When we hold the biblical principle of continuity between the two testaments, this unlocks a whole new world of meaning. For example worship continues between the Old Testament and the new but the administration is different. Listen to Malachi 1:6-8:
"A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ 7 By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the LORD’s table may be despised".
Reverence and the fear of the Lord in public worship is expected by the LORD in every time period. To imagine that reverence for the LORD can be dispensed with in the church is a fearful thing and such an unbiblical attitude is worthy of the LORD's chastisement. And yet how often I have sensed little idea of revering and honouring the LORD in Christian worship at times, in some church meetings over the years. Have you experienced that also? Listen to Hebrews 12:28-29 which demonstrates this continuity.
"Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire".
The Westminster Confession makes this point in the chapter "Of God's Covenant with Man":
7:6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations [administrations].
We must pray for reverence and honouring of the LORD in public worship. This is an expected aspect of Christian public worship and it is one that is connected to our doctrine of God.
Saturday, 26 March 2016
Monday, 14 March 2016
The Continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament
This is a very important blog post. It is interesting to me, as to which blog posts grab people's attention. However, my aim as a minister, one who is firmly and solidly committed to the teaching of the Westminster Standards, and as one who has taken vows to uphold this Reformed teaching, I am somewhat surprised how many flawed ideas exist on the understanding or practice of a continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament. The moral law continues, as does worship, God's unchanging character, giving to the LORD, and covenant loyalty is always expected of God's people.
I am preaching through the Book of Malachi in Sheffield Evangelical Presbyterian Church at the moment and I am struck by the continuity presented in this book between the Two Testaments . The administration may differ for example in worship, but the principles remain the same. Worship was regulated in the Old Testament but a reverent approach was demanded and the same is true in the New Testament. Worship is regulated as to how we are to approach the LORD and in the manner we are to do so. This idea is virtually never taught in the contemporary professing Evangelical church in the UK. It is as if people think they can approach the LORD in the way they please and with the aim to attract people. If it works, good, but is that the teaching of Scripture?
Let me highlight some verses in Malachi, then give a few citations from the Westminster Standards and then highlight five areas of continuity.
Malachi 1:6 "“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’".
Malachi 3:1 “Behold, I send my messenger [this is John the Baptist], and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant [This is Jesus Christ our LORD] in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts".
Malachi 3:6 "“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed". This refers to God's character and the requirements for those approaching Him.
Malachi 3:7-8 "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’ Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions".
Malachi 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Elijah [Jesus states clearly in Matthew 11:13-15], that Elijah to come is John the Baptist] the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”
Here are some citations in the Westminster Confession of Faith which underline this vital continuity between the OT and the NT.
Chapter 7 on God's Covenant with Man:
7.5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal [Passover] lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foreshadowing Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
7.6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace,differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations [administrations].
Chapter 11 on Justification:
11:6. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.
Chapter 19 on The Law of God
19.5. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
Chapter 27, On the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper)
27:5. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.
There are many areas of continuity between the OT and the NT, though we have more light in the New Testament. Here are a few to mention.
1. Scripture regulates worship in the NT as it did in the OT.
2. Tithes and contributions are expected to be given by faith and faithfully and brought into the NT church.
3. The sacraments differ in the NT in their administration, but baptism and the Lord's Supper are foreshadowed in the OT. Children are included in God's covenants, hence the sign of baptism is to be applied to children but children in the new covenant are not to partake in the Lord's Supper, unless they have a credible profession of faith.
4. The ingredients of public worship are very similar in the NT, as in the OT: The reading and preaching of Scripture continue. The sacrifice in the NT is the finished work of Jesus upon the cross, instead of blood sacrifices in the Temple which pointed to Christ's sacrifice.
There will be more to discuss, but this has opened up a very important subject for all professing Christians to consider.
I am preaching through the Book of Malachi in Sheffield Evangelical Presbyterian Church at the moment and I am struck by the continuity presented in this book between the Two Testaments . The administration may differ for example in worship, but the principles remain the same. Worship was regulated in the Old Testament but a reverent approach was demanded and the same is true in the New Testament. Worship is regulated as to how we are to approach the LORD and in the manner we are to do so. This idea is virtually never taught in the contemporary professing Evangelical church in the UK. It is as if people think they can approach the LORD in the way they please and with the aim to attract people. If it works, good, but is that the teaching of Scripture?
Let me highlight some verses in Malachi, then give a few citations from the Westminster Standards and then highlight five areas of continuity.
Malachi 1:6 "“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’".
Malachi 3:1 “Behold, I send my messenger [this is John the Baptist], and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant [This is Jesus Christ our LORD] in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts".
Malachi 3:6 "“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed". This refers to God's character and the requirements for those approaching Him.
Malachi 3:7-8 "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’ Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions".
Malachi 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Elijah [Jesus states clearly in Matthew 11:13-15], that Elijah to come is John the Baptist] the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”
Here are some citations in the Westminster Confession of Faith which underline this vital continuity between the OT and the NT.
Chapter 7 on God's Covenant with Man:
7.5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal [Passover] lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foreshadowing Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
7.6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace,differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations [administrations].
Chapter 11 on Justification:
11:6. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.
Chapter 19 on The Law of God
19.5. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
Chapter 27, On the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper)
27:5. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.
There are many areas of continuity between the OT and the NT, though we have more light in the New Testament. Here are a few to mention.
1. Scripture regulates worship in the NT as it did in the OT.
2. Tithes and contributions are expected to be given by faith and faithfully and brought into the NT church.
3. The sacraments differ in the NT in their administration, but baptism and the Lord's Supper are foreshadowed in the OT. Children are included in God's covenants, hence the sign of baptism is to be applied to children but children in the new covenant are not to partake in the Lord's Supper, unless they have a credible profession of faith.
4. The ingredients of public worship are very similar in the NT, as in the OT: The reading and preaching of Scripture continue. The sacrifice in the NT is the finished work of Jesus upon the cross, instead of blood sacrifices in the Temple which pointed to Christ's sacrifice.
There will be more to discuss, but this has opened up a very important subject for all professing Christians to consider.
Monday, 7 March 2016
The Death of "Freedom of Speech" in the United Kingdom
In 2009 the British Government passed the law concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. In 2014 they passed further legislation to enforce same-sex marriage. Enshrined in British law currently is the promotion of a confused ethic, and not simply the protection of minority groups; they seek to actively promote their new form of post-modern ethics. Currently the British government refer to "British values" and it is a somewhat fluid term that few ever attempt to define. What is clear however is that "British values" now includes an intolerance to any one, especially Bible-believing Christians who disagree with the government's ethics on marriage, sexual relationships, abortion, medical IVF experiments and other such related topics.
However, as a Christian minister, I want to make it clear that the net result from several fronts in the United Kingdom is the death of "free speech". In recent weeks a committed Christian has been expelled from a Masters degree university course at the University of Sheffield because he holds different views on marriage to the British government. He simply holds to traditional values on marriage, but yet the media label him "anti-gay". This is quite a slur-term. I am not surprised by these events, but I am surprised with the rapidity of government crack-downs. A credible organisation called Christian Concern gives more information on their website including a clip of the heavily biased and anti-Christian BBC interview of the man expelled from the course. Here is the link: http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/freedom-of-speech/felix-ngole-i-am-perhaps-just-one-of-many
If someone works in the public sphere in the United Kingdom, such as a school teacher, a university lecturer or in the health profession and much of the business world, one's religion must remain silent. It is permissible to promote atheistic evolution, the promotion of same-sex marriage, to rubbish the idea of the Christian gospel and the true message of Jesus Christ, but it is not a level-playing field. The majority of political parties of each of the four British nations are determined to re-model society and clamp down on freedom of speech. You can have free speech in your living room, but you are effectually muzzled from disagreeing with government ethical and religious policy outside of the home. It is remarkable that this shift has happened; in my lifetime it used to be clamp-downs from intolerant Russian communism that did such things. I note that such an anti-Christian philosophy fell with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Today, contemporary British governmental intrusions into public life are becoming increasingly common for those who hold to Christian values and a biblical view that marriage is only to be between a man and woman.
The Bible is very clear on several fronts. Jesus Christ "will build his church" (Matthew 16:18), no matter what opposition comes and also anti-Christian governments will not succeed in suppressing the gospel. The United Kingdom today is far from the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ and yet each oppressive attempt to clamp down gives fresh opportunity for the truth-claims of the Christian gospel. For those reading this blog-post from outside the UK, then do pray for this spiritually needy nation. For those Christians living here, may we be exhorted from 1 Peter 3:14-17:
"But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil".
However, as a Christian minister, I want to make it clear that the net result from several fronts in the United Kingdom is the death of "free speech". In recent weeks a committed Christian has been expelled from a Masters degree university course at the University of Sheffield because he holds different views on marriage to the British government. He simply holds to traditional values on marriage, but yet the media label him "anti-gay". This is quite a slur-term. I am not surprised by these events, but I am surprised with the rapidity of government crack-downs. A credible organisation called Christian Concern gives more information on their website including a clip of the heavily biased and anti-Christian BBC interview of the man expelled from the course. Here is the link: http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/freedom-of-speech/felix-ngole-i-am-perhaps-just-one-of-many
If someone works in the public sphere in the United Kingdom, such as a school teacher, a university lecturer or in the health profession and much of the business world, one's religion must remain silent. It is permissible to promote atheistic evolution, the promotion of same-sex marriage, to rubbish the idea of the Christian gospel and the true message of Jesus Christ, but it is not a level-playing field. The majority of political parties of each of the four British nations are determined to re-model society and clamp down on freedom of speech. You can have free speech in your living room, but you are effectually muzzled from disagreeing with government ethical and religious policy outside of the home. It is remarkable that this shift has happened; in my lifetime it used to be clamp-downs from intolerant Russian communism that did such things. I note that such an anti-Christian philosophy fell with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Today, contemporary British governmental intrusions into public life are becoming increasingly common for those who hold to Christian values and a biblical view that marriage is only to be between a man and woman.
The Bible is very clear on several fronts. Jesus Christ "will build his church" (Matthew 16:18), no matter what opposition comes and also anti-Christian governments will not succeed in suppressing the gospel. The United Kingdom today is far from the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ and yet each oppressive attempt to clamp down gives fresh opportunity for the truth-claims of the Christian gospel. For those reading this blog-post from outside the UK, then do pray for this spiritually needy nation. For those Christians living here, may we be exhorted from 1 Peter 3:14-17:
"But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil".
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
Finding, Joining and Supporting a True Church
John Calvin represents Reformed and indeed biblical thought concerning the nature of a true church in his writings. His concern as should be ours, was the nature of the church. The doctrine of the church seems to be too little discussed and it needs rejuvenating. Listen to John Calvin:
“Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the Sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists” (Institutes, 4:1:9).
There is a simplicity as to the nature of the church. Did you notice that this statement does not consider the importance of music and singing. Music and singing do not make a sign of orthodoxy and if we did not sing at all, we could still be a true church if we displayed these two marks.
1). The Word of God purely preached and heard. There is a stress on the hearing on the part of the church member. Do you seek out a church that preaches pure doctrine and then seek to listen and obey that Word as preached? Jesus said: "Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away” (Luke 8:18).
2). The sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) administered according to Christ's institution. This second mark asks some searching questions. For example when a Baptist church insists on baptism by immersion only or in bringing into question infant baptism or baptism by pouring, are they still a true church? In England such questions are never asked because Baptists have not been challenged in such areas, but it is time they were. If someone holds to the truth of the Bible then it can stand up to the scrutiny of being tested.
It is interesting to me to observe the dress codes of professing preachers and also the layout of the room of the area that is used for worshipping God. Here are several revealing observations:
Which item of furniture is central in a church building?
Does the preacher's dress code indicate that he has a serious message to bring?
What item of furniture is used for preaching?
When the doctrine of the church is biblical, then the pulpit has the central place. It is not the band that is to be central (apparently there is a drum kit now in Westminster Chapel where Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to preach.How sad!), but the pulpit for the reading and preaching of sound doctrine. I cannot see how preaching can be serious minded, if it is delivered from a music stand. The use of a music stand is a down-grade of the office of Christian minister. Can you imagine the British Prime-minister delivering his speech from a music stand? How much less an ordained minister of the gospel!
Anyone who has something important to say in our society, they dress appropriately for the occasion. Alex Ferguson the former manager of Manchester Utd always dresses smart when he is on formal business. What about preachers of a true church? If a preacher is intending to be an "ambassador of Christ" (2 Cor 5:20 "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God".) and to be taken seriously, should his dress code not match the gravity of his message? I think the dress codes of professing preachers reveals very much.
Once you find a true church, then it is the responsibility of every Christian to join it and support the work. Furthermore, John Calvin believed that God will bless such a church, and I entirely agree. We do not resort to Arminian methods to make the church grow. Furthermore, Calvin believed, as do I, that the presence of the marks ensures fruit because the marks “can never exist without bringing forth fruit and prosperity by God’s blessing” (4:1:10).
“Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the Sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists” (Institutes, 4:1:9).
There is a simplicity as to the nature of the church. Did you notice that this statement does not consider the importance of music and singing. Music and singing do not make a sign of orthodoxy and if we did not sing at all, we could still be a true church if we displayed these two marks.
1). The Word of God purely preached and heard. There is a stress on the hearing on the part of the church member. Do you seek out a church that preaches pure doctrine and then seek to listen and obey that Word as preached? Jesus said: "Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away” (Luke 8:18).
2). The sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) administered according to Christ's institution. This second mark asks some searching questions. For example when a Baptist church insists on baptism by immersion only or in bringing into question infant baptism or baptism by pouring, are they still a true church? In England such questions are never asked because Baptists have not been challenged in such areas, but it is time they were. If someone holds to the truth of the Bible then it can stand up to the scrutiny of being tested.
It is interesting to me to observe the dress codes of professing preachers and also the layout of the room of the area that is used for worshipping God. Here are several revealing observations:
Which item of furniture is central in a church building?
Does the preacher's dress code indicate that he has a serious message to bring?
What item of furniture is used for preaching?
When the doctrine of the church is biblical, then the pulpit has the central place. It is not the band that is to be central (apparently there is a drum kit now in Westminster Chapel where Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to preach.How sad!), but the pulpit for the reading and preaching of sound doctrine. I cannot see how preaching can be serious minded, if it is delivered from a music stand. The use of a music stand is a down-grade of the office of Christian minister. Can you imagine the British Prime-minister delivering his speech from a music stand? How much less an ordained minister of the gospel!
Anyone who has something important to say in our society, they dress appropriately for the occasion. Alex Ferguson the former manager of Manchester Utd always dresses smart when he is on formal business. What about preachers of a true church? If a preacher is intending to be an "ambassador of Christ" (2 Cor 5:20 "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God".) and to be taken seriously, should his dress code not match the gravity of his message? I think the dress codes of professing preachers reveals very much.
Once you find a true church, then it is the responsibility of every Christian to join it and support the work. Furthermore, John Calvin believed that God will bless such a church, and I entirely agree. We do not resort to Arminian methods to make the church grow. Furthermore, Calvin believed, as do I, that the presence of the marks ensures fruit because the marks “can never exist without bringing forth fruit and prosperity by God’s blessing” (4:1:10).
Monday, 22 February 2016
Christianity and the danger of compromise
At one of the very first Banner of Truth ministers conferences in Leicester (I think in the 1970's), England a sermon was preached called "Preaching and the danger of compromise". It was delivered by Rev Kenneth McRae and I have listened to it on CD many times. However, it is not only preachers who compromise, Christians also compromise and it causes much harm in the body of Christ. Compromising Christians may support para-church ministries that may support their own unbalanced emphases or support churches that have long since compromised sound doctrine. Sometimes excuses are made, such as the "people are lovely", but all the while compromised patterns of worship are practiced. We need to be discerning and also we must all avoid the danger of compromise. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:33 "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company ruins good morals' ".
In the Book of Revelation there are seven letters to seven churches and it is clear that compromise had entered some of those congregations. The dictionary definition of compromise is: "an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions". Now we need to be flexible and not stubborn, but there are certain matters that can never be traded off through compromise. Sadly, much pragmatism prevails in many parts of the professing church, instead of sound doctrinal principles. Pragmatism asserts that "if something works, then the end justifies the means". However, this was never the principle established by the Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the prophets on the Old Covenant.
In the church at Pergamum, compromised teaching was being tolerated by Christians. In Revelation 2:14-16, Jesus Christ tells the church: "But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. 15 So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth". This is very serious. To tolerate false teaching regularly means that if people do not repent then Jesus will fight against that church. This should fill us all with a sense of the fear of God.
In the church at Sardis, the Lord Jesus Christ gives a penetrating critique and he tells them: “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you" Revelation 3:1-3.
This is written to the whole church and we need to ask ourselves some searching questions. Have we compromised the plain truth of the Bible? Have we wilfully turned a blind eye to biblical truth for the sake of a life of comfort? Are we tolerating false teaching when we should be running to find a place where sound doctrine is upheld?
In the Book of Revelation there are seven letters to seven churches and it is clear that compromise had entered some of those congregations. The dictionary definition of compromise is: "an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions". Now we need to be flexible and not stubborn, but there are certain matters that can never be traded off through compromise. Sadly, much pragmatism prevails in many parts of the professing church, instead of sound doctrinal principles. Pragmatism asserts that "if something works, then the end justifies the means". However, this was never the principle established by the Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the prophets on the Old Covenant.
In the church at Pergamum, compromised teaching was being tolerated by Christians. In Revelation 2:14-16, Jesus Christ tells the church: "But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. 15 So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth". This is very serious. To tolerate false teaching regularly means that if people do not repent then Jesus will fight against that church. This should fill us all with a sense of the fear of God.
In the church at Sardis, the Lord Jesus Christ gives a penetrating critique and he tells them: “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you" Revelation 3:1-3.
This is written to the whole church and we need to ask ourselves some searching questions. Have we compromised the plain truth of the Bible? Have we wilfully turned a blind eye to biblical truth for the sake of a life of comfort? Are we tolerating false teaching when we should be running to find a place where sound doctrine is upheld?
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Should the women's Bible study movement be evaluated in the light of the teaching of Scripture?
This blog question is deliberately construed by me, so that we can only answer "yes". Indeed all things should be rightly evaluated in the light of Scripture. However, it appears that in the UK and even more so in the USA, that there is a growing movement of women's Bible studies (usually in the daytime). These are only for women and they are led by women and often with the use of Bible teaching aids and books. It may seem harmless. Surely studying the Bible together is a wholesome thing. The answer to my blog title question needs careful and sensitive evaluation.
Here are some considerations.
1). Our understanding of Titus 2:3-5 will probably direct much of our behaviour. Here Paul writes:
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
If we give attention and note two words, which are "to teach what is good" and "so train young women" this will help us. "To teach" is not in a doctrinal sense in its widest sense, because we know that doctrinal and biblical instruction is upon the shoulders of elders (Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3). Elders are men who are godly, able, competent in the Scriptures and appointed by other elders for the task. The teaching curriculum then in Titus 2 for women is a narrow one and it is for older women to be modelling by example, precept and with reference to Scripture, to be a godly wife and mother. Likewise to "train" means to "encourage of advise". Therefore, such a passage does not support women leading regular Bible studies to women.
Regular Bible studies led by women, could mean that some women receive more doctrinal instruction through women, than through ordained elders. This is something to ponder, evaluate and pray about.
2). The teaching of the church is to be primarily through the office of men who are trained and ordained for the task. The church (and not just a single congregation) have to train, test and evaluate a man, hands have to be laid upon him, so that he can give himself to the task of Titus 1:9: "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it".
3. There can be the danger of dividing up the body, something the Apostles' did not permit.
The whole of 1 Corinthians handles this matter. Division must not take place along lines of age, gender, culture, language and so on. Paul insisted that worship must be in Koine Greek in Corinth, so that all peoples could understand what was being said. This is why culture directed congregations are biblically flawed, in my view. We should not splinter off into Chinese, Korean, Nigerian, Syrian, American or British churches when these people groups are living in a different land. Yes, it may help for a season, but all peoples must be integrated together to represent the Triune God in a local church.
Similarly, regular women's Bible studies has the danger of dividing up the body. My wife is not a big fan of them on different grounds. She has found over the years that women together and with a woman teaching, has lacked the spiritual quality which she desires.
I am very happy for blog comments so that we can think through this important matter.
Yours for the good of the church,
Kevin Bidwell
Here are some considerations.
1). Our understanding of Titus 2:3-5 will probably direct much of our behaviour. Here Paul writes:
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
If we give attention and note two words, which are "to teach what is good" and "so train young women" this will help us. "To teach" is not in a doctrinal sense in its widest sense, because we know that doctrinal and biblical instruction is upon the shoulders of elders (Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3). Elders are men who are godly, able, competent in the Scriptures and appointed by other elders for the task. The teaching curriculum then in Titus 2 for women is a narrow one and it is for older women to be modelling by example, precept and with reference to Scripture, to be a godly wife and mother. Likewise to "train" means to "encourage of advise". Therefore, such a passage does not support women leading regular Bible studies to women.
Regular Bible studies led by women, could mean that some women receive more doctrinal instruction through women, than through ordained elders. This is something to ponder, evaluate and pray about.
2). The teaching of the church is to be primarily through the office of men who are trained and ordained for the task. The church (and not just a single congregation) have to train, test and evaluate a man, hands have to be laid upon him, so that he can give himself to the task of Titus 1:9: "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it".
3. There can be the danger of dividing up the body, something the Apostles' did not permit.
The whole of 1 Corinthians handles this matter. Division must not take place along lines of age, gender, culture, language and so on. Paul insisted that worship must be in Koine Greek in Corinth, so that all peoples could understand what was being said. This is why culture directed congregations are biblically flawed, in my view. We should not splinter off into Chinese, Korean, Nigerian, Syrian, American or British churches when these people groups are living in a different land. Yes, it may help for a season, but all peoples must be integrated together to represent the Triune God in a local church.
Similarly, regular women's Bible studies has the danger of dividing up the body. My wife is not a big fan of them on different grounds. She has found over the years that women together and with a woman teaching, has lacked the spiritual quality which she desires.
I am very happy for blog comments so that we can think through this important matter.
Yours for the good of the church,
Kevin Bidwell
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
The Trinity and Justification
It is interesting how little is often said and written about baptism or indeed justification in reference to the Three Persons of the Trinity. In baptism, the centrepiece is not us, but the name of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). In justification, in the Westminster Confession of Faith a Trinitarian doctrine is presented for this cornerstone truth which we should learn from.
Look with me at this statement in Chapter 11:4 (Of Justification) in the Confession:
God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,245 and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:246 nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
Can you see that this is a Trinitarian statement on justification? How and in what way you may ask?
1. God the Father decreed to justify the elect in eternity.
2. God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the elect and rose from the dead for their justification.
3. The Holy Spirit in due time applies Christ to them.
To God be the glory for this work of redemption accomplished and applied by the Triune God.
Here are three Bible verses to undergird this truth.
1. The work of God the Father.
1 Peter 1:20 "He [the Lamb of God] was foreknown [by God the Father] before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.
2. The work of God the Son
Romans 4:24-25 "It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification".
3. The work of God the Holy Spirit
Titus 3:4-7 "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life".
My desire is that all sections of the church would think in far more Trinitarian terms than they currently do. After all this is the One True, Living and Only God, Amen.
Look with me at this statement in Chapter 11:4 (Of Justification) in the Confession:
God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,245 and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:246 nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
Can you see that this is a Trinitarian statement on justification? How and in what way you may ask?
1. God the Father decreed to justify the elect in eternity.
2. God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the elect and rose from the dead for their justification.
3. The Holy Spirit in due time applies Christ to them.
To God be the glory for this work of redemption accomplished and applied by the Triune God.
Here are three Bible verses to undergird this truth.
1. The work of God the Father.
1 Peter 1:20 "He [the Lamb of God] was foreknown [by God the Father] before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.
2. The work of God the Son
Romans 4:24-25 "It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification".
3. The work of God the Holy Spirit
Titus 3:4-7 "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life".
My desire is that all sections of the church would think in far more Trinitarian terms than they currently do. After all this is the One True, Living and Only God, Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)