In the last few months of 2007, Mars Hill Church in Seattle initiated the “Ask Anything” project, which was, “designed for all of you out there in cyberspace who have ever wondered about or demanded to know Pastor Mark’s thoughts on…anything.” People submitted questions that were voted upon, and the top nine questions would form a sermon series to be made into a book. SBF blogger Timmy Brister submitted what became the number 1 question:

Do you believe that the Scripture not only regulates our theology but also our methodology? In other words, do you believe in the regulative principle? If so, to what degree? If not, why not?

As I believed the question to be important, I did a bit of work in promoting this question and defending it on the meta of the “Ask Anything” website.

On March 2, Mark Driscoll preached his sermon on the regulative principle. His answer to the question, in a nutshell, was, ‘No, because I believe we live our whole life of worshiping God by the same principles, and as we do not live by the regulative principle in other areas of life, why would a different principle come into effect when we gather as a church?’ Fundamental to Driscoll’s rejection of the regulative principle is his rejection to any distinction between public and private worship. (more…)

I’ll end the current SBF emphasis on baptism with a link to a debate between Reformed Baptist apologist James White and Dr. Gregg Strawbridge, the editor of The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. One of the more interesting features of this debate concerns the idea of Christ as the Mediator for the New Covenant community. Dr. Strawbridge agrees to White’s assertion that Christ is the Mediator for all persons within the New Covenant community, which community, in Dr. Strawbridge’s view, includes baptized infants- some of whom will never come to faith in Christ. When asked what Christ mediates to those persons (supposed to be) in the New Covenant community who never believe in Him, Dr. Strawbridge responds with, “Wrath.”

Listen to the debate HERE.

Having addressed the definition of baptism and the question of whether baptism is necessary for church membership and admittance to the Lord’s Supper, Dr. Wills next turns to a question concerning who performs the baptism. Dr Wills writes:

Let’s recognize that not every immersion done in the name of Christ, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a true baptism. We must recognize that a Mormon immersion is not a baptism. Not a Christian baptism, anyway, for the Mormon church is not a Christian church. Eastern Orthodox immersions and Roman Catholic immersions are also not true baptisms because they are not Gospel churches. The Christian Church, Churches of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ traditionally have believed that baptism actually accomplishes the remission of sins. That is not Christian baptism. That is an overthrow of the Bible teaching of justification by faith. Baptists have traditionally not recognized their immersions as true baptisms.

What makes a baptism true or false? The form must be correct for it to be a true baptism. We’ve already dealt with that. But is that enough? What about the meaning? Clearly, the meaning is key. Roman Catholics teach baptismal regeneration. When the immersion of a professing believer in a Roman Catholic church takes place, that baptism is held to be a regenerating baptism. That is the proclamation and doctrine of that church. That is not a biblical baptism. So, the meaning of baptism must also be right for a baptism to be valid.

I would also argue that the commissioning agent of the administrator determines the meaning of a baptism. Baptism was established by Christ, in the commissioning of His apostles. That’s where baptism begins. It didn’t begin in the synagogue. It begins in Christ who established His church.

Acts 19:1-7 is a key passage in helping us better understand this. Here you have the 12 disciples from Ephesus who come to Paul and he sees that they have not been filled with the Holy Spirit, that they have not been united to Christ through the Spirit. He asks them about their baptism: “Into what were you baptized?” It is pretty interesting the way he phrases it: “Into what were you baptized?” This implies that baptism gets its meaning from somewhere. And they respond: “The baptism of John.” And Paul says, “The baptism of John was.” He knows what John’s baptism is. It has a definite content, a definite substance, a definite meaning. John was commissioned by God to baptize for a specific purpose. (more…)

The above question addresses the issue raised in the second point of my last post. Are different understandings of baptism important enough to determine whether Christians can join together in membership to a local congregation? If we understand the term “baptism” as only properly referring to the immersion of believers, then I think the answer must be, “yes.” As Dr. Greg Wills explains:

My answer to this question [the title of this post] is “yes.” The only person whom we ought to admit to the Lord’s table is the one who is truly baptized, one who has obeyed the biblical command of baptism.

The question before us is, What about those who profess faith? Are we to invite all persons who profess faith to the table and to church membership or only those who profess faith and have been biblically baptized, that is, immersion upon a profession of faith? Why should we deny unbaptized persons church membership and communion? Well, the basic answer, as I see it, is that they are in disobedience. They have not yet obeyed the first command of Christian discipleship, which is to be baptized.

Disobedience that is unknowing and unintentional is not as bad as disobedience that is high-handed and intentional. The Lord Jesus makes this distinction. [I emailed Dr. Wills asking for Scriptural support of these last two statements, and he responded referencing Jesus’ teaching in Luke 12:47-48 as well as the Old Testament teaching found in Leviticus 5:17 and Numbers 15:27-30.] The fact that disobedience is unintentional and sincere does not turn disobedience into obedience. Only the strangest and most perverted logic can take sincere disobedience and say that because it is sincere, it is obedience. I am glad that people who have been sprinkled or poured are sincerely trying to obey God’s command to be baptized. But I must warn them that they are yet in disobedience. Unbaptized does not mean unbelieving, but a person’s belief that he is baptized does not change the character of the divine command. (more…)

In my next few posts on Strange BaptistFire, I will be giving excerpts from Dr. Greg Wills’ article, “Are we all wet or does Baptism matter?” from the Fall 2007 issue of Southern Seminary Magazine. I believe it is important to address issues of baptism on Strange BaptistFire for two reasons:

1. Many Baptists who become convinced of the Doctrines of Grace naturally begin to question whether the Reformed tradition may be correct on other issues as well, including paedo-baptism.
2. Many Calvinistic Baptists influenced by John Piper have begun to question whether different understandings of baptism are important enough to determine whether Christians can join together in a local congregation.

For these (and other) reasons, it is important that Baptists seeking a historic Baptist fidelity to issues regarding baptism clarify specific teachings on issues related to believers’ baptism.

In regards to the question, “Is immersion essential to baptism?” Dr. Wills writes,

The fundamental question here is what has Christ commanded? Does Christ require the mode of baptism to be immersion or is the mode a matter of indifference? The common attitude of Protestant paedobaptists is that the mode is a matter of indifference. Immersion is good, sprinkling is good, pouring is good, they believe. Traditionally, Baptists have held that the only valid mode of baptism is immersion.

When we say mode of baptism, we are introducing redundancy. We, as Baptists, actually don’t believe in baptism by immersion. We believe in baptism, which is immersion. Let me explain: the word baptizein in Greek means to immerse. When we begin talking about the mode of baptism, we prejudice the matter severely against Christ having revealed a specific form, the very form of the phrase there. Our word “baptize” in English is a lone Greek word, an anglicized transliteration of the Greek baptizein.

We could speak of mode of baptism if we were commanded to wash persons with water. If the command were to wash, louein, then we might ask, how much water should we use to fulfill the command? Shall we wash by immersion? By pouring? By sprinkling? It would be legitimate to ask about mode of baptism in this case. But we are not commanded to wash. We are not commanded to wet, we are not commanded to soak and we are not commanded to purify. We are commanded to immerse.

[The following post is a transcript of a portion from “The Atonement: Design, Nature, and Extent,” presented by Dr. Sam Waldron at the Building Bridges conference.]

9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” (Revelation 5:9-10 NASB)

In this context you note that it is the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders who are singing and praising the Lamb. The occasion is the enthronement of the Messiah. At the Lord’s ascension into Heaven, according to the New Testament, He was made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and sat down at the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3). And this is the event that Revelation 5 is talking about. Now this time-frame (the enthronement of the Lamb after His ascension to Heaven) is important because in the context– in the text we’ve looked at– three aorists describe the basis of His ascension to God’s throne. Each describes, therefore, an event that precedes this ascension to God’s throne. And then a future tense follows, which further accentuates the significance of those aorist tenses. The aorists, therefore, describe events that occurred at (I mean, at the time of) and by means of the death of Christ. They occurred prior to the ascension of our Lord to Heaven and to His enthronement as the Lamb of God. The first aorist establishes this reference to the death of Christ; it is the phrase, “For You were slain.” The second aorist also refers to a transaction at Christ’s death, “You purchased for God with Your blood men.” Now this is real, penal substitution resulting in the real purchase of men. There is real substitution and real redemption at the Cross of Christ. The reference is not to conversion, but to a redemption that occurred at Christ’s death, by His blood, and on His Cross. And it is a particular redemption. It is not, “All men without exception.” It is men from every kindred, tribe, and nation; “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” So here we have what I think we may call an explicit assertion of particular redemption in Revelation 5:9. The third aorist tells us of a blessing that this redemption bestows– [it] is the blessing that the redeemed are constituted “a kingdom and priests to our God.” They’re no longer slaves of sin, as a result of the Cross of Christ and the redemption that took place there, but they are a royal priesthood. And the song ends, then, with a future tense (I understand there’s a textual variant, but I think in this case it’s clear that the tense is future and must be future), “They will reign on the earth.” The redemption according to Revelation 5:9-10 is not only particular, it is also effectual; those for whom Christ was slain, those whom He purchased on His Cross, those whom He constituted a royal priesthood, these– and all of them– will reign in glory in the new heaven and new earth. In the new earth all those purchased by Christ’s death will reign with Him.

A few bloggers at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary have recently began examining Altar Calls/the Invitation System:

• Corey Reynolds is questioning the invitation system.
• Geoff Baggett has started a series entitled “Altar Call Confusion.”
  • Part I
  • Part II
• Timmy Brister has two related posts on the topic:
  • He identified the modern equivalents of Finney’s “New Measures”.
  • Then he argued how the invitation system undermines evangelism.

  [HT:: Said at Southern Seminary]

It’s the stereotypical “deep” philosophical question. You’ve probably heard characters on TV shows ask it with the assumption that it cannot be answered. It’s the question, “What is the meaning of life?”

By God’s grace, the Reformed believer is not stumped by this question, for God’s Word has given us an answer for why we are here, and this answer is the first thing a child learns when receiving a Reformed education. So, to answer the question, “What is the meaning of life?” or, “Why are we here?” the response immediately comes: “To glorify God (1 Corinthians 10:31), and to enjoy Him for ever (Psalm 73:25-26).”

This answer is not confined to a specific culture, for the second Scripture proof in the statement above (Psalm 73:25-26) was penned by Asaph, a chief musician for David, an Israelite king who reigned from about 1011-971 B.C.; the human author of the first Scripture proof (1 Corinthians 10:31) was the Apostle Paul, a Greek-educated Jew who wrote from Ephesus in Asia Minor some time in between A.D. 54-57. These texts can be wedded together in harmony without confusion, reflecting timeless Truth, for their ultimate Author is God Himself.

We know that our purpose in life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever because we have been created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26) to rule as His stewards over the earth. As divine image-bearers, our purpose in God’s universe is to be a reflection of His purpose in the universe. And what is that purpose? … God’s purpose in His universe is to magnify His glory and enjoy Himself forever. As Pastor John Piper noted at the New Attitude Conference last May: God is working to magnify His glory in Creation (Isaiah 43:6-7), Incarnation (Romans 15:8-9), Propitiation (Romans 3:23-26), Sanctification (Philippians 1:9-11; 1 Peter 4:11), and Consummation (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

When we say that our purpose or meaning in life is to “glorify God and to enjoy Him forever,” most people have a fairly good grasp on the meaning of the word “enjoy.” People naturally enjoy many things, so the only question is whether one’s enjoyment ultimately flows from and is directed toward enjoyment of God.

The word “glorify,” however, is almost entirely unheard of outside of church contexts, and so most people do not have much awareness as to its meaning. Even for Christians, this word can just be an empty sound if we fail to reflect on what it is intended to communicate.

“Glorify” is the verb form of the noun “glory,” which translates the Hebrew word kabod, meaning “weight” or “heaviness.” This word speaks to heaviness in terms of dignity, and indicates a radically humbling emotional impact on any who encounter true glory; as seen, for example, in the experience of the Prophet Isaiah, who, when encountering the glory of God, began to call down curses upon himself for his sin (Isaiah 6).

This word also speaks to the power of God throughout His creation. In the passage cited above, the seraphim declare that the whole earth is full of God’s glory. This declaration is in keeping with the Psalmist’s testimony that nature is constantly proclaiming God’s handiwork (Psalm 19:1-6). Whereas the atheist tries to assert that there is no proof of God and whereas we might fail to discern His invisible presence, the kabod- the glory, “weight,” or power of God is ever impacting the world around us, holding all things together and directing all events according to His purpose. We glorify God by recognizing His presence, dignity and power, and by loving Him with all our heart, soul, and might (Deuteronomy 6:5). In this way we see that glorifying God and enjoying Him are intimately connected. For the simple recognition of or even subservience to the fact of God’s glory does not glorify Him if we resent His dignity and power. It is only as we love or enjoy His glory that mere acknowledgement is transformed into “glorifying.” (more…)

Last week was finals week here at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, so I didn’t have the chance to do much at all except study like crazy. During a study break, however, I read some of Pastor John MacArthur’s newest book, The Truth War. The following section that I read seemed particularly appropriate for Strange BaptistFire in light of the conversation currently taking place with Barry in the comment thread of Nathan’s recent post:

Many Christians today are weary of the long war over truth. They are uneasy about whether doctrinal disagreements and divisions are a blight on the spiritual unity of the church and therefore a poor testimony to the world. These and similar questions are constantly heard nowadays: “Isn’t it time to set aside our differences and love one another?” “Rather than battling people with whom we disagree over various points of doctrine, why not stage a cordial dialogue with them and listen to their ideas?” “Can’t we have a friendly conversation rather than a bitter clash?” “Shouldn’t we be congenial rather than contentious?” “Does the current generation really need to perpetuate the fight over beliefs and ideologies? Or can we at last declare peace and set aside all the debates over doctrine?”

Of course, there is a legitimate concern in the tone of such questions. Scripture commands us: “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). “Pursue peace with all people” (Hebrews 12:14). “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23). Taken together, these passages make it clear that what the Scripture demands of us is the polar opposite of a cantankerous attitude. No one who exhibits the fruit of the Spirit can possible take delight in conflict. So it should be plain that the call to contend for the faith is not a license for pugnacious spirits to promote strife deliberately over insignificant matters. Even when conflict proves unavoidable, we are not to adopt a mean spirit.

But conflict is not always avoidable. That is Jude’s whole point in writing his epistle [see Jude 1]. To remain faithful to the truth, sometimes it is even necessary to wage “civil war” within the church [see Revelation 2:14-16]– especially when enemies of truth posing as brethren and believers are smuggling dangerous heresy in by stealth. (73-74)

I’ve been reading quite a bit of Spurgeon lately and came across this in a sermon entitled “The Sum and Substance of all Theology” (online here).  I thought you might enjoy it.

I was preaching, not very long ago, at a place in Derbyshire, to a congregation, nearly all of whom were Methodists, and as I preached, they were crying out, “Hallelujah! Glory! Bless the Lord!.” They were full of excitement, until I went on to say in my sermon, “This brings me to the doctrine of Election.” There was no crying out of “Glory!” and “Hallelujah!” then. Instead, there was a great deal of shaking of the head, and a sort of telegraphing round the place, as though something dreadful was coming. Now, I thought, I must have their attention again, so I said, “You all believe in the doctrine of Election?” “No, we don’t, lad,” said one. “Yes, you do, and I am going to preach it to you, and make you cry ‘Hallelujah!’ over it.” I am certain they mistrusted my power to do that; so, turning a moment from the subject, I said, “Is there any difference between you and the ungodly world?” “Ay! Ay! Ay!” “Is there any difference between you and the drunkard, the harlot, the blasphemer?” “Ay! Ay! Ay!” Ay! there was a difference indeed. “Well, now,” I said, “there is a great difference; who made it, then?” for, whoever made the difference, should have the glory of it. “Did you make the difference?” “No, lad,” said one; and the rest all seemed to join in the chorus. “Who made the difference, then? Why, the Lord did it; and did you think it wrong for Him to make a difference between you and other men?” “No, no,” they quickly said. “Very well, then; if it was not wrong for God to make the difference, it was not wrong for Him to purpose to make it, and that is the doctrine of Election.” Then they cried, “Hallelujah!” as I said they would.

Spurgeon follows with an elaboration on the doctrine of election.

The doctrine of Election is God’s purposing in His heart that He would make some men better than other men; that He would give to some men more grace than to other men; that some should come out and receive the mercy; that others, left to their own free will, should reject it; that some should gladly accept the invitations of mercy, while others, of their own accord, stubbornly refuse the mercy to which the whole world of mankind is invited. All men, by nature, refuse the invitations of the gospel. God, in the sovereignty of His grace, makes a difference by secretly inclining the hearts of some men, by the power of His Holy Spirit, to partake of His everlasting mercy in Christ Jesus. I am certain that, whether we are Calvinists or Arminians, if our hearts are right with God, we shall all adoringly testify: “We love Him, because He first loved us.” If that be not Election, I know not what it is.

Amen.