Has God Said?

When the serpent spoke to Eve in the Garden, he called into question the content, context, and consequences of God’s revealed word. “Did God actually say…?” the Devil asked. In doing so, he sought to insert doubt into the woman’s mind. Was God’s word really as settled as her husband, Adam, seemed to think? Was God protecting Adam and Eve from something dangerous, or was he actually holding out on something good? Was God’s word really an absolute law, or was it only a guideline or rule that could be disregarded with little or no ill-effects? It did not take long for Eve to decide God’s command about the tree could be disobeyed, and humanity has suffered the consequences ever since.

What worked for the serpent in the Garden continues to work in his devilish mission today. The Devil calls into question the integrity, beauty, and authority of the divine word, and fallen humanity is more willing to embrace the Devil’s lies than the Divine Lord’s law. The Bible is full of controversial, politically incorrect statements and decrees, to which men and women ask, “Did God actually say this?” By the time enlightened man finishes deconstructing the Word of God, Paul was a misogynist, Jesus was prone to make mistakes, and Adam was a fictional character.

Has God actually said? You and I have to make a decision about that. Will we trust what God has said in His word? Will we trust what the Church has confessed to believe from the mouth of God for the last two thousand years? Or will we decide we know better? Will we abandon our former confidence in the goodness of God’s revelation, discarding what we now deem as a simple, unenlightened faith for a more exciting adventure outside the borders of the Garden? Does it matter what Scripture says, or are we willing to re-interpret, revise, or otherwise ravage it?

There was really no question that day in the Garden what God had said, but Adam and Eve decided that was not enough for them. They were no longer sure God’s Word to them was for their good. They wanted something else, something more. They certainly got something else, but not anything more. Indeed, humanity has enjoyed less ever since we decided that it doesn’t really matter whether God said it or not. –JME

Ephesians 2:1-10: A Review of the Gospel

Halloween... You Mean, Reformation Day?

Halloween has become a rather controversial holiday among North American Christians in the last few decades. There are obvious questions about the moral and spiritual propriety of some things associated with and glorified by modern Halloween customs. Unfortunately, fundamentalist critiques of the holiday often include historical revisionism and extreme rhetoric suggesting any participation is a compromise with the Devil. This is inaccurate and unhelpful.

It is regrettable that so many Christians who oppose Halloween have no awareness of the Protestant significance of October 31: Reformation Day. This was the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. No one could have anticipated, not even Luther himself, how significant this action would be. Luther’s 95 Theses called the Roman Church to repent in light of Scripture and launched what would be known as the Protestant Reformation.

Luther’s actions on October 31^st were so significant that Reformation Day eventually became a formal festival in Lutheran and some Reformed churches and a national holiday in Germany, Slovenia, and Chile. Whether the church should appoint a formal celebration of this anniversary as a “holy day” is debatable. (It certainly seems inconsistent with the Reformed emphasis on the Regulative Principle of Worship.) However, it is part of our history and heritage as believers. It is an event of tremendous importance that profoundly shaped both the western world and the church as we know it today. The Lord used Luther’s 95 Theses and the teaching and piety of other Reformers to bring about great awakening and revival and renewal within His Church.

We will not be having any formal celebration of Reformation Day in our services on October 25th, though we will sing A Mighty Fortress is Our God (written by Luther and traditionally sung on Reformation Day) in the morning service and Faith of Our Fathers in the evening service. But we should, at least, be aware of the historical significance of it. There is more to be said about this time of year than candy, costumes, or Christian debates about Halloween. There is history to remember, God’s providence to praise and give thanks for, and heroes to admire. Soli Deo Gloria! –JME

When Does God Rescue His People?

When the Lord led Israel out of Egypt, He put them between a rock and a hard place. Actually, it was a sea and the Egyptian army. This was a deliberate decision by the Lord (Ex. 13:17-18). There were other ways they could have gone, but God ordered their departure so that the Egyptians would be drawn out of their territory and destroyed at the sea (14:1-4). The Lord ordained this crisis to manifest His glory and power in the deliverance of His people (14:13-18, 30-31), but He literally snatched them from the jaws of death and defeat.

This story came to mind as I ruminated on a ministerial concern last night, and it occurred to me this is a recurring and consistent pattern in Scripture. Water only came from the rock when the people had run out of it. Manna fell from heaven only when there were no other options for food. The Lord raised up judges only after Israel’s enemies came in to pillage and plunder. Israel’s kings won victories only after being attacked by great armies. The Messiah came only after the covenant nation was sent into exile and returned limping, without her former glory, and in bondage to the Roman authorities.

The Lord delivers His people from danger and destruction, in the midst of crisis. He may spare us from many potential dangers (Matt. 6:13), but we rarely if ever know about any of those. He does not promise to keep us from danger. He never promises evil will not overtake us. He does promise evil will not overcome us and that He will never abandon us in the midst of it (Rom. 8:28-39; 1Cor. 10:13; Heb. 13:5-6).

When does God rescue His people? In His own time, and usually just in the nick of time. He orders our lives for His glory, not for our comfort, peace, or enjoyment. God is most visibly a great Savior when He accomplishes a great salvation. His power to deliver His people from evil and danger is most evident when the danger is greatest, when the crisis is at its climax. We should not be surprised to find ourselves teetering on the brink of total destruction. Be assured God has a purpose and plan. His power is great. His promises are sure. His purpose will not fail. Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord. –JME

Baptism and Historical Novelty

One of the more persuasive arguments against the Reformed doctrine of paedobaptism is the charge of historical novelty. Before I became convinced the Reformed were correct to baptize the infants and children of believers as members of the visible covenant community, I would often comment that Reformed infant baptism was a beautiful idea but altogether unattested prior to the fifteenth century. The same argument is often made by Baptists in debates with paedobaptists. The indictment is this: the Reformers retained the Roman practice of infant baptism but were forced to create a new justification for it in view of their Reformed doctrine of salvation. No longer could the baptismal regeneration of infants be affirmed—as Rome and the early church, including Augustine, taught. Therefore, Calvin formulated a novel defense of baptism based on OT covenant models. This justification is unattested prior to the Reformation and misreads the NT by failing to recognize the newness of the New Covenant, or so the Baptists say.

The earliest history of the church in terms of the practice of baptism is obviously in dispute. Both Baptists and paedobaptists are convinced the historical record is on their side, but due to the occasional nature of the earliest Christian literature outside of the NT, it is unsettled whether the baptism of infants was the universal practice of the church in the first three or four centuries. What is clear is that by the fourth or fifth century infant baptism was the universal practice of both the eastern and western church and continued to be so until 1522 when the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and launched a theological tradition that continues to this day.

So who is the historical novelist? The charge of innovation by Calvin is worthy of serious consideration. I am satisfied Calvin’s rationale is not novel and was, indeed, a reform of infant baptism along biblical, historical, and theological lines. But even if we grant that Calvin’s justification was innovative or previously unattested, how can we avoid making the same charge to the modern Baptist objection to infant baptism? No one in the early or medieval church made the argument for credobaptism that Baptists do today. In fact, the earliest critic of paedobaptism, Tertullian writing at the beginning of the third century, raises his objection on the basis of theological assumptions no modern Baptist would affirm, that post-baptism sins cannot be forgiven.[1] Moreover, Tertullian was evidently arguing against the typical (universal?) practice of the church in his day. If infant baptism was so thoroughly entrenched in the church’s practice by the beginning of the third century, a strong argument can be made for its presence in apostolic times.

The historical data must be confronted fairly, and Reformed paedobaptists must beware of reading the church fathers anachronistically in light of the Reformation. But Baptists do not have the historical high ground. Indeed, they are arriving late to the party. For the theological descendants of Hubmaier and the Anabaptists to charge Reformed paedobaptists with affirming a novel view of baptism is rather hypocritical. If anything, both the Reformed paedobaptist and the credobaptist would seem vulnerable to the same charge from Lutheran, Anglican, and even Roman Catholic theologians. Both Reformed paedobaptists and Baptists (reformed or not) believe their view of baptism is biblical and historical. The issue ultimately must be settled by exegesis, not by charges of historical novelty or anachronism, which could be argued by both sides. –JME

---

[1] Cf. Aaron Denlinger, “The First Baptist Theologian: Tertullian of Carthage (c.160 – c.225)” Reformation 21 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/the-first-baptist-theologian-t.php (accessed March 3, 2015).

Teaching, Transparency, and Touchy Subjects

Almost everyone who is a member or attends Reformation Bible Church does so for one reason: the teaching of God’s Word. I hope the relationships, the corporate worship, and the opportunities for service are also enjoyable and edifying, but let’s be honest, the reason most of us are here is because we take God’s word seriously. Before I was called and since the day I arrived, I have done my best to be transparent and to communicate regularly about my teaching strategy and plans. The church grows through the teaching of the Word (Rom. 10:17; 16:25-27), and the minister’s task is to present the whole counsel of God for the edification of the Body (Acts 20:26-27, 32; Eph. 4:11-12). There is never a week where I ask, “What do I feel like preaching?” Every lesson, every series, is planned well in advance as part of a prayer-full strategy for growing a healthy, faithful church.

It would be much easier to do a series on How To Be A Good Neighbor right now. After spending almost two years in Romans and going through such tremendous upheaval during that time, you could argue what the church needs right now is something… easy, soft, fuzzy, cuddly. Instead, we are tackling the doctrine of baptism and beginning to work through the Westminster Confession of Faith. Not the most ecumenical themes on the Christian menu. It may seem like a poorly planned poke in the eye, but actually, it is part of the larger strategy we hung out front on day one.

We don’t agree on all of these topics. We have differences on baptism, the covenants, predestination, election, and the atonement. The way I see it we have three options, only one of which is biblical. The elders could simply take a position on each of these issues and require every member to agree with it or leave. There are a number of churches that handle doctrinal disagreement on secondary issues that way, but it is divisive and wrong. We could confine our teaching to general topics on which everyone agrees and just pretend the differences do not exist. A lot of churches do this, but it is unhealthy and unbiblical. Or we can acknowledge our differences, love and respect one another, and open our Bibles to seek better understanding of one another and of God’s Word. At the end of the day, some of us will continue to disagree, but we will be better informed, and we will love each other in spite of it. I think that is the only reasonable, biblical, and faithful option and is the only way to build and grow a faithful church. So that’s what we’re doing, at least, as best we can, and it is what we will continue doing. Thanks for being part of the journey. –JME