerate or born disciples, so I don’t believe infants should be baptized. Infants are not united to Christ by faith, so infants should not be baptized (see Gal 3:26–29). I do believe that I should raise my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, that I should tell them every day that they need to believe in Jesus, that I should help them memorize Bible verses, but only the Spirit can give them the new birth (John 3:3–8).

The words of Jesus are paralleled by the unbroken example of apostolic practice. Every time you see someone baptized in the New Testament, the person confesses faith in Jesus before they get baptized. Pointing to “household baptisms” does not provide evidence that there were infants in those households who got baptized. After the whole family gets baptized in Acts 16:33, the next verse, 16:34, says the whole household rejoiced having believed in God. Translations render verse 34 differently: the ESV and RSV make it sound like only the jailer believed, while the HCSB, KJV, NAS, NET, NIV, and NKJV all render the verse as though the whole household believed. Even if the ESV and RSV have it right (and I don’t think they do), the text does not explicitly say that there were infants in the household who were baptized. The household might not have included any infants.

The command of Jesus and the unbroken example of the apostles together indicate that those who believe should be baptized upon their profession of faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord. Since the infant who is sprinkled was not baptized upon profession of faith, the infant was not baptized as a believer. Since the infant was not immersed in water, which is what the word “baptize” means, the infant was not baptized. I know my paedobaptist friends won’t like this, but infant baptism is no baptism. Those “baptized” as infants have in fact not been baptized at all.

This means that any believer who has not been baptized upon profession of faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord is failing to obey the authoritative instruction of the Lord Christ and follow the apostolic pattern.

Many Baptist churches will welcome any believer who happens to be present when the church takes communion to partake. But if the occasional visit turns into regular attendance, and if this means that one who has not been baptized as a believer by immersion is regularly present when the church takes communion, the unbaptized should not be allowed to continue to take communion—because we love them. Baptists believe that church membership is important, and many Baptist statements of faith say that baptism is prerequisite to church membership and participation in the Lord’s supper (see the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, art. 7, for example). This means that Baptists are going to urge all regular attenders to become members, and before one can become a member, one must be baptized by immersion. If a regular attender refuses to become a member, stating that they have been baptized as an infant, because we love people and want them to obey Jesus, we will urge them to bring themselves into line with his words in Matthew 28:19.

If people refuse the loving instruction of the church and refuse to come into line with the words of Jesus and the unbroken example of the apostles, as much as we Baptists may love this person, we cannot allow them to become members of the church and take communion. They have refused to follow Christ and the apostles on this point, they have not submitted to the church’s love and instruction, and the church does not have the right to bypass the instructions of Jesus and the example of the apostles because of concern for people. We love people enough to tell them what we believe to be the truth.  

Church membership is important. We only allow people to become members of churches if they confess faith in Christ as Lord and give evidence of having been born again by repenting of all known sin. We Baptists believe that people who refuse to be baptized as believers by immersion are sinning by not being baptized in accordance with the Bible’s teaching. We are not saying they are not Christians—only God knows the heart. But we are saying that because we submit to the Bible, and because we love them and want what is best for them, we cannot allow them to become members of the church. We believe they are in disobedience on the point of baptism, and we are calling them to repent and be baptized.

I love non-Baptists. Some of my favorite theologians, past and present, are non-Baptists. I am thrilled to see the cooperation between Baptists and non-Baptists at things like “Together for the Gospel.” But I can’t join a Presbyterian church. My convictions on what the Bible says and means won’t let me. And people who have not been baptized as believers by immersion can’t join Baptist churches. This is why we have Presbyterian and Baptist Churches. We must pray and work for unity, but unity has to be unity in the truth. Unity must be found in obedience to the Scriptures.

Great Help for Family Worship

On the post before last, the hymn-writing Pastor Eric Schumacher gave us a link to a helpful family worship book for July through September of 2006. This looks like a great tool, and I’ve printed and intend to use at least parts of it.

Enjoy!

What Is Church 3.0?

Check out Mark Driscoll’s blog to find out.

What Is Regeneration?

I’ve posted before about how we’re catechizing our kids, mainly using The Baptist Catechism edited by John Piper. I’m not sure that we’ll learn all the questions, though. For instance, I’m not certain that the question, “May all men make use of Scripture,” with the answer that all men are not only permitted but required to make use of the Bible, is really relevant to our day. I think this reflects the needed emphasis in the reformation era that everyone can read the Bible—against the Roman Catholic opposition to lay people reading the Bible for themselves. So we’ll probably skip that question and go on to others that I do think are worth learning, devoting ourselves as well to learning Bible verses (and all of those are relevant!).

Some other good topics don’t show up in The Baptist Catechism. I have in mind the lack of a good definition of Regeneration in this particular catechism. There is, however, a good definition of Regeneration in Tom Nettles’ book, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts, and I am trying to drill this one into my son’s brain. I want him to be able to say it now, even though he can’t understand the concepts. Someday he’ll comprehend these things, and I pray he embraces them.

It goes like this:

Q: “What is Regeneration?”

A: “Regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit, by which the heart is renewed, so that it turns from the love of sin to the love of holiness, and from enmity and disobedience to the love and service of God” (Tom Nettles, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts, 24).

I would add some Scripture references to this, such as John 3:3–8; 6:63; Eph 2:1–5; Col 2:11–13; Tit 3:4–7; James 1:18; 1 Pet 1:3; 1:23.

In his new booket, Family Worship, Don Whitney quotes Matthew Henry, who said of family worship: “Here the reformation must begin.”

May the Lord regenerate our children, may he spur us to prayerfully catechize them, and may the reformation begin.

David Wells on Evangelical Pastors

As he describes one of the chapters of No Place for Truth, David Wells writes,

. . .the pastorate has become proffessionalized, . . . the central function of the pastor has changed from that of truth broker to manager of the small enterprises we call churches. To the extent that this tendency has taken root, I have concluded that it is producing a new generation of pastoral disablers (13).

History, Pastors, and Ministry Philosophy

In his brilliant book, Democratic Religion, Prof. Dr. Greg Wills details the way that Baptists in the South used to do church discipline and gives an account of why things changed. One of the main reasons that discipline declined among Southern Baptists was that they shifted from focusing on Bible and theology to focusing on efficiency and progress. Wills explains how pastors reinvented their understanding of the pastoral calling in the late 1800’s:

The pursuit of system and activity entailed a new conception of the pastor. Traditionally, Baptist pastors viewed themselves as custodians of orthodoxy and purity. They expected orthodox preaching to create right belief and pure behavior. Pastors in the New South supplanted the priority of proclaiming truth with that of efficient management of pious workers. (133).

Let’s join together in the prayer that we will see a return to viewing the pastorate as a theological and shepherding office rather than a management office. Let’s pray for pastors who will be custodians of orthodoxy and purity, who will proclaim the Scriptures for the good of people and the glory of God.