Pastoral Musings

What Is Family Reformation?

Hi,
Keep an eye open to the tabs just above the header. New pages may appear from time to time.

Know What You Preach, Or Sit Down

“A man ought to know what he is preaching about, or else let him sit down. If I had any doubt about the matters I preach from this pulpit, I should be ashamed to remain the pastor of this church; but I preach what I do know, and testify what I have seen. If I am mistaken, I am heartily and intensely mistaken; and I risk my soul and all its eternal interests upon the truth of what I preach. If the gospel which I preach does not save me, I shall never be saved, for what I proclaim to others is my own personal ground of trust. I have no private lifeboat; the ark to which I invite others holds myself and all I have.”

-Charles Spurgeon, The Soul Winner, p. 173

If God speaks to men, does He speak clearly and perfectly?

That is the question that must be answered, because it is indeed fundamental to Christianity.

Did God inspire Scripture?  Is Scripture inerrant and infallible?

If Scripture is errant and fallible what are we to believe?  Who is the sole authority, or is there a solitary authority?  How will we know right from wrong, heaven from hell, and gospel from lies?

If Scripture is errant and fallible, what does that say about the character of God?  A God who is unable to give a perfect guide to show creatures His will is very weak, must be fallible Himself, and must not be all wise.  In short, that God must not be God, but something very other than God.

We must then ask, where is this inspired, inerrant, infallible Scripture to be found?  There is only one thing that fits the bill: the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.  They alone present a coherent system of faith, have the witness of fulfilled prophecy and historical accuracy, and are reliable witnesses of the events that they record.

This is fundamental to Christianity.  While one may be misled and not believe in an inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible and be saved, the very reason that they are saved is because they believed the witness of the same inerrant, infallible book that they deny to be inerrant and infallible.

By the way, I say again that the misguided, radical fundamentalist needs to stop acting like a liberal and accept the Word of God as the sole guide for his faith and practice.  To inject one’s own opinions, and establish one’s own ideas as doctrine is to deny the authority and perfection of God’s Word.  This sort of behavior is unbecoming those who profess to be fighting for an inspired, inerrant, and infallible Bible.

Just musing……

Question:  What is the meaning of baptizo?

Is there any instance in which baptizo means  to pour, to sprinkle, or anything other than to immerse?

Just musing….

Often, when we think of the faithfulness of God, we think of it in reference to His promises.  The greater truth of the faithfulness of God is inextricably linked to His immutability: God is faithful to Himself.  God keeps His word because He is faithful to Himself.  God is faithful to His sinless, glorious, holy self, so He keeps His promises to us.  God not only is immutable and thus cannot change; He is faithful to Himself which means that He does not desire to change.  God would not change even if He were able to do so.

“It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:  If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:   If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.”  (2Tim 2:11-13) KJV

Just musing…..

As I read more of this and this I realized that the issue is even more confused than I initially realized.

Our brother Jeremy said, “Due to the fact that the church was without a baptismal and the lakes were frozen I was given the option to be baptized via pouring or wait until the summer. I knew that the baptism via pouring was not completely perfect but reasoned that an immediate baptism via pouring was better than a delayed baptism. Had I known then that so much dissension and controversy surrounds the modes and timing of baptism I would have waited until the summer. Nevertheless, in my eagerness to identify myself with Christ and obey his Word I opted to be baptized by pouring.”

“I finally came to the conclusion that my initial pouring baptism was indeed defective and yet valid. As in all of our obedience, I see a degree of sin and error in it. And at the same time I am counting on God’s grace to “sanctify” my defective baptism that was done in faith and with a desire to obey his word.”

“Nevertheless, it was also my desire to be re-baptized by immersion so as to honor the policies, leadership, and polity of my church and its elders. Unfortunately, this concession was regarded as insufficient by my elders and they have (thus far) been unwilling to baptize me due to the fact that I still regard my initial baptism as valid and hope to see BBC’s membership policy change.”

Wherein lies the problem?

1. The initial act of pouring was realized to be “imperfect”, yet was accepted as valid. There is only one mode of baptism that faithfully represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and that is immersion. Thus, this baptism was not valid.

2. The pouring “baptism” is realized to be defective, yet accepted as valid. If my car had defective tires on it I would change them ASAP. Why should we not be all the more concerned to remedy defective practice in our spiritual life? Though Jeremy writes with much graciousness, and great conviction I cannot but wonder what path of logic leads him to his conclusions? Why consider that which is defective as valid? This seems to be more of an issue of subjective feelings than submission to objective truth. That being said, I’m sure we all have our blind spots. I do hope that he will come to decide that his pouring is invalid.

3. Finally, Jeremy desires to be “re-baptized” in submission to the elders and policies of Bethlehem. This is very admirable and gracious. I would to God that we would have millions with such a spirit! This, too, is a problem, though. The real issue is that submission to the truth of Scripture that requires immersion for baptism should be the motivation behind his seeking this “re-baptism” that would truly be baptism for the first time.

While many cry “legalism” about this requirement of immersion for membership in a Baptist church, this is not so. To cry “legalism” is so very close to an ad hominem argument. It is an easy way to dismiss the issue at hand. While I am not familiar with them personally, I do not think that the elders and Bethlehem are counting anyone who is unbaptized as unsaved. Neither do I think they are counting the unbaptized Christian as being second class, or lesser than others. They are simply standing for their convictions concerning ecclesiology and what constitutes a New Testament church. They are seeking to obey God according to the light that they have. Is that not what all who seek to honor Christ wish to do?

In the end, I must praise Jeremy (though I do not know him) for his gracious humility in this matter. Many people would become bitter, but he is trying to work through the issue in an humble manner.

I must also praise the elders of Bethlehem for standing up for their Scriptural convictions in spite of what could be intense pressure both from within and without.

I trust that, when all is said and done, Jeremy will write and tell the world how he came to understand the need for baptism by immersion (what else does baptizo mean?) and submitted to it in accordance with God’s Word.

Just musing………..

Baptist churches are distinguished (among other things) by the fact that they baptize believers by immersion.

The baptizoblogodebate seems to bring forth some perplexing (to me) ideas.

Abraham Piper thinks that we should consider the subjective feelings of those who are on the outside of the church. He says,

“If it’s our inclination to deny church membership to genuine believers, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the one being rejected, and make our decision from that perspective. If we feel loved and accepted in our church, we are hardly the ones who have the right to say that being shunned is no big deal because we can still be united in Christ. You will not feel “united” with other believers when you live your life trying to be in fellowship with them and they continue to refuse to accept you as a member.”

What is the problem with this statement? First of all, why should subjective feelings come into the picture when the Scripture teaches immersion for baptism. If church is both a community and a community to which the member is accountable, why should the candidate for membership not bear the responsibility of submitting to the requirements of the church and her doctrines? Why should the church submit to the one who wishes to become a member? If I wished to be a member of the local Kiwanis club, I would simply submit to their rules instead of expecting them to change on my behalf. True, the rules of clubs can be changed, but Scripture cannot be changed. Why pit subjective feelings against objective truth?

I feel for the person who feels left out and is not allowed to be a part of a church to which the long to belong. I feel for them because they need to do something about it. They need to determine if that is where God would have them. If they are unbaptized, and a Baptist church is where God would have them, they should be baptized. (Obviously, they should be baptized anyway.) I feel for them because they are not already in the will of God in that particular area of their life.

Instead of seeking to change membership requirements, and lessen the importance of believer’s baptism, why not help the brother to submit to the truth? That would be more loving.

Just musing…..

addendum: The issue of which A.P. speaks can be read about here.

A few weeks ago I posted this which linked to this and this.

This morning I stumbled across this article and I cringed, but not for the same reason as the author.

This anti-Christian, anti-family rant goes waaaaaaaaaay too far.

Why is it creepy that a nice, clean-cut, Christian family should have lots of children?

What’s in a name? There is nothing wrong with having a double name. Jim Bob may not be the most sophisticated of names, but there is no sin in it. Why fault the man anyway? His father and mother gave him the name; he didn’t choose it. A throw-down on someone because of their name shows how truly shallow the columnist’s thinking is.

The columnist goes on to remark that the family picture is “disquieting” and the children have “alarmingly bad hair.” His comparisons are of a juvenile nature. That is what is disquieting. Say????? Doesn’t this columnist seem to share values with those who call for tolerance, and would nearly claw your eyes out if you said something about their hair?

“It’s wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that’s making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or is it?”

Yes, Mr. Columnist, it is wrong. There is nothing pathological, not gluttonous about a couple who is raising their children to be good, upstanding, Christian members of society. By the grace of God, you will see no serial killers, dope fiends, or sex fiends in the Duggar family. The problem with the columnist is the fact that he is so accustomed to a warped world-view that he cannot recognize that which is not only good, but best of all……..Christianity in action.

What truly makes the world groan and cry in pain is the sin of mankind. “The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” (Rom 8:19-23) KJV

It amazes me that Christian-bashing that goes on. In fact, somehow this columnist speaks of morality in opposition to Christianity. Does he not realize that apart from God as revealed in Christ Jesus there are no moral absolutes? In all probability, he is among the relativists. If that is so (and I do not know), how could he claim that his “morals” are any better than Christian morals? After all, Christianity has been tried and proven.

As far as drawing any sort of comparison between normal Christians and Pres. G.W. Bush I can only say that there are many who do not accept him as a good representative of Christianity, to say the least.

The writer goes on to state his subjective feelings about the Duggar’s website, children’s names, etc. Why does Christianity cause someone to suck a bong, or get drunk? Because it reveals to that person his own emptiness and depravity. “Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (John 3:19-21) KJV

He then mentions a family he was once familiar with who had 10 children who did not turn out that well. I say, “So what?” As far as I know that family was not elected to represent all large families. One certainly cannot argue that if part of the large families don’t do well that all of them will not do well. That is a logical fallacy.

He then worries about Michelle Duggar and her body. If he truly has a concern, perhaps he could send her someone to help out around the house for a day. He could also call and encourage her to “do her own thing.” I would imagine that he does that for those with whom he agrees. Oh, I know! She is doing her “own thing” by serving God and raising children. That is the problem. Thus, the columnist cloaks his disdain of her Christian way of life in a pseudo concern for her health.

Finally, the writer comes to the true concerns: he’s very worried that Christians with large families will have more influence than athiests, agnostics, liberals, homosexuals, etc. because there will be more Christians if Christians keep having more children and training them in the ways of God.

No, this is not an issue of people who care nothing for the world in which we live. This is not a case of people who care nothing for the ecology. This is a case of people who do indeed care about the world in which they live and are doing their best to help it by honoring God in the way HE (yes, God has male characteristics and presents Himself as such) ordained. “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Gen 1:26-2 KJV Imagine that! Called to rule the world and have lots of children. Commanded to procreate to the glory of God! This family does care about the condition of the world. God commanded man to rule the world as His representative. By having many children, training them in the ways of Christ, and teaching them to honor God in their lives, this family does indeed care about the world.

As far as God creating a woman’s body…….let’s say it like this: HE did a wonderful job, it seems to be working well, and HE has commanded those who can to use those bodies to bring many children into the world( After all, what does “multiply” mean?). I gladly thank God the HE is God, and not some who think that they know better than HE.

“Thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people…” Hmmmmmm……it seems that the one who is thoughtless is the one who has spent so much time condemning a Christian family, yet has no true basis for condemning them. It seems that the one who is selfish is the one who refuses to allow people the right to honor God according to Scripture, but thinks that everyone should march to his tune.

And baby-drunk??? No. God-besotted? Yes. That’s what it’s all about, and that’s probably why the columnist is so scared of them.

Just musing………..