If your ecclesiology stands or falls on the word "church"...

Over at Think Theology, Kenny Burchard has written about the fact that Tyndale did not include the word church in his translation of the Bible. He has also shared something of his own ecclesiological journey to help us understand his position. John Stevens of the FIEC also shared his post with the following question: How might thinking/practice differ if "church" was always translated "congregation" in Bible? My short answer is this: if your ecclesiology stands or falls on the English translation of the word church, you are probably doing it wrong.

Burchard made much of the fact that Tyndale pointedly translates e0kklesia as congregation, not church. However, Tyndale's bible used the word congregation because the ecclesiastical standard model set by The Church of his day was errant. Tyndale was not attempting to alter perceptions by using a different word for church, he was trying to escape the association with the established Church. It was the established Church that sought to define ecclesiology based on the translation of the word church, not Tyndale.

Second, majoring on the etymology of e0kklesia meaning "called out ones" rather falls foul of the root word fallacy. As noted some while ago at the Scribble Preach blog:

While combining the two root words (“called out from”) does indeed create something like “called out ones”, the truth is, the word ekklesia is never used that way in the New Testament or its contemporaries. In fact, ekklesia was used to refer to a group of philosophers, mathematicians, or any other kind of assembly in the Greco-Roman world. So unless we’re supposing that actors and gladiators were called to a holy lifestyle by assembling together, we can’t create a relationship between holiness and ekklesia necessarily. While it’s true that the church is composed of “called out” ones – that’s not the particular point of this word. It just means “assembly” or “gathering”.

Burchard argues that the "literal" understanding of e0kklesia means "called out" and seeks to argue, from this, that the word congregation is a better translation as it focuses on community and not on buildings. Yet, the supposed literal "called out" meaning is not the actual meaning of the word. Though congregation is a perfectly valid rendering, it has absolutely nothing to do with being called out or forming a community. It is simply an assembled gathering of people.

Third, and most importantly, just about everybody recognises that the word church has a range of meanings in scripture. Here are just some of them:

• Eph 5:25 - the church - all people, throughout all time, saved by faith in Jesus
• Gal 1:13 - the church - all professing Christians, real or not, that belong to visible congregations
• 1 Cor 11:18 - the church - a gathered meeting
• Rom 16:4f - the churches/the church - a group of separate gatherings and a particular local gathering in one place

If we take Tyndale's congregation translation, that fits perfectly well with the meaning in the latter two passages. However, if we apply his translation to the first two, congregation doesn't translate the meaning terribly well. It is equally fair to say, if we take a leaden view of church as meaning either church buildings or formal gatherings, we also run into problems with some of these passage. However, just about everybody recognises that church has a range of meanings and must be applied in different ways depending on whatever the context demands.

What is more, most approaches to church extend beyond the word e0kklesia. The command in Hebrews 10:25, to make a habit of meeting together, does not stand or fall on this word; e0kklesia isn't even mentioned in the context. Nonetheless, most agree that the writer is telling us to continue going, serving and being part of a local church body (or congregation if you like). Likewise, the biblical imperative to appoint elders and deacons insists on some sort of formal structure within a visible body. If we are using congregation as a means of ridding ourselves of any structure within the church, these leadership passages speak against being able to do so. If we are trying to use church to insist on a greater level of formality and structure than members/deacons/elders then we are likely using that word in a way it was never intended. There are plenty of other examples but these two should suffice to make the point. Ecclesiology, that is the way we do church, is not only determined by our understanding of the word e0kklesia.

So here is the basic issue. If our ecclesiology stands or falls upon the way we translate the word e0kklesia - especially if we leadenly apply our translation in exactly the same way in every context - then there will almost certainly be something deficient about the way we are doing church.

3 reasons why I would admit paedobaptists to membership

This post has, in part, been encouraged by the question asked by Jonathan Leeming - of 9Marks - via Twitter.

I am a baptist. I have pretty well always been a baptist. I am personally convinced of credo-baptism and I lead a church that practices believers baptism by full immersion. I genuinely believe baptism matters and I remain personally unconvinced of paedobaptist arguments to the contrary. Our church practice is that only baptised believers can be admitted to church membership and will only conduct believers baptism by immersion.

With that said, it bears asking why our church is willing to admit paedobaptists to membership? I have previously tackled the question of whether we can do that consistently here (I argued we could). However, this position leads to cries from some baptist quarters that we, therefore, don't really believe in baptism as a criteria for membership. Alternatively, we may be charged with inconsistency in that we insist on baptism for membership, and only conduct believers baptism as a church, yet admit paedobaptists. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest 3 reasons why we admit some paedobaptists to membership (1).

Baptism is demanded by all churches

Throughout history, there have always been denominational differences and the issue of baptism is no different. There are those who will baptise babies (paedobaptist) and those who only baptise professing believers (credo-baptist). There are those who will baptise all infants (universal paedobaptists) and those who only baptise children of believing parents (covenental paedobaptists). There are those who baptise by sprinkling children and adults, those who immerse children and adults, those who sprinkle professing believers and those who only immerse professing believers. The reason for these differences has been picked over many times.

However, one thing remains clear: there are no Christian churches, no denominations, who do not see baptism as important. Whether Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or Free Church baptism is seen as highly important and a measure of obedience to Jesus Christ. Almost no churches would argue baptism, in any form, is of no value or importance. Very few would say it bears no relevance to membership (though, undoubtedly, some exist).

Our church is very clear that only baptised believers can be admitted to membership. Those who will not be baptised in any way, shape or form are deemed to stand contrary to the commands of Jesus Christ. Those who openly flout Christ's commandments naturally cause us to question their testimony (2). 

However, many who have undergone paedobaptism believe they have been obedient of Christ's command and equally do not believe they can be "re-baptised". Though we would continue to teach and encourage believers toward baptism by immersion (even those who have been baptised as infants), we do not want to force individuals to choose between their conscience (in light of the fact they truly believe they have been obedient to Christ on this issue) and joining the church in membership. This is not admittance of unbaptised believers, it is admittance of believers who have been baptised in an irregular way (3).

Paedobaptism is not without significance

As I argued here, paedobaptism is not entirely insignificant. Though it may have been done 'out of order' - in that it preceded, rather than followed, conversion - that does not undo the fact the later faith of the individual imbues it with some significance. Equally, though paedobaptism does not fully communicate the fullness of washing from sin, the dying/rising motif and union with Christ it is not totally bereft of such symbolism. It is therefore possible to consider paedobaptism - at the point one comes to faith - as retroactively imbued with some significance, though not full significance. It is, if you like, a partial or improper baptism.

Again, though the church would teach the importance of credo-baptism and encourage paedobaptists into full believers baptism by immersion, this does not undo the smaller significance of the paedobaptism itself. The individual has gone through the waters of baptism and is convinced such is an effective response to Christ's command. We, therefore, do not want to disbar such people from membership. Nevertheless, we would still want to encourage them into the fuller significance of credo-baptism and would not consider this a "re-baptism".

It is better than the alternatives

Faced with this question, we must assess the options available to us. As far as I can tell, we have three central options:

1. Ignore baptism as a criteria for membership
2. Refuse membership to paedobaptist brethren
3. Find an accommodating middle way

Option 1 seems rather a poor position for a baptist church. It is evident from scripture, baptism preceded church membership. It is also an obvious matter of obedience to Christ. To admit to membership those who have made zero effort to fulfill this criteria (leaving aside subject and mode for the time being), is a bizarre position. There is little, if anything, else we would tolerate as openly disobedient to Christ without calling membership into question. Baptism, it seems, should be no different. Allowing folk to remain openly disobedient to Christ whilst admitting them to church membership seems irreconcilable with more than just the baptism passages of the bible.

Option 2 is certainly a more consistent position. It upholds baptism as important and makes a clear distinction between what is, and is not, meant by biblical baptism. In many ways, I am sympathetic to this position. Yet, it seems unfortunate (to say the least) to lock out of membership those who are obviously brethren in Christ and wholly in line with your stance as a church but for this one issue. It equally leads to anomalies such as Reformed Baptist Churches, standing firmly in the Calvinistic tradition, who themselves would lock Calvin out of membership. Is it right to disbar brethren, not due to disobedience to Christ, but because their conscience won't allow them to be "re-baptised", irrespective of how we may view that mode of baptism? This is not a matter of obedience but an issue of how obedience is interpreted.

I, therefore, end up leaning toward option 3. This may seem like something of a sop. In truth, were this current point the only one, I'd be inclined to agree. Yet, given the two (more important) points above, I think this is a legitimate position. It is a means of not dividing the church whilst maintaining believers baptism by immersion as important. It makes Christ's command to be baptised of central importance whilst making allowance for improper, or irregular, modes. It recognises there is some value in paedobaptism without conferring on it the full value of believer's baptism by immersion. It lets believers baptism by immersion be taught as proper, and even allows credo-baptists to encourage their paedobaptist brethren to go through believers baptism by immersion, without breaking unity in the church.

I write this not to knock other practices. Each of these positions seeks to be biblically faithful and, in some measure, hold unity together with truth. I don't pretend this is anything less than a thorny issue in which each church must come to its own settled position. I merely offer my own here.

Notes

1. We wouldn't admit all paedobaptists to membership. Only those who can credibly (theologically) defend their paedobaptism
2. That is not to say those who are unbaptised are necessarily unbelievers. It is simply to say, those who refuse to get baptised - especially when they agree such is commanded by Jesus Christ - cannot wonder why we are surprised by their lack of desire to do as Jesus commands and suggest it may reflect an unregenerate heart
3. It's worth saying, we would baptise some folk by sprinkling where full immersion would be a danger to life or limb. Sprinking is not fully significant, it is not the proper mode, but it does convey something (not least, a heart willing to obey Christ) and is therefore adequate for membership if not the most full and proper sign

A return to regeneration, indwelling and the coming of the Spirit

Almost exactly a year ago, I began tentatively exploring the nature of belief and salvation; specifically regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit before and after Pentecost. Briefly stated, I considered passages such as Ezekiel 36:24-28 and John 16:7, among others, which speak of a distinct difference between the pre- and post- coming of the Spirit. However, the Reformed ordo salutis (to which I subscribe) insists regeneration must occur prior to receipt of the Spirit. To state the problem briefly: if the Spirit is required in the work of regeneration and this precedes repentance in the ordo salutis, how did believers come to repentance prior to Christ's ascension when the Spirit was not present in their hearts?

You can read my three previous posts on this issue here, here and here. I last left this discussion having arrived (very tentatively) at the following conclusions: first, and never really in doubt during discussion, salvation was always by faith alone. Second, regeneration was always necessary to counter Total Depravity in both the OT and NT. Third, there appeared to be a distinction between the Spirit 'on' individuals in the OT and the Spirit 'in' believers in the NT (broadly speaking). The mechanics of how this all held together was left unclear.

I was (relatively) OK with this broad position until a recent discussion pointed out 1 Peter 1:10-11: 

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and enquired carefully, enquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.

This verse appears to suggest the prophets had the Spirit of Christ indwelling their hearts prior to the coming of the Spirit himself. This sent me back to the issue for a reappraisal. Here are some further (still tentative) thoughts on this topic.

Before I go on, it's important to affirm what I uphold. Principally, I maintain salvation - in both OT and NT - was by faith alone. Similarly, I maintain the Reformed ordo salutis that Total Depravity demands regeneration by the Spirit prior to conversion. However, I want to uphold a legitimate distinction between Christ's going and the Spirit's coming. I also want to maintain a reasonable distinction between Ezekiel's comment (related to a future reality) and the present experience, at the time of writing, of OT believers.

In previous discussions, I posited the idea the Spirit may not necessarily have indwelt OT believers (though they were regenerate). The question follows: is it possible to have regeneration without indwelling? Certainly, the ordo salutis would allow for this. Further, there is no scriptural reason to insist - just because the Holy Spirit indwells believers as a sign and seal of their faith today - that excludes God's work on unbelievers prior to faith. Even in the church age, where we certainly receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, we believe regeneration occurs prior to conversion from which indwelling follows. Indeed, John 16:8-11, Titus 3:5 and James 1:18 would bear this reading out. If such is true, we have good grounds to argue regeneration occurs without indwelling (though receipt of the Spirit follows for believers today). If it is true that regeneration occurs prior to indwelling, this could readily apply to OT regeneration irrespective of their indwelling.

Given that, Jesus words in John 14:16-17 would also bear out this reading:

I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Notice Jesus' construction here. His disciples know the Spirit because he dwells, or abides, with you (present tense) but he will be in you (future tense). As John Hendryx helpfully points out:

This is a future tense of an indwelling. Apparently the saints of the OT enjoyed regeneration but may not have enjoyed indwelling... Regeneration and indwelling are not exactly the same for in regeneration the Spirit works to illumine our minds and renew our hearts prior to our faith in which He comes to indwell us. That pre-salvific action is not called indwelling. "WITH YOU" and "IN YOU" appear to demonstrate qualitative differences.

So, just as the OT believing Jews experienced a type and shadow of things to come, so it may be they were regenerate - that is the Spirit worked on the hearts and minds of OT believers - without indwelling their hearts. Today, the ordo salutis is largely logical (not necessarily sequential). That is, regeneration is logically prior to conversion which is logically prior to indwelling and sanctification though the latter three (broadly) occur simultaneously and end in glorification. For the OT believer, the same logical sequence would be true but regeneration and conversion happen in quick succession, whereas indwelling, sanctification and glorification may all occur later in a much more rapid succession.

There is an argument that OT believers were both regenerate and indwelt by the Spirit. Yet, this quashes any meaningful difference, as outlined in Ezekiel 36 and John 16, pre- and post- the Spirit's coming. It is often argued the difference was between a partial experience of the Spirit and the fullness after his coming, the emphasis falling upon Joel 2:28-29 and the post-Pentecost signs and wonders. However, it can't escape our notice that such things also happened in the OT. Visions and dreams were experienced and miraculous works were done as well. This doesn't really provide us with any quantitative or qualitative difference.

How then do we explain OT believers doing miraculous works and specific tasks? It seems, in the OT, the Spirit came upon people and anointed them selectively and temporarily for particular works (cf. Judges 15:14; 1 Samuel 16:12f; 2 Chronicles 20:14; et al). It is notable that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Saul (1 Samuel 10:10) and yet he is widely regarded to have died in unbelief. As such, the Spirit coming upon an individual did not necessarily indicate their spiritual state. The Spirit thus moved individuals to specific acts without necessarily indwelling. Again, such causes a problem for the view that Pentecost was the dawn of the fullness of the Spirit's coming (these acts of the Spirit were occurring in the OT). 

How then do we explain verses such as Numbers 27:18; Ezekiel 2:2; 3:24; Micah 3:8; Luke 1:15, 41, 67; 1 Peter 1:10f? They are best understood as the Spirit moving these individuals at particular times for particular tasks. So, the prophets who enquired "what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating" could be read less as a reference to their ongoing, permanent indwelling and more a reference to the empowering of the Spirit at the point they were prophesying. In other words, this is a manifestation of the selective, temporary anointing of the Spirit. It does not speak to permanent indwelling but their anointing by the Spirit as prophets, spokesmen for God, whom the Spirit also anointed to write the canon.

This reading allows us to make a qualitative difference between the pre- and post- coming of the Spirit. It stops us from quashing all meaningful difference in the words of Ezekiel and Jesus. It also allows us to uphold Paul's statements in Romans that the Spirit - the same Spirit who descended on Jesus, anointed him at his baptism and on whom he relied to live out a perfect human life - will empower us to keep God's law in a way OT  believers could/did not. This reading maintains the continuity of Covenant Theology - salvation by faith alone requiring the regeneration of the Spirit of God to overcome our Total Depravity - without flattening any sense of discontinuity from when the Spirit begins to dwell in the hearts of God's people.

Are we called to ignorance and credulity?

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8)

Many are the verses often ripped out of context to press particular points in the church. Matthew 18:20 is one such favourite (see here), Matthew 7:1 is another and John 16:23b is often handled this way too. Ignoring the context of these verses will inevitably lead us to false application (sometimes dangerously, sometimes less so). As Don Carson has often stated, attributing the quote to his father, "a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text". The above verse, Philippians 4:8, is another such example.

This verse is rarely used in its contextless form as an encouragement to other believers. Rather, it is typically wheeled out when one party wishes to stop another from acting a particular way. Such is a shame given a plain reading of the verse, even while ignoring the wider context, suggests it was intended as an encouragement to the believers in Philippi, not a warning to stop doing something in particular.

Those who employ a contextless reading tell us to think about those things that are true, honrouable, pure, excellent, etc. That is a plain reading of the text. Therefore, they aver, it follows we are to avoid thinking about those things that are not lovely, commendable, excellent, etc. As such, they go on, anything we can deem unlovely, not commendable or less than excellent must be shunned by the believer. It is here we run into some trouble.

On such a reading, the range of things condemned as unedifying is enormous. The usual suspects in view are such "worldly" pursuits as TV, music, film and then a whole host of other things dependent on the particular hobby horses of the individual. However, what they singularly fail to take into account on their reading is the logical conclusion of this position. 

If we can only focus on what is true, any form of fiction must be discarded because it is not (and that would presumably include such classics as Pilgrim's Progress.) Pursuing regular news coverage must be ruled out. Rarely is the news commendable, excellent or worthy of praise. In fact, any thought of considering the state of the world around us must be removed from our thoughts because, though it may be true, it is not pure, excellent or always worthy of praise.

But the view must be pressed further. Evangelism suddenly becomes impossible because, as often happens when one engages with the world, conversations may be less than excellent and praise worthy. We may have to listen to views, and language, that do not equate with Paul's exhortation. Paul himself was wrong to do evangelism because he was regularly flogged, beaten, stoned or imprisoned - hardly lovely and commendable. 

Then we are faced with portions of scripture itself. What precisely is lovely, pure and worthy of praise in certain descriptive parts of Old Testament narrative? Consider (or don't, if you take this reading) passages such as Genesis 4, Judges 19:22-29 or 2 Samuel 13. Of course, in their appropriate context and with proper thought, there are valuable principles to be drawn and understood. But the events themselves, that we must consider if we are to understand what God would have us learn through such passages, cannot be meditated upon if we follow this contextless reading to its logical conclusion.

This approach to Philippians 4:8 is a charter for ignorance and lack of thought. We can only really consider the lighter, fluffier parts of the Bible because they are pure, excellent, true, etc. We cannot consider, with meaningful thought, anything that is not wholly true, honourable, just, pure, excellent, etc. Engagement of any sort with the world, and worldviews apart from the Bible, are out. Even portions of scripture describing unsavoury events must also be ignored if we are not to fall foul of considering things that are fundamentally unlovely. The Bible simply does not call believers to a state of credulousness and ignorance this way.

Instead of this approach, putting the verses in context can help us out. The preceding verses, Philippians 4:4-7, are dealing with our potential for anxiety. Paul is telling us to be anxious in nothing and to bring our prayers and petitions to God with confidence. The following verses, vv-8-9, are offering a solution to our anxieties. Moreover, the only thing to truly meet all the criteria outlined by Paul in v8 is Jesus Christ himself. Thus the solution to our anxieties as Christians is to focus upon the Lord Jesus (who himself will guard our hearts) and will allow us to thus bring our prayers with confidence to the Father.

Paul's point is that Christ should be our ultimate focus. As per v4, we are to rejoice in the Lord. Thus his exhortation in v8 is to make the Lord Jesus our central focus. Where we do this, our anxieties will be cast aside and we will bring our prayers and petitions to the Father with confidence. As Sinclair Ferguson points out, in the space of 3 verses, Paul calls us to constantly rejoice in Christ and reject anxiety. He comments "the two are related; the joyful person is not likely to be dominated by anxiety; the anxiety-ridden spirit cannot be a joyful one".

Paul is not calling us to credulousness, nor ignorance, nor circling off certain activities as unlovely, lacking excellence and unworthy of praise (though such things undoubtedly do exist.) His point is that Christ should be our focus. Where he is, our anxieties certainly will not prevail. Where he is the centre of our thoughts, film, music, tv and all other manner of possible activities can be assessed rightly and hold nothing for us to fear. Such a position does not lead us to cut ourselves off from the world, or meaningful engagement with it, but rather causes us to make proper and valid assessments of the things we see around us in light of Jesus; the object of our faith, the pivot around which we assess all else and the definition of the qualities of Philippians 4:8.

Paul makes this same point in v9. He tells us to shape our thoughts and minds around the apostles teaching and to practise such things. And the focus of the apostles teaching was the person and work of Jesus Christ. If our thoughts and actions are focused upon him, our minds will be focused on the things of v8. When our minds and thoughts and actions are focused this way, we may assess all else - not in a spirit of credulity or ignorance - but in the Spirit of Christ himself, which he gives to all true believers. 

Four signs you don't belong to God

As a community group, we have started a series of studies in 1 John. Tomorrow, we reflect upon the key points and applications from our first study in 1 John 1:1-2:6 as a means of focusing our prayers. I have also been organising our future studies in 1 John. Today, I have been reflecting on our first study as well as preparing a future study in 1 John 3:11-4:6.

One of John's central concerns is determining who belongs to God and who does not. More specifically, he is concerned as to whether we belong to God or remain under the influence of Satan. He also wants us to be clear that not all teaching that purports to be from God is truly from Him. Much of what claims to pass as "Christian" is no such thing and comes from the Devil.

One sign that we do not belong to God, according to John, is a claim to sinlessness. He says:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)

Teaching like this seems to be precisely the sort of thing John has in mind here.

Two further signs are offered in chapter 4:1-3. John says:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (1 John 4:1-3)

It is a sign of unbelief, and Satanic influence, for one to deny "Jesus has come in the flesh" i.e. he is not fully man. It is similarly significant if one argues "Jesus is not from God" i.e. he is not fully God himself. Teaching like this (1) seems to be in mind here.

On top of that, in the studies I have been preparing (though throughout the letter John offers further tests), he says:

They [false teachers] are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:5f)

In other words, true believers will listen to God's word in scripture. They will hear the teaching of the apostles and reject things that don't accord with it. They certainly will not teach things that cannot be found, or cannot be tested, by the words of scripture. John seems to be aiming at teaching like this and this:

“The Bible can’t even find any way to explain this. Not really. That’s why you’ve got to get it by revelation. There are no words to explain what I’m telling you. I’ve got to just trust God that He’s putting it into your spirit like He put it into mine.” Joyce Meyer (What Happened from the Cross to The Throne? audio)

The most concerning thing here is not the warning against false teachers themselves. It is far more troubling that John says "they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us". In other words, if you are swept up in such false teaching - you listen to it and believe it over and against the clear teaching of John in these passages - it is a sign that you are not saved yourself.

For most of us - certainly those who move in my circles - this sort of false teaching doesn't tend to be pushed. Amongst our church members, there aren't usually people standing up and teaching these sorts of heretical views. What is far more likely, and troubling, is people in our congregations may hear such things and be swept away with it. They themselves aren't teaching it but they are imbibing it and ultimately responding to it.

Heed John's warning, best to ignore anyone who comes with such views.

Notes

1. Joyce Meyer audio

Romans 11 and "all Israel"... another wisdom of crowds job

Romans 11:11-32 outlines the climax of Paul's dialogue regarding the inclusion of Jews & Gentiles into the kingdom of God. As hotly contested verses go, these are up there. Doug Moo notes most scholars 'agree that the key verse is 11:26: "All Israel will be saved." But the identity of "Israel" and the manner and time of its salvation are contested' (Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans, 2002).

Whilst there are a broad range of potential solutions, there are only three credible possibilities:

1. "All Israel" refers to a significant number of Jews who will turn to Christ and be saved at the parousia (so Tom Schreiner, Bob Mounce, Doug Moo, et al)
2. "All Israel" refers to the entirety of the church. So, the elect Jewish remnant and the fullness of the Gentiles will "come in" ushering in the eschaton (so most Reformers, Stuart Olyott, Tom Wright, et al)
3. "All Israel" refers to ethnic Israel but, rather than a significant number at the end of time, only those elect Jews throughout the course of history (so C.M. Horne)

I am pretty happy rejecting one of the above options without too many qualms (I simply don't think it fits the data). However, I am rather torn between the other two options.

I have an inclination as to which option I favour (not much more than that) but I thought the wisdom of crowds might be useful.

So, those so inclined, what are your thoughts?

Four problems with "claiming" promises

Many people seem to make a habit of "claiming" promises from scripture. Here are four major problems with doing so:

1. You can't "claim" promises

As Barnabas Piper outlines here, you simply cannot "claim" promises. To do so is to miss the point. As he comments "A promise tells a little bit about who God is and what He will do. It is anchored in His holiness, goodness, power, and sovereignty. It is based on his omnipotence and omniscience. And it will come to pass in a way only God knows and ordains." We cannot "claim" it and take control of it. Were we to do so, we would change both the nature of the promise and they way it is ultimately realised. A promise is a gift that one receives from God and He will make it happen, not us.

2. The promise we claim may not be directed at us

As Graeme Goldsworthy reminded us in Gospel and Kingdom, it is false to read the Old Testament as a series of stories we can mine for moral lessons that relate directly to us. That being the case, we cannot simply "claim" the promises of the Old Testament and relate them directly to ourselves. When God makes a promise to King David, for example, he does so in his capacity as the Lord's anointed. It would, therefore, be misguided to presume the promises to David relate directly to ourselves in the same way. The way those promises come to us, if at all, is through our relationship to Christ. David was a type of Christ who is the Archtype. Jesus is the ultimate heir to those promises and they relate only to us by way of Him.

Other issues arise when we try to "claim" certain supposed promises. It has become fairly common to cite the prayer of Jabez (1 Chronicles 4:10) as a basis for claiming health and wealth. Firstly, there is no promise from God anywhere in scripture that he will do this for us (in fact, there is plenty which suggests the opposite). All we are told is that the Lord did this for Jabez. Secondly, we simply don't know why the Lord did this for Jabez. Perhaps there was a particular reason. What we do know is that plenty of other passages in scripture speak against wealth for wealth's sake. Thirdly, and most significantly, this simply isn't a promise. Jabez prayed and the Lord granted his prayer. This wasn't a promise from God that he would do this for Jabez nor is there any suggestion this is a promise of what God will do for us.

3. Claiming promises turns them into magic spells and silver bullets

At heart, we must ask why we see fit to "claim" promises. If we are working on the premise that claiming a promise will make it happen, we are really turning God's word into magic spells. We suggest that by reciting a mantra, or prayer, God will somehow honour us. The Lord never worked that way in scripture. More to the point, He does not appreciate being treated like a genie who exists only to grant our wishes.

4. We only ever seem to claim the promises we like

As in (2), associating ourselves with the bits we like and ignoring the less attractive parts is a particularly poor way to read scripture. Psalm 139 is a good case in point. Many of us like to associate with vv1-18, applying it directly to our situation and "claiming" these truths for ourselves. I am yet to meet anyone who "claims" vv19-22 for themselves! It is simply not credible to cherry pick the nice parts and ignore the less pleasant bits - especially within the same Psalm! Again, as in (2), these things only really relate to us so far as they relate to Christ and we are in Him.

Is the intercession of the Spirit different to the intercession of Christ?

"Likewise, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." - Rom 8:26f.

"Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us" - Rom 8:34

In Romans 8, Paul tells us the Spirit intercedes for believers whilst going on to state that Jesus intercedes for us as well. So, it seems worth asking, is the intercession of Christ identical to that of the Spirit?

It seems apparent from these verses that the Spirit's intercession - in this context - relates specifically to the content of our prayers. It is not so much that we do not know how to pray as what to pray for. According to Thomas Schreiner, "Paul intends to say that the Spirit intercedes for believers according to the will of God" (Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1998). In other words, we do not know what to pray for because we do not fully know God's will; our weakness in prayer stems from the fact the totality of God's will is not fully revealed to us. However, the Spirit intercedes for us "according to the will of God", in other words, he makes the will of God known to believers such that we can pray according to God's design and purposes.

The intercession of Christ, on the other hand, has something else in view. As Schreiner notes, "this intercession should not be separated from his death on behalf of his people; rather, his intercession on behalf of the saints is based on his atoning death". Christ's intercession for us begins with the access he grants us to the Father by his death on the cross. Moreover, as 1 John 2:1 suggests, Jesus' advocacy is a calling to attention of his perfect righteousness in defence of sinning believers. In other words, when we sin, Jesus intercedes that his once-for-all sacrifice was indeed enough to expiate and propitiate our sin as well as keep us forever adopted as sons of God. Moreover, we can argue that Jesus' intercession goes further still. We have good grounds, based on his earthly priestly prayers (e.g. John 17 and Luke 22:31-43), to believe that Jesus actively engages in prayer for us to the Father as well.

So, we may view the intercession of the Spirit and that of Christ as having different functions. On the one hand, the Spirit intercedes from the Father to the saints. On the other hand, Jesus intercedes for the saints to the Father. The Spirit intercedes by illuminating the Father's will to inform the content of our prayers. The Son intercedes in two ways: (1) He grants access to the Father through his death. Our prayers are heard because we are adopted into the Son's sonship and, just as the Father is pleased to hear the Son, so he is pleased to hear the saints that are in the Son. (2) He actively petitions the Father on our behalf.

Where two or more are gathered

"...if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” - Matthew 18:19f. (ESV)

It is not at all uncommon to hear the above verses mentioned as an encouragement to small local churches. If Christ is present when only two or three gather together in his name, so the argument goes, we can be assured Jesus is with us in a special way despite our small number. Alternatively, these verses may be used to encourage small prayer meetings or as a spur to others to be more active in corporate prayer. The reasoning is thus: you are missing out on the special presence of Jesus when you don't come to the prayer meeting. Those who are there will experience Jesus' presence in a different and special way compared to one's personal prayer-time.

In an altogether more noxious and abusive way, some have distorted v19 to such an extent they offer to “join their faith with yours” or “agree with you in faith” so that we can demand whatever we want from the Lord. When "two of you agree on earth", they reason, God is duty bound to grant us all the selfish desires of our heart because of these verses.

To be honest, leaving aside the pernicious abuses of v19, the common misreadings of v20 are not particularly dangerous. In truth, I have stood up and (erroneously) made such comments myself. However, such a reading is to miss the point of the passage altogether.

A brief glance at the context makes clear Jesus is speaking of church discipline; namely, how to deal with a believer (or supposed believer) in sin. Most people agree that vv15-17 outline the subsequent steps in proper church discipline. Verse 18 then says "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". This is Jesus giving the church immense authority. In other words, when church discipline is enacted properly, upon biblical grounds, God himself approves the decision and it is binding in his eyes.

This then brings us to our verses in question. Verse 19 is a restatement of the promise in v18, as indicated by the word 'again'. Where two or three agree - on biblical grounds - concerning church discipline, God ratifies and agrees with the decision. Verse 20 is a logical extension of the statement in v19. Namely, where church discipline has been enacted properly, God agrees with, and ratifies, the decision whilst Jesus guides (by his Spirit) and validates it. In other words, when the church enacts discipline properly, upon biblical grounds, it is as though Christ himself has delivered the verdict. 

There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that when two Christians get together in Jesus' name, he is somehow more present than when they are apart. Indeed, Jesus himself says in Mt. 28:20 "I am with you always, to the end of the age", despite his imminent going away. This is surely best explained by reference to the nature of the trinity i.e. Jesus is forever with us by the Spirit he gives us. How can the Spirit be any more present with us when he has taken up residence in our hearts?

Why, then, do so many Christians try to divorce this text from its immediate context? As I said, I have been guilty of this error. Despite my having delivered an otherwise accurate exegesis of the passage (as far as I'm currently aware), and even having noted the immediate context and application of vv19-20 correctly, I still insisted on the special presence of Christ in the gathered meeting of the church. For me, it was simply sloppy exegesis prompted by tradition - I had always been fed the line and it worked its way into my application. 

Perhaps for others it is what seems to be a "nice thought". The view seems good - Christ is present when believers meet ergo this is a good spur to not forsake meeting together. Sadly, nice though the thought may be, it ignores Christ's ongoing presence with us and rides roughshod over the obvious context.

Whatever the reason - and some of them are laudable, no doubt - we probably err to suggest these verses relate specifically to the gathered meeting of believers.

*Reformed blogger, Tim Challies, made much the same argument in reference to these verses c. 10 years ago. His article can be accessed here.

Some thoughts on the Strange Fire conference

First off, let me share four blog posts, from across the spectrum, outlining differing views of the Strange Fire conference (some written before, during and after events):

1. Adrian Warnock: 'Why cessationists are wrong about prophecy'
2. Thabiti Anyabwile: 'Why you should care about the "Strange Fire" discussion'
3. Tim Challies: 'Strange Fire Conference: MacArthur's appeal to his continuationist friends'
4. Gary Benfold: 'Strange Fire...'

Much has already been said beyond the views expressed in the above articles so I will limit myself to the following points:

1. John MacArthur is absolutely entitled to hold a conference offering a reasoned defence of the cessationist position. Charismatic believers have run conferences promoting charismatic theology so promotion of the cessationist view in this way represents no problem
2. The issue for many is that Strange Fire appears to go beyond a legitimate defence of cessationism. Instead, it leans heavily toward attacking all views that are not out and out cessationist and denounces as outside the faith those who are evidently brothers based on a secondary issue that is not a marker of orthodoxy
3. Interestingly, John MacArthur - in writing his recent book and taking this approach - now aligns himself with the ultra-separatism of Peter Masters and the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Not only is the "Charismatic Movement" one of Peter Masters' favourite hobby-horses but he also seems to delight in denouncing as unbelievers those who adhere to gospel truth based on a matter of secondary import (significant though that issue may be in practice). MacArthur now similarly dismisses gospel-believing brethren in this same shabby way
4. MacArthur has defended himself against the charges of being unloving, lacking care about offending people and of attacking brothers by reiterating his denunciation of many brethren, claiming that he cares more about offending God than offending people and stating the most loving thing to do for someone is tell the them the truth. Frankly, this is the sort of rhetoric people usually employ when they are being both unnecessarily aggressive and unkind. Many is the person that claims they are "persecuted" for Christ's sake when, in reality, they are facing difficulty because they themselves have been unnecessarily offensive!
5. The conference clearly lacks nuance. The idea that cessationism can be pitted against continuationism in such stark terms is a false dichotomy. The range of views outside absolute, unerring cessationism are plethora (even more than the typically cited 4 broad positions outlined in Grudem's book 'Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?').
6. Beyond merely lacking nuance, the conference lumps all continuationists together and argues the "more reasonable" end of the spectrum lends credence to the "extreme lunatic fringe". It is wholly unreasonable to suggest, as MacArthur has done, that individuals such as John Piper and Don Carson lend an air of credibility to those who peddle a health and wealth gospel. These men have actively denounced such false teaching unequivocally and regularly (see here, for example). It is nothing short of slanderous to lump them in the same category as Roman Catholics and those who deny the Trinity.
7. The conference singularly fails to accept that many out and out Charismatics, as well as those who would consider themselves continuationist without labeling themselves Charismatic, are as opposed to the excess and abuse of Charismata as MacArthur claims to be. MacArthur suggests it is only the cessationist who truly decries such abuse of scripture when, indeed, all those who are genuinely spiritual find such things equally repellent.

God is a Liberal Democrat - really?!

The Telegraph, Mail and Guardian have all picked up on Steve Webb's assertion that God 'must be a liberal'. Webb, himself a Liberal Democrat MP and Minister of State for Pensions, claims 'the most fundamental reason why Christians should feel at home in the Liberal Democrats is that the character of God, as revealed in the Christian Gospel, would suggest that God must be a liberal'. He goes on to argue 'there is no other conclusion that can be drawn from a reading of the New Testament'.

Now, clearly Christian Labour and Conservative party members - not to mention the many Christian members of many smaller, fringe parties - disagree. I am unsure whether Webb is claiming that Christians in other parties truly know that God sides with the Lib Dems and they rebelliously refuse to acknowledge God's own political preferences; or, whether he genuinely believes that all theological understandings of scripture that do not lead to immediate Liberal Democrat membership are somehow misinterpretations of scripture. In either case, this seems something of a bold, unsubstantiated claim.

At the most basic level, Webb states the issue the wrong way round (if, indeed, this issue should be stated at all). At best, Webb could try to argue that the Liberal Democrats most closely represent God's revelation of himself (though even this would be something of a tall order, hotly disputed). However, he has not chosen to argue that the Liberal Democrats most closely represent scripture but that God himself would be a Liberal Democrat - quite the claim indeed! Even before we look at Liberal Democrat policies and typical voting patterns of Liberal MPs, Webb suggests that God, by his very nature, is a Liberal. I must admit, I missed that in any of the historic creeds but perhaps Athanasius included it in a footnote somewhere. Unfortunately, Webb doesn't leave much room for doubt. He doesn't suggest the Lib Dems most closely adhere to scripture but argues that in God himself is revealed the very nature of a Liberal.

Now, putting one's own political persuasion to the side, there is no getting away from the fact that Christian's exist across the political spectrum in the vast majority of political parties. Nor can we escape that all parties, at some time or other, alight upon policies that accord with scripture and, equally, often find themselves falling foul of scriptural principles too. Indeed, it is for this reason that many think politics is all too worldly and compromised, believing scripture  would have us take no part in it. The very nature of scriptural interpretation means that Christians of different theological persuasions and backgrounds will place greater or lesser store by different issues. Many will highlight social need, some personal morality whereas others find different issues more pressing still. Moreover, although many Christians may agree a particular need exists this does not imply they agree on the means by which such needs ought to be met.

For the Christian, the political task is to determine which issues of the day are most pressing and which solutions most closely conform to scriptural principles (or, in some cases, which least divert from scripture). Inevitably, Christians are going to disagree over the key issues and the best approach to tackling them. To align oneself uncritically to any particular party is therefore problematic. That is not to say  one cannot join, support or vote for a particular party or align oneself in any way with a political view. It is to say that an uncritical stance with a party or political ideology will inevitably end up conflicting with scripture some time or other.

This means that Christians can join, support and vote for the Liberal Democrats (if, indeed, one comes to such a considered position). But to claim, like Steve Webb, the Lib Dems are somehow the very party of God himself is not simply to overstate the case but ignores the compromised position of all political parties. It overemphasises the good the Liberals may do at the expense of the unscriptural things they almost certainly do and utterly misunderstands the nature of a holy God who could have no part with many of the things in which all political parties engage. If God could not always bear the choices of his chosen people, under a theocratic state enshrined by himself, what chance have secular British political parties of that?

Two interesting posts on approaching ministry

Here are two interesting posts on approaches to ministry.

The first, accessible here, deals with the issue of using ministry as a means of personal fulfilment. I have touched upon this here, specifically in respect to those of us trying to find ministry opportunities. However, the post to which I have linked deals with this same underlying issue but in relation to its dangers once we have undertaken a specific ministerial role.

The second, accessible here, deals with issues related to ministry and church planting. Specifically, it discusses the importance of having a sound hermeneutic by which we can successfully handle scripture. It offers a warning that although our theological conclusions may be true, predominantly because those to whom we have aligned ourselves are sound, without a good hermeneutical base our theological inclinations can change as quickly as our ephemeral infatuations with big personalities and we stand little chance of training up others to handle the word effectively.

Both helpful posts and worth a moment of your time.

Good ways to do a word study

ScibblePreach.com, having previously offered '7 ways to do a bad word study', has posted '7 ways to do a good word study'.

Again, I encourage you to read the article. It offers several simple steps we may want to take when tackling a word study, making the seven following suggestions:

1. Identify "spark" words
2. Know the lexical range
3. Study the immediate context
4. Study the authorial context
5. Study the wider context
6. Identify defining passages
7. Choose what fits in context

If you want to know how to conduct a helpful word study this short post is definitely worth reading.

Bad ways to do a word study

The Challies blog, via ScibblePreach.com, courtesy of Dr Mark Jennings (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) and Dr Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) has posted '7 ways to do a bad word study'. 

I really encourage you to read the article. It offers a helpful critique and highlights how lay people, as well as ministers, can know if a word study really is legitimate. It tackles the seven following poor approaches:

1. The Root Word Fallacy
2. The Origin Fallacy
3. The 'Everything' Fallacy
4. The Lexical Fallacy
5. The Word-Argument Fallacy
6. The 'Authorless' Fallacy
7. The 'Webster's Dictionary' Fallacy

If you want to know which approaches to avoid when leading a bible study, or you simply want to recognise appropriate use of word studies, this post really is worth a read.

A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for a proof-text

I recently read two posts on the 'Who's that preacher' blog regarding questionable scriptural arguments. They can both be found here and here.


I too have had many discussions along similar lines to those in the posts. I thought the following two comments particularly insightful:

"[An argument] doesn’t become Scriptural just by quoting a few Scriptures.  And it doesn’t become a strong argument by piling one piece of nonsense on top of another."

"If we continue to do that [make logically questionable arguments with spurious links to scripture], when others (professing Christians or out and out worldlings) see through our arguments, we do immense damage to our claim that we base everything on Scripture."

All too often we find Christians seeking out verses as a proof-texts for predisposed positions. The real problem does not lie with one Christian telling another not to drink (from an accompanying proof-text). The real problem comes when individuals, Christians or otherwise, see through shabby argument and spurious logic which leads them to question any claim we make thereon in.


If we truly want people to hear and respond to the gospel - or indeed to remain faithful once they have responded to it - we must be very careful to check that we are not simply pushing our own predispositions onto the biblical text.

Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology and the Mode of Learning

I recently read this interesting blog post by my former college principal on hermeneutics and theological learning. Given that we are currently running through a Bible Overview at our church 'Real Food' bible studies, I thought this was quite an apt article.

Debunking error or preaching truth?

It is not uncommon to hear preachers highlight a variety of scriptural interpretations and doctrinal statements that, over the course of half an hour or so, are duly debunked ending in the assertion of the supposed correct view. Is this the most helpful approach to biblical teaching? Of course, it is eminently right and proper that correct doctrine based on biblical truth is taught and restated in our churches; nevertheless, the preacher can seek to do this in one of two ways. Either biblical truth can be taught exclusively, without reference to other errant views and interpretations, on the basis that knowledge of truth allows us to recognise anything that is not truth itself. Alternatively, particular errors can be highlighted, demonstrated errant and correct biblical truth taught to steer people directly away from specific errors and clearly towards biblical truth simultaneously.


It is possible to argue that, of these two approaches, the first is the better. By teaching biblical truth exclusively the preacher must make a sound interpretation, backing up each statement he makes with clear verses from the text and can apply his interpretation directly to the people to whom he is speaking. In order to fill a half hour sermon he must state the correct interpretation of scripture, show how he arrived at such an interpretation, illustrate his points clearly and make his points applicable to the people listening rooting all of this in the text. Where the preacher is faithfully doing this he can rest assured that in teaching what is true people will themselves be able to determine that which is false if they so encounter it.


The second approach, however, brings with it a number of difficulties. Firstly, nothing is added to the listener's understanding of scripture by teaching what the passage does not mean. The aim of teaching should be to aid understand of the meaning of scripture. When we spend time explaining why particular views are errant we are ultimately telling people something they do not need to know. Instead, we should teach primarily what the Bible does mean and in so doing we teach people what they actively need to know as opposed to the endless list of things they do not.


Secondly, the more views we raise in a sermon the greater the possibility of causing confusion. We may offer an expert explanation of why each interpretation, apart from our own, is errant but for many this will come across as just one view amongst a sea of others. The greater number of views we introduce the more this seems to be the case. Moreover, the list of things a passage of scripture is not saying is infinite and we could spend a lifetime explaining what a passage does not mean without ever getting to the point. Far better to spend time simply explaining biblical truth exclusively rather than concerning ourselves with the infinite number of things the passage does not teach.


Thirdly, by highlighting specific false teaching we may bring particular errors to the attention of people who otherwise would not have encountered them. In doing this, the best we can hope for is that those listening will recognise the errant teaching for what it is. More likely, however, we may cause some to investigate the error we highlighted further and, in doing so, may lead some to be swayed by compelling arguments that far exceed the intellectual plane on which our own preaching functions. Furthermore, we may add to this problem ourselves by, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresenting the exact nature of the error we are trying to steer away from. Those that quite legitimately investigate these matters further may see such misrepresentations as unfair criticism and become more inclined towards the error we were trying to direct against because we have unfaithfully represented them. Moreover, where we disagree with an interpretation it is extremely difficult to avoid making straw-man arguments. When we do this we unfaithfully represent views in order to knock them down. This can lead many to see our own interpretation as weak as we can only defend it against the straw-men we put up ourselves. Where we stick to proclaiming biblical truth exclusively, without reference to error, we avoid such accusations.


Fourthly, highlighting numerous errant interpretations can be a means by which some seek to avoid illustrating and applying biblical truth. Instead of seeking to teach biblical truths from the text, illustrate these points and apply them clearly some preachers spend more time stating various errant views and the reasons why they are false. If one highlights only two errant interpretations alongside the supposed correct one - giving a statement of why each is errant and the correct one is true - there is little time left in a sermon for any illustration or real points of application. In reality, this can either be a means of masking an otherwise weak sermon or an attempt to avoid the more difficult aspects of sermon preparation.


Therefore, when we come to a passage we should seek to teach what it states exclusively. We should avoid explaining what the passage does not mean and should avoid highlighting false doctrines and errant interpretations. By faithfully teaching biblical truth exclusively we equip the listener with everything they need to avoid false doctrines and errant interpretations. Where we begin to concern ourselves with tackling such particulars we open ourselves up to a whole host of difficulties that are best avoided by simply teaching the truth of the Bible exclusively.