Apologetics

The Gospel: Simple but not simplistic! (part 2 of 3)

/ sweetpeacardco

45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it. (Matthew 13:45–6).

In this parable about the kingdom of heaven, or Gospel, we can learn many things. One truth, affirmed by many other passages of Scripture, is that the Gospel is simple but not simplistic. The Gospel, that Jesus came and died for sinners so our sins might be forgiven, and rose victorious from the grave so we might have life eternal—this message— is fit for the simplest peasant and the wisest king. Like Mary pondering Jesus’s birth, it is a sufficient but also an inexhaustible treasure. It is simple (that is straightforward) so that anyone can believe, yet it is also grand and mysterious enough that the humblest theological enquirer will never exhaust or mine completely all of its treasurers. There is enough to drink and be saved, but a deep well that will never run dry as our faith grows and we come to learn more of Jesus, His Gospel and His word.

It is basic yet robust, uncomplicated yet deeply meaningful, etc, etc. It is simple but not simplistic. This is a phrase I use to combat people who err on the extreme either to the left or to the right, and those who want to remain immature in the faith.

There are those who, in seeking a lowest common denominator Christianity, take away from the Gospel, reducing it and by so doing rob it of its inherent glory. These are those who say Jesus died for all (universalism) or that the Gospel is merely that God is love, or that Jesus came simply to teach humans to be good. These are not the Gospel.

Then there are those who correctly believe the Gospel (part 1 or 3) but then go on to add to it denying their correct view, not seeing it is sufficient or wonderful enough. They say ‘yes, but’ and add works to faith, thus nullifying faith. They add to the Gospel and so mar its image.

Whether you take away from it or add to it you distort it so its glory cannot shine and people cannot be saved.

Then even more subtly, but not as destructively, are those who childishly refuse Gospel maturity and cry, ‘just give me the plain and simple Gospel.’ This appears wise, the Gospel is central, it is paramount, it is the core of Biblical Christianity, what could be wrong with such a sentiment? It is this. Such people decry sound teaching and doctrine, they cling to the elementary teachings not wanting to go on to maturity, and are ignorant and void of a desire for the deep things of God (even if easily conveyed). It is a simplistic ignorance that confuses simple and simplistic.

Peter challenges such immature Christians by saying: Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk that by it you may grow up into salvation. (1 Peter 2:2)

Paul likewise told the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 3:1–3a): But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it, And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh.

And the church in Ephesus (Ephesians 4:12–16): 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[a] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

The writer to the Hebrew’s similarly challenged his listeners (Hebrews 5:12–14): For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Our call as Gospel people is to mature in the Gospel, to put down deep roots in Christ (Eph 3:17), to be built up in the holy faith (Jude 20). This is not a call to go beyond the Gospel or forget our great need of it but to mature in it, to learn more of the truth of God in a Gospel-centric way so we stand in even greater wonder of the glorious Gospel! It is to hunger after a deeper knowledge of God’s character, for more of His word, more knowledge of sound doctrine, more of what it means to love and serve Him, all of which can be done in a Gospel-centric way that is simple but not simplistic.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

A 2.5/3 for the Royal Wedding Sermon (and yet a…)

/ sweetpeacardco

A 2.5/3 for the Royal Wedding Sermon (and yet a…)
A number of people I spoke with commented on how “good” the Royal Wedding Sermon was that was preached by Bishop Michael Curry of the Episcopal Church of the USA. If you haven’t seen it you can watch it here:

*This brief analysis is not being offered under the old proud preacher’s adage, “it was a good sermon but I could have preached it better.” It also recognises that where the Word of God is faithfully preached, even if it is not entertaining, we are called to listen remembering the story of Balaam, “if God can speak through an ass…,” he can speak through a faithful preacher, no matter how dull or unpolished, so we must listen.

First point. His rhetoric was great. That he managed to raise a few royal eyebrows and break the homiletic mould of traditional nominal Anglican formality and dryness in a way that captured people’s attention was due to his African-American preaching rhetoric (which I confess I have always appreciated). In terms of public speaking at least, it drew people’s attention and engaged.

Second point. He used lots of Biblical examples and metaphors. He referenced many passages of scripture and unashamedly mentioned God, Jesus, love, the Bible, etc.

My half-point. He used a tablet and appeared “cool.”

Yet despite scoring a 2.5/3, his sermon ultimately receives an F. For all that it has been applauded for we must be discerning and see how it failed, and as such gave a false representation of Jesus, the Gospel and Christianity to millions of viewers, most of whom don’t know Jesus (what a millstone!).

Here are just three examples that should disturb you:

  1. Curry presented the mainline liberal “Gospel” of social initiative or love (works!). You can listen to a likewise disturbing presentation of such things on his website. He is able to arrive at such conclusions by being vague and subjective in all his approaches to the Bible, Christian terms and truth.
  2. Curry does not know what the Gospel is. He says on his website, “If it’s not about love, it’s not about God.” Yet, he neither knows God nor love. He spoke of following Jesus example of love. He spoke of the power of redemptive sacrificial love and that if we loved we could redeem ourselves, others and the world. Yet God, the Gospel and true love are not rooted in such things, but rather “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:10). God’s love is displayed in rescuing sinners through the Cross; faith in the Gospel redeems us not human works or actions.
  3. He also quoted 1 John 4:7b (“whoever loves has been born of God and knows God”) to suggest that if you love in any way you are God’s child in a specific sense (universalism!). John’s context, however, is one of speaking to Christians and of love being a fruit of faith and repentance.

Jesus spoke of false teachers being wolves dressed up in sheep’s clothing. Bishop Curry is a wolf. His ecclesial position, Christian-like language, positivity, worldly popularity are all a guise to spread untruths and heresy. That he did not share any robust Gospel truth should come as no surprise to the discerning viewer because he is leader of one of the most liberal sects in the United States. Curry’s Episcopal Church is under sanction by the worldwide Anglican communion for unorthodox views on marriage and sexuality, something of which he proudly acknowledges he is an advocate for.

If you’d like to read a more in depth article on the sermon I would recommend you click here.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

 

 

The Miracle of Christmas

/ sweetpeacardco

The Virgin Birth is a fundamental belief of the Christian faith. Like the Resurrection, if it is true the Gospel is true and ought to be believed. If it is not true then Christians are to be pitied (1 Cor 15:19).

The Apostle’s Creed summarises the clear New Testament teaching on the Christmas story:

I believe in Jesus Christ, [God’s] only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

“Hail the incarnate deity,” the carol Hark the Herald Angels says; fancy words to say that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, was born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit and so both fully God and fully man, yet without sin. The Bible says “he tabernacled” [pitched His tent] or dwelt among us (John 1:14) enfleshing Himself, taking on human form to become one of us (Phil 2), so as to live the perfect life, die the perfect death, rise from the dead and bodily ascend into heaven, all to become the Saviour of those who’d call upon Him in faith for the forgiveness of their sins. The Incarnation was God’s rescue plan.

Most dismiss Jesus as simply a good moral teacher and not God’s Son and a saviour. As only ¼ of Brits[1] believe in the Virgin Birth[2] here are three answers to common objections and also three reasons to seriously consider the incarnation, Common objections include

  1. It’s unnatural (or biologically impossible)
    1. Objection: Because the virgin birth cannot occur according to the laws of nature it is impossible.
    2. Response: This naturalistic view is blind for it discounts that as part of creation there is a spiritual reality and also that Creation is a closed system unable to be interacted with by the Creator who is sovereign to engage with His creation. In fact it is deistic and thinks such a God could not engage with a world and laws He made, rather than seeing God as the personally involved and the sustainer of His creation (see my sermon on miracles in our Jonah series here from October 8, 2017).
  2. The simplistic view (the NT is simply a primitive religion)
    1. Objection: Primitive religions may have believed such things but they were naïve.
    2. Response (from C.S. Lewis): “A moment’s thought shows this to be foolish, with the story of the virgin birth as a particularly striking example. When Joseph discovered that his fiancée was going to have a baby, he not unnaturally decided to repudiate her. Why? Because he knew just as well as any modern gynecologist that in the ordinary course of nature women do not have babies unless they have lain with men.
    3. “No doubt the modern gynecologist knows several things about birth and begetting which Joseph did not know. But those things do not concern the main point—that a virgin birth is contrary to the course of nature. And Joseph obviously knew that” (Miracles, New York, Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc., p. 48).
  3. A personal God, come on!
    1. Objection: What kind of God, if there is a God, would stoop so low as to be born in a manger and die on a cross?
    2. Response: A personal God and God of love (again see Phil 2). Consider the evidence of the New Testament, the most trustworthy ancient document in the world!

The Virgin Birth is theologically necessary for a number of reasons (not limited to):

  1. It shows salvation is of God and not of man.
  2. It produced the full deity and humanity of Christ, necessary for Him to sympathise with us, relate to us, be an example to us of the perfect man, and live the perfect life we could never live. His deity was necessary that God the Son might die to save us (again so salvation would be of God), so Jesus would be the perfect sacrifice to atone for sin.
  3. It fulfilled Bible prophecies like the one to Abraham (i.e. “seed” or “offspring,” Gen 12), etc.

The Virgin birth is a mystery but a mystery need not be incoherent or illogical, it simply means we cannot know everything about it, but that does not make belief in it unreasonable. If we trust that God has spoken to us through the Bible we must believe in the Virgin Birth. In fact, belief in the Virgin Birth is a sort of test of belief (of orthodoxy), yet not the only one. Ultimately, have you bowed your knee in awe to the God-man Jesus Christ, recognizing Him for who He is, accepting Him as Saviour and submitting to Him as Lord?

We showed the following video, a modern parable on the Incarnation, at one of our Christmas carol services. It helps impress the key points of this blog post:

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

[1] It is not simply modern atheists and liberals who don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, many people throughout history have denied it including the Greeks and the Gnostics.

[2] In 2008 it was 1/3 and I presume this has dipped since this time.

A Question from the Philippines

/ sweetpeacardco

A friend of mine who is a pastor was contacted by a man in the Philippines who was seeking discipleship. As the two have developed a relationship the following question arose. This was my initial answer to assist my friend’s response.

If the Bible teaches that only men are to be pastors, why then do ministries under women often prosper?

Why do unorthodox churches seem to prosper from a worldly perspective?

Why does the church down the road that does preach the Gospel but whose form of church government is not Biblical become flooded with people?

How is it that someone is converted under an unregenerate minister who happens to state the Gospel?

How can it be that a Gospel-centred church that appears to abide by New Testament principles not grow, or even perhaps shrink under persecution?

Some of these questions relate to God’s providence, which can sometimes be mysterious.

Returning to the original question, I would say that because complementarianism[1] vs. egalitarianism[2] is a secondary matter and that above all else the Lord desires people to be saved (primary issue) the Lord at times works through unorthodox means. Complementarians must also remember that some female pastors are sisters in Christ (just like some female [and male!] pastors are not). I think the best example to answer this questions is found in Judges.

Formal positions of leadership in Israel were always male. The case of Deborah (Judges 4:4) appears to be an unusual exception.[3] It appears to be an exception until one sees that Old Covenant prophetess does not equal New Covenant pastor. It appears an exception until “to judge” (which literally means defend) is coupled with her role as prophetess (a woman, in this case, who spoke the word of God, often to people in formal positions of power). In summoning Barak she shows she is not indeed the formal leader in the sense that he is, otherwise she would not have told him to gather the troops (v. 6b). We further see their mutual-leadership in the song of Judges 5. Though Barak ultimately went out into battle he did not get the glory, not because he relied on a woman (the Lord spoke through her![4]) but because he did not assume the role of faith and leadership that he should have (v. 9). As a result the glory of the victory was given to Jael who the Lord used to kill the enemy leader Sisera. The Lord used two faithful women (in this case) who stepped up in the absence of a faithful man, instead of the faithless man, because the Lord’s ultimate aim was deliverance from Israel’s enemies.

This question and the story of Deborah and Barak reminds me of Ezk 20:30, “And I sought for a man among them, that should build up the wall, and stand in the gap [of the wall] before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none.” The Lord is using many sisters in Christ today to accomplish salvation because Christian men are not standing up to the positions of leadership in the home, church and society that God calls them to.

Correct gender roles are not about capability but faithfulness to design. When this is not heeded, it doesn’t mean the Lord won’t use a woman when she steps up into the role of a man, even if this is not the Lord’s ultimate design. Why? Ultimately men and women are called to be faithful to the Lord’s purposes in gender, but because salvation is His ultimate end, He will not stop at this even if this means using a woman and giving the glory to her instead of the man to whom (in this case) it would normally rightfully belong.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

[1] That men and women are equal before God but created for complementary roles.

[2] That men and women are equal in ALL things.

[3] See: http://www.adfontes.ca/posts/post/article/deborah-and-the-defeater-verses/index.php. I believe Paul is spot on here.

[4] Godly men would do well to listen to the counsel of godly and respectful women. I have listened and am the wiser for it. They have spoken and have contributed to the work of the body (in my case part of the head).

Are Christians Bigots?

/ sweetpeacardco

This is a common accusation of Christians, but is it warranted?

A bigot is: a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. It also has the connotation of religious hypocrisy.[1]

There are 4 different points that are worth considering to paint a response to this question:

  • It all depends whether the person in question is an authentic Christian or a nominal Christian. This is a distinction many non-Christians often do not make because they do not understand the spiritual change that takes place when someone actually becomes a Christian. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 7:21a). All nominal Christians are by nature hypocrites and often can be bigoted.
  • It also needs to be remembered that whilst every true Christian is perfect in the Father’s sight because Jesus’ perfection has been applied to their account, they are not actually perfect but are being made perfect through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. As a result there is not a righteous man [or woman] on earth who does good and never sins. (Eccl 7:20).
  • The Bible calls true Christians to cloth yourself with humility and to think less of yourself than others and especially God (Phil 2:5–8). Similarly Christians are told to put away all…hypocrisy. (1 Pet 2:1). This doesn’t sound like bigotry!
  • If real Christians are bigots then it is because God is a bigot. Jesus himself said, I am the way, and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me. (Jn 14:6). Post-modernism (and the world through history past) despises the exclusive nature of Jesus, the Gospel, the Bible, Christianity and Christians because it is a constant reminder of the truth that they presently reject.

One might say that true bigots are those who are intolerant toward God himself.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bigot

Half-way evangelism

/ sweetpeacardco

I recently played host to some family member tourists from Canada. As part of the usual trail of places we took them too, it included some historic churches, cathedrals and abbeys. Often people treat these religious sites as merely sites of historic and architectural interest, no different from a National Trust Property or museum. So, I always value it when the community that represents the building has hourly prayers and asks people to pause to remember it is a Christian place of worship, or when they put up panels explaining the essence of who Jesus is and what Christianity is about.

If you had to write such a panel or explain this to a friend what would you say? Perhaps you might try writing something down yourself, looking up a couple Bible verses to include, it would be a helpful exercise to prepare you for evangelism.

Sadly, some of these panels or leaflets, while beginning with good intentions, end up being a form of half-way evangelism. Consider the following example I came across. There is lots a Christian could say “amen” to, but also much that remains to be said and a few questionable statements. Have a scan to see what you think:

leaflet

Your thoughts?

Allow me to share mine…

1st Paragraph: Amen and amen!

2nd Paragraph: This begins well but in the list of extraordinary things the main reason he came (to defeat sin and death) is not mentioned? The last sentence is also somewhat fuzzy, not necessarily wrong just a bit fuzzy. Perhaps something better would have been to say, “He lived the perfect life we cannot live to show us what it means to live uprightly before God and others” or something to that effect.

3rd Paragraph:

  • 1st sentence: yes
  • 2nd sentence: add…”and for who He claimed to be”
  • 3rd sentence: somewhat vague and universalist (meaning because He died we are all okay without personal faith in Him). How about, “But through His life and death He knew he would atone for the sins of all who would believe in Him, reconciling them to God.” (1 Jn 2:2, 2 Cor 5:18)
  • 4th and 5th sentences: hurray, back on track. Amen!
  • Last sentence: fine

4th Paragraph:

  • 1st sentence: “…are Christians” should read “claim to be Christians” for many who identify as Christian are only nominally so (Mt 7:21). Perhaps they were trying to point to the giant wake Jesus left behind Him as a tool to encourage others to think about following Him?
  • 2nd sentence: Wait a minute! How about, “Through Jesus death and life changing and life giving gift of the Holy Spirit believers are given life to the full, starting now and for eternity.” (John 10:10)
  • 3rd sentence: great

We certainly do not want to be automatically confrontational when we encounter such leaflets (remembering 1 Pet 3:15b), however, we do need to be zealous for truth (Jude 3) and as we are we will be sharpened in our knowledge of Jesus and His Gospel, help others to be so, and together more able to effectively spot error and proclaim with purity the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

How endorsing homosexuality crosses the Rubicon

/ sweetpeacardco

I would much rather write today about the wonders of authentic Christian faith but in the day and age in which we are living in often find it necessary to equip us against the tossing seas of error that threaten the truth (Jude 1:3).

Since homosexual marriage was legalised in the UK in 2013 many in the church have entered into great discussion on the subject, jostling between the direction culture is heading and what the Bible says (don’t be conformed to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind [Ro 12:2]). Trying to make the church relevant by giving into culture in certain matters will only make it less potent and relevant. Given that I am from Canada, the fourth western nation (after the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain) to make such unions legal in 2005, I have had even more time to reflect on the subject and write today to briefly demonstrate how endorsing homosexuality as a church or Christian crosses the Rubicon.

Firstly, what is the Rubicon? It is a figure of speech, quite similar to the phrase “past the point of no return.” It refers to a river in north-eastern Italy that the general Julius Caesar crossed heading south in 49 B.C. The significance? It was illegal under Roman law for a legion to enter Italy and by crossing he effectively declared war on the Senate and eventually brought about the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Caesar was intentionally doing something that he knew would have far reaching consequences that could not be [easily] undone. In a nutshell to cross the Rubicon means “to commit oneself irrevocably to a risky or revolutionary course of action.” Endorsing homosexuality is a departure from the “faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

History_Ask_History_Crossing_the_Rubicon_SF_HD_1104x622-16x9

How does endorsing homosexuality cross the Rubicon in ways which other authentic Christians may disagree yet still enjoy varying degrees of fellowship and cooperation? Many Christians disagree over the place of women in ministry, the subject and mode of Baptism, predestination, forms of church government, pacifism/ just war, and divorce.

The answer to the above question is that those are all secondary issues, which whilst very important (and an improper view will produce negative effects on personal and corporate Christian life), are not primary issues. Divorce is an interesting comparison to homosexuality. The reason why it does not cross the Rubicon is because while condemning divorce the Bible does make some exceptions, unlike homosexuality. The greater the theological agreement between Christians the greater the level of missional cooperation (Amos 3:3) and this begins with primary theological matters related to the Gospel (what it means to be saved and know and please God through Jesus Christ). The issue of homosexuality crosses at least three primary lines of Christian beliefs: Scripture, the Gospel, and sexuality.

Rejects the doctrine of Scripture

Central to the Christian faith is that the Lord has spoken light into our darkness by revealing Himself in the Bible. While we must remember context when studying the Bible (literary, theological, historical) the book in question is no ordinary human book but “sacred writings” inspired by God, because “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful…” (2 Tim 3:15­–16) and “every word of God proves true” (Prov 30:5).

Therefore Scripture is trustworthy, authoritative and sufficient. Because God is “the same yesterday, today and forever,” (Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8) the truths He has spoken to us remain the same today just as they were 2000 years ago, from eternity past, and into eternity future. If the Bible is from God we listen and obey, if it isn’t we can do what we want, but that is not Christianity.

The problem with endorsing homosexuality is it forces one to crop out significant portions of Scripture as uninspired (under the guise they are culturally bound texts) such as Gen 19; Lev 18:22, 20:10–16; Rom 1:23-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7. The problem is that not only is the cultural argument untenable, but that in dismissing these passages one dismisses a consistent teaching of the Bible that is intricately interrelated to other key texts and teachings of the Bible. To affirm homosexuality is to dismiss Scripture, including Gospel passages.

Rejects the Gospel

The Gospel message begins with the bad news of sin and ends with the good news of forgiveness from sin through faith in Jesus Christ and [eternal] life in His name. To reject homosexuality as sin is also to reject the Gospel. In 1 Cor 6 (cited above) verse 11 reminds the Corinthian believers that “such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” When we know we fall short of God’s perfect standard (Mt 5:48) and that faith in Jesus offers us not only forgiveness but the power to change, that is good news in light of our present circumstances. Homosexuality, similar to other sins, separates us from God. The good news is that—whatever our sin(s) or past— we can be restored to God through faith and repentance in Christ and transformed by His Spirit into new creations (2 Cor 5:17). If sin is not sin and the Gospel does not have the power to change it is not a message of good news.

Rejects God’s design for marriage, sexuality and gender

To endorse homosexuality is not simply a different Christian view on human sexuality, it is an entirely different worldview. All Christian teaching on marriage, sexuality and gender (including Jesus and Paul) trace their roots to Gen 1:26–28 and 2:22–24. This is further filtered through the lens of God’s moral standard in the Law such that when in the NT Jesus and Paul quote Genesis and the Law they are showing continuity and agreement with God’s original design consistent throughout Scripture. When Jesus warns the “sexually immoral” that includes homosexuality because it is a stock phrase used by Jesus to refer to the moral standard for sexuality expressed in the Law.

People can dismiss what the Bible clearly teaches on the subject, they are free in matters of conscience to do that, however, it is misguided to say the Biblical worldview for marriage, sexuality and gender is in anyway compatible with those views that endorse homosexuality.

Many objections have and will be made to similar lines of thought as those presented here. I would refer such people to 2 Tim 4:1–5. If we degrade Christ (His Word, Gospel and designs), He will surely degrade us. Recent studies show that generally those churches that remain true to orthodox Christian teachings (such as marriage and sexuality) grow, whilst those who go ahead of such teachings (2 John 1:9) are in general state of decline. Unlike many divisive issues within the church in the past this issue is a Rubicon that will separate the wheat from the chaff. Many churches and individuals have already or are considering crossing the Rubicon. To the former I would exhort you with the aforementioned words, to the latter I would say the following. While Caesar crossed the point of no return, whilst endorsing homosexuality does depart from orthodox Christianity, unlike the Rubicon, through repentance in Jesus Christ, a turning back to Him, restoration is graciously possible.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

From Baptism and Back Again

/ sweetpeacardco

hobbitThere and back again is the subtitle to the children’s book The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien (1937). It is the journey of a small hobbit named Biblo who travels from Hobbiton in the Shire to the Lonely Mountain on the other side of Middle Earth to help a host of dwarves recapture their treasure from a dragon.  I cannot tell you more than that in case you’ve never read it, but he makes it there and back again in the end.

There is another epic story that could bear a similar name, though we’d have to call it something like From Baptism and Back Again: A True Story of Biblical Baptism. It is a story of the loss and then the subsequent rediscovering of the practice Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19–20.

I am utterly convinced, as a man swayed by credible evidence, that what is often called believer’s baptism by immersion or credobaptism (clarifying the only proper subject, mode and imagery) is the only type of baptism and that all of the extra-Biblical evidence (first century history, early Jewish practices, the meaning of the word baptizo, biblical context and theology, archaeology, and early Christian history, liturgy and literature) is conclusive to this end.[1]

Allow me to recount how Christianity went away from true baptism and developed other human practices and traditions (wrongly called baptism) and then came back again through the rediscovery of credobaptism during the Reformation.

Essentially the story goes like this…

Early Christians (think Acts and beyond) clearly practiced credobaptism exclusively. However, as Christianity grew in numbers and acceptability (along with a growing fear for the souls of infants), many began to push to expand the envelop of who could be baptized. This process was accelerated with the legalisation of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire in c.312 AD and the beginning of Christendom (when Christianity became the official state religion in Europe). Hereafter these recent unbiblical developments increased at an unprecedented rate. Corresponding to the legalisation of Christianity came rampant nominalism (something those in this period of the Church lamented). If society had become Christian how could all be identified as such within society and find inclusion in it? The answer: baptize every individual, whether adult or child, believer or unbeliever. Baptism would be one’s passport in Christendom (btw- which is why groups like Anabaptists and Baptists were viewed with such suspicion by the state in the Reformation, they were rejecting their passports!). The origin of infant or paedo-baptism as a new phenomenon is well documented by Tertullian (150–225).[2] He provides the first literary evidence for the practice, not because he embraced it but because he opposed its introduction into the church and the rampant nominalism it helped to breed. Listen to what he said[3]:

tertullian

Sadly, however, the tide of nominalism was against people like Tertullian until paedo-baptism became embraced by the Church almost universally. Though Biblical baptism was still practiced at various points, unbiblical forms of baptism remained the norm until the Reformation began in the 1500s and groups like the Anabaptists and Baptists began to reject all other forms of baptism but the historic and Biblical form as unscriptural, nominal and “popish.”

One of the earliest Baptist confessions of faith, the First London Baptist Confession of 1644, states:

No. 39

That Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized. (Acts 2:37, 38; 8:36-38; 18:8).

No. 40

The way and manner of the(1) dispensing of this ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water: it being a sign, must answer the thing signified, which are these: first, the(2) washing the whole soul in the blood of Christ; secondly, that interest the saints have in(3) death, burial, and resurrection (of Christ) ; thirdly, together with a(4) confirmation of out faith, that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and rises again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints by raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ.

1) Mat. 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38 2) Rev. 1:5; 7:14; Heb. 10:22 3) Rom. 6:3-5 4) 1 Cor. 15:28, 29

These believers were violently persecuted at first by other nominal and authentic Christians alike. Since the Reformation credobaptists have come to represent the largest bodies of Protestants in the world: Baptists, Pentecostals, Community Churches, Free Evangelicals, etc. Ironically, many anti-credobaptists still will practice credobaptism with adult converts (my local Anglican church once asked to use our space at the Baptist church for this very purpose).

Thus, though baptism has endured great trials, it has journeyed away from its Biblical origin and then back again so that—thankfully—credobaptism stands once more as a beautiful sign of the Gospel.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

 

[1] While convinced, I count other brothers and sisters in Christ who differ on this important secondary point (so long as they do not believe baptism has any saving value) as full heirs in the Gospel, however, as disobedient to Jesus’ command in this regard. While not primary this important secondary matter has many consequences when overlooked or neglected.

[2] Tertullian was an elder in the church in Carthage (North Africa). He was a prolific writer in early Christianity and an apologist for the faith.

[3] The quote is taken from Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 364.

No Surprise

/ sweetpeacardco

It is no real surprise that those churches that believe the Bible is true tend to grow, whereas generally those that don’t are in a state of decline.

Such is a recent finding from a study conducted in my home province from Canada posted in this country through UK Christian Concern (sign up for their helpful newsletters and prayer list too). It is short and well worth a read.

The Bible itself urges us to not wander from the truth revealed to us by God in the Bible:

Jude 3b: “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”

2 John 1:9–10: “everyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God.”

Eph 4:14: do not be “carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

Prov 3:5–6: “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths.”

C.H. Spurgeon said that, “the coals of orthodoxy [correct belief] are necessary to fan the flames or revival [kingdom growth].”

This is especially important at Christmas. Thankfully at Cromhall Chapel when we talk about:

  • Prophecies fulfilled in Christ foretold in ages past,
  • Angels and choirs of heaven,
  • Dreams,
  • A young teenager becoming pregnant through the Holy Spirit (the Virgin Birth),
  • God becoming man in the person of Jesus (the Incarnation),
  • And that He came to save us from our sins (SIN is real), and
  • That by believing who Jesus is and why He died you will be transformed into a new person and given eternal life [the ultimate personal testimony to the truth of the Bible’s message, the Gospel]…

…we actually believe what the Bible says!

Happy Christmas—IT IS ALL TRUE!

Pastor Chris

Calling evil good and good evil (a word to Christians about the LGBTI agenda)

/ sweetpeacardco

Woe to those who call evil good

                               and good evil,

               who put darkness for light

                               and light for darkness,

               who put bitter for sweet

                               and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20 ESV)

 This was true of Isaiah’s day and it is certainly true today, where people live sinful lives as if they were the norm (Proverbs 14:12). We live in an age of moral confusion. What was once viewed as evil and unacceptable has witnessed a 180 revolution where evil is touted as being good, and liberating—the epitome of a “liberal” society.[1] Many people begrudgingly go along with the LGBTI[2] agenda or shrug it off by saying things like, “they can do what they’d like” or “so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone or bother me…” The reason behind the shift? Our present state of moral confusion has derived from their ceasing to exist in the minds of the populace a moral authority as to what is right and what is wrong. Even for those who have mild moral bearings standing up for what is right is often hard to do and so if the squeaky wheel gets the grease… “hang on a second shouldn’t we think about this…oh bother with the fuss, I’d rather go watch tennis.” This article attempts to reasonably think through this vast issue of gender confusion in an introductory manner from a Biblical and Christian perspective. While many other helpful arguments that support the Biblical view of gender can be found in natural law, etc, (appealed to by non-Christians of religious and non-religious persuasions alike), this post will limit itself to the Biblical argument believing the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God and therefore sufficient in all matters of morality, faith and practice.

The LGBTI agenda has been the squeaky wheel that has got the grease. It has been a silent and stealthy force creeping through Western civilization, often without any thought or resistance. Recently transgenderism[3] has been the issue in vogue. The US has been debating toilet laws and whether transgendered people could join the army. Canada is moving towards gender neutral statements on government issued ID cards as if we are all androgynous.[4] Suddenly transgenderism and homosexuality are being plastered across the media and film in an attempt to enculturate society into believing that the old evil is the new norm.

Part of the issue in trying to stick one’s neck out and offer an honest plea for common sense is that one’s neck risks being cut off. Opposition is branded as the enemy or as hate speech. Let me stop and be clear. This article is not hate speech, it is being offered calmly and collectively, putting forward the Christian view, one filled with truth and love. This is being done in a traditionally liberal spirit (meaning the view open to broad learning and dialogue) and indeed the LGBTI view represents the illiberal view (close-minded to other views than its own). Funny how words change in meaning when those who used to espouse the liberal arts of listening and dialogue, and have largely come to believe the worldview that there is no grand truth and yet militantly use threats to quell any challenge to the norm that is being imposed. For those who are illiberal I am already the enemy. For those who are open to reason and would like to know more of the teaching of the Bible on the subject, I invite you to continue with me.

Before we turn to the Bible one helpful clarification on gender and sexuality.

The World Health Organization records that, “Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.”

To be fair there have been times in the past where aspects of gender have been stereotypically pinned to one sex or another whilst in reality they could be common to the sexes (i.e. the old saying that girls couldn’t play sports). So in this sense the challenge to aspects of traditional gender association has been liberating (for men and women). However, while there are some gender attributes that may be legitimately shared across the sexes many find their roots not in what “society considers appropriate” but in the sex that God assigned to us. For example, there is something in the biological hardwiring of men that make them providers and women nurturers. What separates men and women is not just our physical anatomy. Men really are men and women truly are women. The differences do not only revolve around reproductive systems, but the totality of our biology and calling as being created in the image of God fashions us as men and women, distinct but equal in God’s sight. Therefore the Biblical view sees gender and sex as being inextricably linked and assigned by God, whereas the contemporary developing view sees gender (and sex via sex changes) as a subjective matter of choice.

The Biblical View of Gender

 Why is it that Deut 22:5 says,

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5 ESV)

This verse against transvestitism (dressing like the opposite sex) is a prime example of how the Bible places boundaries between male and female because God has fearfully and wonderfully made us and assigned to us our sex which is a gift to be cherish and not denied or confused. To deny your sex is to deny who God has made you to be and to rebel against God.

On the creation of the sexes let’s turn to Genesis 1:27:

 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

(Genesis 1:27 ESV) [emphasis added]

This truth is the fountainhead of all other conversations about human gender and sexuality in the Bible. Every one of them harkens back to this truth. After Gen 1:27 it says God saw that it was “very good” (Gen 1:31). Therefore to deny who we are is to rebel against God’s good design for us. It bespeaks arrogance, pride, revolt, selfishness and self-indulgence whereas accepting and rejoicing in who God made you speaks of humility, celebration, gratitude, submission and worship.

This is why as part of the FIEC we have collectively proposed adopting the following statement on gender:

God created us male and female, and calls us to live according to our gender identity which is inseparable from our biological sex determined at conception. Our gender may not be changed or reassigned.

 *This said we need to acknowledge that there are difficult and very rare cases such as biological “transgenderism” (when a child is born as a hermaphrodite or intersex [having both sets of sexual organs]). As Jesus said, “there are eunuchs who have been so from birth” (Mt 19:21). Physical defects such as this are a general result of the Fall. Being confronted with these parents have an enormous decision to make, one in which I would argue they as parents have the authority to exercise parental judgement in one way or the other. In such cases families require all the care and counsel Christians can offer. However, a rare exception should never be allowed to trump the rule.

 How Christians Should Treat Transgendered People

Have compassion on the lost and confused as Jesus did:

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. (Matthew 9:36 ESV)

Because these people are troubled, insecure and often possess deep wounds, they are therefore in great need of healing, teaching and care. We need to do this firmly but with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15) remembering they are our fellow sinners and that the only thing that separates us is grace:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV) [emphasis added]

We must love them while presenting the truth to them with the firm believe that true healing for their gender confusion can only be found in their finding their identity in Christ.

In a generation in which morality sways with the wind may those who follow Christ resolutely place their feet upon the rock trusting He will be the anchor that will keep us in the storm, and may the Lord use such steadfastness to be a light in the moral confusion of our time.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

[1] “Freedom” however is often pure licentiousness and underneath its cover is the truth that people who think they are free—free from God, authority, moral obligations— are actually slaves to Satan and sin (Ro 6:18). Our inalienable rights are truly only those that God has established in His word.

[2] Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Trans-gendered or Inter-Sex.

[3] To be transgendered refers to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender.

[4]Being neither male nor female in sex and gender.