Doctrine of Revelation: Inerrancy explained (1)

The doctrine of inerrancy is often misunderstood. The following addresses eight common misunderstandings of inerrancy:[1]

1.   Inerrancy does not demand strict observance of the rules of grammar.  There are errors in grammar.  Rules of grammar are man-made and formal.  They do not necessarily need to be followed by the writers of Scripture. 

2.   Inerrancy does not exclude the use of figures of speech or particular literary styles.  The Bible contains many different kinds of writing, including poetry, symbolism, and even hyperbole.  If a reader insists that all sections of Scripture be read and interpreted in the exact same manner, he will encounter problems.  However, by interpreting various sections of Scripture based on the literary style in which the passage is written, there will be no problem.

3.   Inerrancy does not demand historical or numerical precision.  An example of this is differing records of numbers in the Bible.  There is no a contradiction when one writer records that two persons were present at an event and another writer says there was one. If the latter recorded there was only one, it would be a contradiction.  The difference in numbers does not negate the accuracy of the point being conveyed, since the numbers are not the purpose of the scripture. 

4.   Inerrancy does not demand the technical language of modern science.  For example, the Bible records the sun rising in the east.  Scientifically, the sun does not rise or set because the earth rotates.  Those who fault the Bible on these grounds must also throw out all the great poetry that speaks of sunrises or broken hearts, since these are not scientifically accurate.  The Bible is not a science text.  Though it does not present scientific data, neither does it oppose scientific data.

The last four next time.

Note:
[1] This section is based on Charles Feinberg’s, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy (edited by Norman Geisler).

Doctrine of Revelation: Inerrancy Intro

The Doctrine of Inerrancy stems from the fact that all Scripture is inspired by God (i.e., God-breathed). The logic from inspiration to inerrancy, and then to authority is as follows.

Since all of the Word of God (the Bible) is the literal words of God, they must be inerrant because God is inerrant. The next step is that because God’s Word is inerrant (because it is the very words of God), the Word of God is also supremely authoritative because God is supremely authoritative.

Here are three Qualifications on the Doctrine of Inerrancy.[1]

1.   Inerrancy applies to all areas of Scripture as originally written.  This allows for the understanding that the copies and translations we have are not inerrant, but that they accurately reflect the originals, which are inerrant.  This we believe, first, because God is faithful to preserve His Word, and second, because textual criticism demonstrates how accurately the Bible has been copied and translated throughout the centuries.

2.   Inerrancy is intimately tied to hermeneutics.[2]  This affirms that the Scripture is always true, though we can err in our interpretation of Scripture.

3.   Inerrancy is related to Scripture’s intention.  There are things recorded in the Bible that are not approved by God.  For example, the Bible accurately records sinful actions that are wrong.

Notes:
[1] This section is based on Charles Feinberg’s, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy (edited by Norman Geisler).
[2] Hermeneutics is the science/discipline of interpretation, particularly, but not limited to Scripture. 

Doctrine of Revelation: Preservation and Illumination

Before moving on to the doctrine of inerrancy, let’s briefly consider the doctrines of Preservation and Illumination:

The writing of the Bible is by inspiration, which we have covered adequately. Next in the chain of events is preservation. The Holy Spirit has supernaturally preserved the Bible so that what we read today is accurate, reliable, and inerrant. This is important because critics and scoffers routinely allege that the Bible has been changed over the centuries, and is therefore inaccurate, unreliable, and errant. That bold charge is completely without evidence, much less, proof. The evidence to the contrary is striking. Besides the sheer volume of manuscripts dating very closely to the originals (which we admittedly do not have), and their striking similarity to today’s translations defies the critics. No other ancient literature comes within miles of this kind of accuracy. The Bible has not changed. This is the doctrine of preservation, accomplished supernaturally by the Holy Spirit of God.

The third and last component is the doctrine of illumination, by which the Holy Spirit gives readers the ability to understand (and believe) the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 2:14 clearly states:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

The natural (unregenerate) man can read the words, but the spiritual meaning of the Bible is beyond the unregenerate. The Bible is spiritually understood only by those who are born again by the Holy Spirit. So as inspiration refers to the work of the Holy Spirit as the scriptures were written, illumination refers to the work of the Holy Spirit as the scriptures are read.  The Holy Spirit bears an inner testimony to the reader that the scripture is true, and enables the reader to understand the spiritual truth contained therein.  This is not new revelation beyond, or in addition to the Bible. It is spiritual illumination of what has already been revealed in the inspired Word of God.

This illumination is not given in the same degree to all believers. All believers must grow in our understanding of Scripture. Additionally, the Holy Spirit grants deeper understanding to those He has gifted to preach and teach.

Next: Considering inerrancy

Doctrine of Revelation: Two more incorrect views

I cannot help but wonder how many of you who have been following these blog posts about the Doctrine of Revelation ever dreamed there is as much to this subject as there is! I pray that these blogs have helped you to appreciate how important this matter is.

Let’s consider two other views of Revelation and Inspiration.

First, the Roman Catholic View.  Vatican II (1962-65) contains the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation.  The Roman Church teaches that there are two sources of knowledge: reason and faith, which correspond to general and special revelation.  However, the Roman Church, underestimating the effects of sin, gives too much weight to reason, or general revelation.  Further, when explaining their understanding of special revelation, the Roman Church places too much emphasis on the authority of the church (the Roman Church), and too little upon the scriptures.  The Roman Church places Scripture and their own church tradition on level ground.  They do not even see the two as two sources of revelation, but as two aspects of one revelation.  This is grave error.  Further, the Roman Church continues to assert that the leadership of the Roman Church alone is sufficient to correctly interpret Scripture.

Second, the Neo-orthodox View.  Championed by Karl Barth,[1] this view has two subcategories.  (1) There is no general revelation, because this would lead to a naturalistic theology.  (2) Special revelation is in Christ alone. The scriptures are not so much revelatory, but we each receive revelation via a “dynamic encounter” as we read them under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  This kind of subjectivism removes the objectivity of the Bible as the only reliable and authoritative source of special revelation.

Note:
[1] While Karl Barth (pronounced, ‘Bart’, 1886-1968) was aberrant in some of his views, leading to subjectivism regarding scripture, it is unlikely that he had this in mind.  It seems more likely that while he was seeking to counter the liberalism of his day, he incorrectly estimated the outworkings of some of his theology.

Doctrine of Revelation: Inspiration and the Perfections of Scripture

The Doctrine of Inspiration and the Perfections of Scripture was introduced by the Reformers to counter the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding authority.  The Roman Church insists that the Bible and the traditions of the Church are on equal ground regarding inspiration, inerrancy, and authority.[1]  The Reformers insisted on the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura, or scripture alone.  They did not insist that the scriptures are the only thing a believer may read or study, but that Scripture alone is inspired, inerrant, and authoritative.  The Reformers separated the perfections of Scripture into four subcategories:

1.   The Necessity of the Scriptures.  The scriptures are necessary to provide the Church an objective rule, or canon,[2] for Christian doctrine regarding faith and practice.

2.   The Authority of the Scriptures.  The scriptures are authoritative because they are inspired by God and, therefore, inerrant, because God is inerrant.  No church gives the scriptures authority; the scriptures give the Church her authority.

3.   The Clarity (Perspicuity) of the Scriptures.  Those who would keep the layman from reading the Bible claim that the scriptures are so complicated that only the clergy should dare read them.  The Reformers insisted that the scriptures are clear enough for all believers to read and understand.  The Reformed position does not say that all the scripture is equally understood easily, but that the scriptures necessary for one to understand salvation are clear.

4.   The Sufficiency of the Scriptures.  The Roman Church insisted that the scriptures are not enough, and that the traditions of the Roman Church complete the scriptures.  The Reformed position insists that the scriptures are sufficient. Traditions are not equal to, nor do they complete, the scriptures.  Rather, traditions must be subject to the scriptures; and in any case in which tradition is at odds with Scripture, tradition must change or be discarded.

Notes:
[1] The Roman Church is not the only group that makes this error.  Many others unwittingly fall into this error when they unofficially elevate their traditions to a level of virtual biblical authority.
[2] The “canon” of the scripture refers to the “rule” or “standard” by which it is considered to be Scripture.

Doctrine of Revelation: Autographs & Inerrancy

Is inspiration limited to the autographia (original manuscripts) or are the copies also inspired?  Some argue that if only the originals are inspired, and since we no longer have them, the Bible we have is not inspired or authoritative.  This is not a problem, however, because we know that the copies are almost completely accurate.  This can be verified by the fact that there are so many copies, written so close to the date of the original writings, that so closely agree with each other. 

Though the copies are not inspired, the Word of God is inspired.  Orthodoxy insists that the copies and accurate translations are reliable, because God has not allowed any error that would do damage to the message of the text.  Errors in our copies are limited to numerical discrepancies or other inconsequential matters.

Inspiration and Inerrancy. This is a necessary point that follows inspiration.  Because the Word of God is inspired, or “God-breathed,” it must therefore be inerrant, since God is inerrant.  Because the Word of God is inerrant, it must therefore be supremely authoritative, because God is absolutely authoritative.

Doctrine of Revelation: The Extent of Inspiration

Having considered three views of inspiration, let’s dive a little deeper to consider the extent of inspiration. 

The first consideration in the extent of inspiration is about Partial vs. Plenary Inspiration.  Proponents of partial inspiration insist that portions of Scripture are not inspired.  Those who dismiss portions of Scripture usually claim that some portions are scientifically incorrect, because they insist that said sections were pertinent only to the culture of the original writer/recipients, or that they are the personal opinions of the authors, and therefore not inspired or authoritative. Proponents of plenary inspiration agree with Scripture that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).  If we are going to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are inspired, by what authority dare we do so? Once we dismiss one verse, where do we end?

Partial inspiration is incorrect.  Plenary inspiration is correct.

The second consideration in the extent of inspiration is about Thought Inspiration vs. Verbal Inspiration. Proponents of thought inspiration allege that God inspired the thoughts and allowed the writers to concoct their own presentation.  Verbal inspiration, which is the orthodox view, insists that every word, though written by men from their own vocabulary and literary style, is the exact word that God chose.[1] 

This becomes important when translating Scripture.  Proponents of thought inspiration readily employ the “thought-for-thought” or  “dynamic equivalency” method of translation.  Those who insist on verbal inspiration understand the importance of a “word-for-word” method of translation. This is important when choosing a Bible translation to read and study.  It is safest by far to use only “word-for-word” translations for study.

Thought inspiration is incorrect.  Verbal inspiration is correct.

Doctrine of Revelation: Inspiration Intro

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.  2 Timothy 3:16-17

That the scriptures are inspired means that they are God breathed. Like breath, God’s Word is breathed out by Him. This is significant because God exalts His Word equal to His name! (Psalm 138:2) We are to revere God’s Word as we revere God Himself—not the pages and ink, but the very words that make up the Bible. Every word in the Bible is God’s Word. The Bible is not man’s word about God. It is quite literally, God’s word to man.

How is the Bible inspired? Here are three views regarding inspiration.

1.   Dynamic Inspiration is upon the writers, not their writings.  This view makes the writings more the product of the human writers than of God.  This leaves the door open to too much humanity (and therefore error) being in the scriptures.  This view is incorrect.

2.   Mechanical Inspiration is a matter of God dictating to the writers.  This removes the personality of the writer altogether.  While this may support divine authorship of the scriptures, it also misses the mark, for as one can plainly see, there is something of the personality of the writers to be found in their writings.  This view is incorrect.

3.   Organic Inspiration requires a necessary relationship between God as the primary author and the human writer as a secondary author.  This allows for perfect divine inspiration, while accounting for the differences in style among the authors.  According to this view, every word of Scripture is precisely the word God wanted, though He sovereignly used chosen men with their particular personalities and vocabularies to produce the finished product.  This view is correct.

Doctrine of Revelation: Continuing Revelation

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds… Hebrews 1:1-2

God’s revelation of Himself is absolutely essential. Had God not been pleased to reveal Himself to those who bear His image (human beings), we would know no more about God than so many amoebas. His revelation of Himself has been progressive, revealing more and more of Himself throughout the ages, all pointing to the most perfect revelation of Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Before the revelation on Himself in Christ, God spoke in times past in various ways, but that revelation concluded with Christ and with the subsequent record of Christ in the Bible.

There is no further revelation of God beyond Christ and the scriptures. Yes, when Christ comes again and we see Him, our reception and understanding of Him will be enhanced as never before; but even then, it will not be a revelation of more of Christ as much as us simply having greater understanding of what has already been revealed in Christ.

Has revelation ceased?  God’s last word was God’s last word.  Jesus is God’s last word and the NT is the record of Christ.  There is therefore now no new revelation until the Lord returns.  All messages that claim to be from God must be checked by and agree with Scripture.  Therefore, as John Owen pointed out, if a supposedly new revelation disagrees with Scripture, it is false; and if it agrees, it is not new and is unnecessary.

Let us endeavor to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. 2 Peter 3:18

Doctrine of Revelation: General and Special Revelation

There are two types of revelation: General and Special Revelation.

First, General Revelation.  General revelation is also known as: natural, cosmological, and non-salvific revelation.  General revelation is given to all, generally.  It is about more than salvation but it does not reveal God’s plan for salvation.  It is incomplete, and because of sin and sin’s effects on man, it is even less comprehensible to man.  There is more of God to be seen in the general revelation, but man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21).  Therefore, special revelation is necessary if man is to know God in a saving manner.  Believers, however, can see more of God in the general revelation than is perceived by non-believers.

Second, Special Revelation. Special revelation is also known as supernatural, soteriological, or redemptive revelation.  Unlike general revelation, special revelation is given only to the elect—and to all of the elect, who will all respond by receiving Christ eventually, though not always immediately, upon hearing the gospel the first time.

Special revelation reveals what is necessary for man to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ.  Before Christ and during the Apostolic age, special revelation was communicated by various means, including visions, dreams, and prophecies as recorded in the Bible. During the current Church age, special revelation is communicated through the Bible, by Christians sharing their faith, and by biblical preaching. 

Jesus Christ is the most complete revelation of God and salvation (John 14:9, Hebrews 1:1-3).

Doctrine of Revelation: Sufficiency and Perspicuity

Having walked through the installments of God’s progressive revelation of Himself, let’s now consider two truths about God’s revelation.

First, God’s revelation of Himself in the Scriptures is sufficient. God has revealed everything about Himself that we need to know.  Nothing additional is needed. That does not mean God has revealed everything there is to know or even everything we might like to know. Chapter 1, paragraph 6 of the London Baptist Confession of faith explains this better than I can:

The whole counsel of God concerning everything essential for His own glory and man’s salvation, faith, and life is either explicitly stated or by necessary inference contained in the Holy Scriptures. Nothing is ever to be added to the Scriptures, either by new revelation of the Spirit or by human traditions. [9]
[9] 2 Timothy 3:15–17; Galatians 1:8,9)

Second, although the Scriptures are not all easily understood, they are understandable.  There is a fifty-cent word for this: “perspicuity. ” A dictionary definition of this word is, “being clear or understandable.”  Again, not everything in the Bible is equally clear, but the essential message is abundantly clear.  We again quote from the Confession (Chapter 1, paragraph 7):

Some things in Scripture are clearer than others, and some people understand the teachings more clearly than others.[12]   However, the things that must be known, believed, and obeyed for salvation are so clearly set forth and explained in one part of Scripture or another that both the educated and uneducated may achieve a sufficient understanding of them by properly using ordinary measures. [13]
[12] 2 Peter 3:16  [13] Psalm 19:7; Psalm 119:130

Quotes from: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English,
 https://founders.org/library-book/1689-confession/

Doctrine of Revelation: Christ and the Apostles

We only know God because He graciously reveals Himself to us. Otherwise we would never discover Him in our fallen state. God’s revelation of Himself has been progressive. All of the previous installments of God’s revelation of Himself have pointed forward to the greatest revelation of all: Jesus Christ.

God’s Revelation in Jesus Christ.  Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-3).  Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament (OT) Scripture (John 5:39).  Jesus quoted and expounded upon the OT Scriptures (Matthew 5-7, Luke 24:27).  Jesus is the perfect human image of the Father.  He told Phillip (and us), "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” (John 14:9; see also Colossians 1:18, Hebrews 1:3).

Jesus testified to the veracity (truthfulness) of the OT revelation: John 5:39. John 6:45 quotes the OT to prove its endorsement of His ministry, using the technical term, “it is written.”  In Matthew 4:4 Jesus appeals to every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. 

Jesus testified to the necessity of the OT revelation, that He is the fulfillment of it (Luke 4:21), and that other events will happen so that the Scriptures will be fulfilled (John 13:18-19).  Jesus testified that Moses and the prophets spoke of Him (Luke 24:27).

Jesus testified of the integrity of OT revelation.  Jesus appealed to the integrity of the whole OT Scripture (John 10:35, Matthew 24:35, John 17:14).  Jesus appealed to the integrity of a single word of OT Scripture (Matthew 22:29-32, 42-45).  Jesus appealed to the integrity of a single letter of OT Scripture (Luke 16:17, Matthew 5:18).  Jesus testified of the integrity of the coming New Testament (NT) Scripture (Matthew 28:20, John 17:17, John 14:26).

Jesus’ ministry and claims concerning Himself were confirmed by His miracles (John 10:25).

God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus is recorded and explained by the Apostles in the NT.[1]  Two key NT passages that summarize the witness of the Apostles concerning the inspiration of Scripture are 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:19-21.  Both of these affirm that the OT Scriptures are not the writings of men, but of God.  We might say that while men were the secondary writers, God is the Author. 

That the Scriptures are inspired by God means they must be inerrant [2] since God is inerrant.  That the Scriptures are inerrant means they must be authoritative because God is supremely authoritative (Psalm 115:3).

Notes:
[1] The New Testament is not uniquely new, but is the completion of what the Old Testament spoke of prophetically.
[2] Inerrancy means the Scriptures are “without error.”  Infallibility means the Scriptures are “incapable of error.”  Both are true of all the Bible, but it is commonly accepted to use the word inerrant to refer to both inerrant and infallible.

Doctrine of Revelation: Law, Prophets, and a lengthy pause

The only way we know anything about God is through His gracious revelation of Himself. Last time we ended with how God revealed Himself between Creation and the giving of the Law. The next installment is through:

The Law.  This is the beginning of recording God’s revelation of Himself in written form (Exodus 34:27).  This revelation is based on commands, which when obeyed, would result in God’s pleasure and man’s blessing, and when disobeyed, would result in God’s displeasure and man’s punishment.  The Law was never intended as a path to forgiveness and salvation. Rather, the Law condemns sinners because despite one’s best efforts, no one has ever, or will ever, keep God’s law perfectly—except Jesus, of course. When one is aware of his hopeless condition of sinfulness before God and His law, the correct response is to cry out to God for mercy. This cry for mercy is mixed with faith in God’s promise to send a Deliverer, who was yet to come.

The next installment of God’s revelation of Himself was through the Prophets. Many, but not all of the messages given to man from God by prophets were recorded in writing.  The prophets instructed God’s people, called them to repent, warned them of Judgment—and most importantly, foretold the promised Deliverer, Jesus Christ.

All that the prophets said or wrote had to be consistent with everything God had revealed earlier, or else the prophet had to be judged as a fraud (Deut. 13:1-5, 18:18-22, 1 John 4:1-6).

Then God’s Revelation through the prophets fell silent at the conclusion of Malachi’s prophecy.  This pause lasted four hundred years, during which some were desperately expectant of the Messiah’s appearance.  This silence was broken by the message of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah (John 1:6-8).

The next installment of God’s revelation is Jesus, the promised Deliverer.

Doctrine of Revelation: Creation and between the Fall and the Law

Having introduced God’s progressive revelation of Himself in Adam, let’s consider God’s revelation of Himself in creation. Psalms 19:1-4 states:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. 2 Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line has gone out through all the earth…

These words inform us that all of creation declares some things about God to every human being, everywhere, at all times. This revelation is rich, but incomplete, especially concerning Christ and the Gospel. This creation revelation reveals the supreme intelligence, creativity, power, and glory of God. This revelation is only sufficient to reveal that God is, but it contains nothing about His holiness, our sin, and salvation through Jesus Christ.

Next, God revealed Himself between the fall and the giving of the Law in Exodus 20.  God revealed Himself at various times and in different ways.  They included actions (such as the Flood and the confusion of man’s language), dreams, visions, visitations of the Angel of the Lord, which are theophanies, or pre-incarnation visitations from Jesus Christ.

Each of God’s progressive revelation of Himself reveals a little more, all leading to God’s revelation of Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ, the only begotten, incarnate Son of God—in whom salvation is completed.

Next Time: God’s revelation of Himself in the Law and the Prophets.

Doctrine of Revelation: Intro

In Systematic Theology, the Doctrine of Revelation frequently comes before the doctrine of God Himself. Why? Because we need to know how and why we know anything about God. This answers the epistemological question: “How do we know what we know?”

The answer is God. More completely, we only know what we know about God because God has been pleased to reveal Himself to we who are created in His image. If God did not reveal Himself, we would never know Him. The revelation of Himself that God has given is enough, though it is not complete. In other words, we know enough about God to know Him, while we do not know everything about Him.

It has been said that God cannot be discovered by human beings, so to make Himself known to us, He has “discovered Himself” to us. That self-disclosure is called revelation. (And for the sake of clarity, we are considering the Doctrine of Revelation, not the Book of the Revelation.)

God’s revelation of Himself has been progressive. 

1.   God’s initial revelation of Himself is three-fold. (1) In Creation.  God has revealed Himself through creation.  In Creation God reveals something of His power, creativity, majesty, wisdom, and authority. (Romans1:20, Ps.19:1-6).  (2) In Man.  Man reveals God as God’s image bearer.  Man does not merely have or carry the image of God; man is the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, Ps.8). (3)  In His Word  (Ps. 33:6).  God created all by the power of His Word (Genesis 1:3-25).

God is revealed in man, His image bearer.  Before the Fall, the image of God in man, though not complete[1], was untainted by sin.  After the Fall, the image of God in man was marred by sin.  In this fallen state, man suppresses the knowledge of God[2] (Romans 1:18).  Immediately upon being confronted with his sin, Adam was given another revelation of God through the first evangel, or first proclamation of God’s plan of redemption through Christ (Genesis 3:15).

There were four attributes of God’s revelation to Adam: (1) It was clear, understandable.  (2) It was authoritative.  Only God has the authority to give this revelation. (3) It was necessary.  Without revelation, God is undiscoverable. (4) It was sufficient.  The revelation God was pleased to give included all that Adam needed to know.  It did not include everything there is to know, or even what God has been pleased to reveal since, but it did include everything that man needed to know at that time.

Next Time: More about God’s progressive revelation of Himself.

Notes:
[1] The image of God in man is not complete because God is infinite and man is not.
[2] Why? Because rebellious mankind does not want to submit to God and so he erroneously believes that if he can get rid of God, he will not have to submit to Him.

Church Polity (3): Associationalism

Just as individual Christians need to be members of a local church, every local church needs to belong to something outside of itself—and for the same (similar) reasons: Accountability, encouragement, counsel, shared ministry, etc. Proverbs 18:1 says:

A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment.

That is true for individuals as well as for churches.

To what should a local church belong? Denominations are a choice. So are Associations. What is the difference? It can be summed up in one word: Jurisdiction. There is more to it, but there is not less! Denominations have greater jurisdiction over their member churches. Associations have less jurisdiction. Denominations can micromanage details of their member churches. Associations give their member churches more freedom in the details of their local churches.

That is not to say there is no jurisdiction of an association over its member churches. The association defines the guidelines more loosely, but when a member church departs from the essentials as outlined by the association, the association can disfellowship a member church. This is similar to church discipline in local churches. The local church that micromanages the lives of its members and families can become “cult-like.” Note that I didn’t say it becomes “a cult,” in the sense of teaching false doctrine. Just as churches must not make this mistake with its members, associations, while having jurisdiction to dismiss errant churches, do not micromanage their member churches.

Associationalism is an historic mark of Baptist churches in the 1600s. Our church, which subscribes to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, believes in being associated with a network of like-minded churches. We are associated with the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE). Why? For the reasons mentioned above.

.

Systematic Theology: Church Polity (2)

What is polity? It is how the governance of a church takes place. You can see the word politics hiding in the word polity. Last time we gave a fly-over regarding various ways churches are governed. This time I’ll add a bit of commentary.

First, regarding the three basic models of polity (Hierarchical, Presbyterian, and Congregational), obviously, different kinds of churches prefer and defend different forms of church government. I would argue in favor of elder-led Congregationalism, believing it to be (a) the most biblical, and (b) the form that has the greatest accountability at every level. In addition, it enables the local church, led from within, to do what is best for that particular church, free from bureaucratic leadership from outside the local church.

Second, the most dangerous and most to be avoided is the pastor-ruled church. Why? Because there is (a) a built-in lack of accountability and (b) an elevation of one person into a sort of pope-like role.

Third, I grew up in a Democratically Congregational church. The membership voted on everything. Besides the fact that there are inevitably members of any church who are not truly saved who have a vote in church matters. Every time there is a vote, a disgruntled minority is created. This causes disunity—something God hates! (Proverbs 6:19, Titus 3:9-11)

Fourth, regardless of which form of polity we may prefer, let us remember that Jesus is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22-23, Matthew 16:18). So whatever form of governance one’s church subscribes to, let us look to, and trust in the Lord Jesus—praying for His perfect will to prevail in our churches. This includes praying diligently for our leaders (Romans 15:30-33).

All that said, I freely acknowledge that God has, and continues, to use churches in all three main categories. So while we may differ, this issue must not be allowed to divide the Church of Jesus Christ. While we make allowances regarding differing convictions regarding polity, we are wise to look for and join as members of a church that is governed in a way in which we are in agreement, or at least are willing to abide by.

Next time: Associationalism

Systematic Theology: Church Polity (1)

What is polity? It is how the governance of a church takes place. You can see the word politics hiding in the word polity. There are several kinds of church polity. Here are the three most prominent:

(1) Hierarchical: Monarchical, top down. Examples include Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Methodism. Bodies outside the local church (e.g., bishops) have complete jurisdiction over their local churches.

(2) Presbyterian: Representative Republic. Leadership outside the local church has jurisdiction over the local churches, but the local churches choose their representatives in the Presbyteries. Obviously, this form of polity is practiced by Presbyterians.

(3) Congregational: Closer to, but not fully democratic. Local churches are autonomous and are not under the jurisdiction of any body beyond the local church. Congregationalism is practiced Baptists, and nondenominational churches. There are three main variations of congregationalism:

• Pastoral Rule. The local pastor is the final authority. Some look to Moses as the example. This model has an obvious built-in danger. No pastor is qualified to rule a church single-handedly. Many (not all) so-called nondenominational churches operate this way. I would strongly caution anyone against uniting with this kind of pastor-ruled church.

• Elder Rule or Elder Led. These churches have a plurality of elders who rule or lead the church. This is what appears most clearly in the New Testament. The differences between elder ruled and elder led churches have to do with (a) how absolute the elders’ control is; and (b) how much input the congregation has in selecting their elders.

• Congregationalism. Churches that are not under the jurisdiction of any governing body outside the local church are congregational in the general sense. There are congregational churches that are more profoundly democratic. In these churches the members vote on most (all?) decisions.

Next time: More on polity

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (footnote #3)

Just as there are differences of opinion regarding eschatology, there are differences of opinion, particularly among Reformed churches, regarding baptism. The two views are held by those who baptize infants (paedo-baptism) and those who baptize only believers (credo-baptism).(1)

Before the Reformation, converts were baptized as believers, but Christians baptized their babies. The general idea was that the baby would be saved by baptism (wrong!).

When the Reformation happened (1500s), the Reformers rediscovered the gospel and Protestants started their own churches. For most of the Reformers, infant baptism continued. Some still mistakenly equated baptism with salvation. Most knew better and baptized their babies into the church family, trusting that they would be saved later when they understood and believed the gospel. Most Reformed churches today still baptize their babies.

There were some Reformed folks who were convinced by Scripture that only believers should be baptized. These did not baptize their babies, waiting for them to make a profession of faith. These “Reformed Baptists” also preferred baptizing believers by immersion, since the word baptize means dip or immerse.

To this day there are theologically Reformed believers who are paedo-baptist and those who are credo-baptist. There are more paedo-baptists than credo-baptists. Our church and the association of churches to which we belong are credo-baptist.(2)

Why Credo and not Paedo?

• The word baptize means to dip or immerse.

• Because baptism is an outward physical sign of an inward spiritual reality (salvation), the sign lacks validity unless the reality is true because one is saved before one is baptized.

• While the New Testament does not explicitly teach either way, Baptists only see believers being baptized in the book of Acts.

• Too many people who were baptized as infants (or as young children) have a false sense of security regarding salvation because they were baptized.

As we mentioned about differing views regarding eschatology, I would espouse the same loving toleration regarding the mode of baptism. While baptism is clearly commanded, the mode is not. One of my Baptist heroes, John Bunyan, wrote: “While I own believers’ baptism by immersion as the biblical way, I will not divide the body of Christ over it.” (3)

Notes:
(1) Paedo = infant, or child (baptism). Credo = belief, meaning a person must be old enough to have a credible profession of faith to be baptized.
(2) We are members of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (F.I.R.E.)
(3) John Bunyan was a 17th Century Baptist preacher who wrote the famous, The Pilgrim’s Progress.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (footnote #2)

Within the ranks of Christ’s Church there are differences of opinions regarding eschatology (last things). Some of the differences are vast, irreconcilable, and mutually exclusive. Thankfully, these differences need not divide the Church. Though we cannot all agree, we can disagree about the secondary details and continue to love and affirm each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Do not misunderstand! Eschatology matters! That Christ is coming again is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. To deny Christ’s second coming is to depart from the Christian faith. The details that lead up to His return, and exactly how He will return, however, are less clear and fall into the category of “doubtful things” (Romans 14).

How does Paul in Romans 14 instruct us to behave when it comes to doubtful things? Remain true to our convictions, and give those who hold opposing views the grace to remain true to theirs.

If we are both loving and mature, we can discuss our differences, and even engage in friendly intramural debate. But we must not condemn each other over these matters.

I would add that we should seek to learn all we can about other views. I was challenged by my former pastor who said to me, “You know everything about one view and are altogether ignorant that there even are other views.” He instructed me to learn what other Christians believe about eschatology. I took the challenge. And I changed my view, not once, but twice!

There happens to be four basic views about eschatology (that I’ll not expound here). If you want a little help to understand the important but not essential differences, click below:
Comparison between the four main views of the millennium in eschatology (CARM)

The Millennial Maze (Ligonier)