Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 12

How do I know what I’m talking about? Everyone claims their church is following the meaning of the scriptures, how can I know which one is?

Discussing fundamental beliefs can be difficult to the point of freezing up trying to explain how you know. So, it’s tempting to just go along with whatever church is socially advantageous to us. That’s not the path that Jesus’ disciples took and misses many treasures Christ has for us in his kingdom Mat 13:44-46. On the other hand, can we contend for the faith once delivered with humility without compromising our confidence?

This essay is longer than most of mine because I want to pause and get under my own skin as it were. Instead of taking for granted our ability to interpret the Bible, let’s ponder why it makes sense for us to trust our interpretations that fly in the face of long-established traditions of men in other orders. Let’s consider what we think truth is, and then what knowing looks like. Then let’s consider what philosophy says and what it means for society contrasted to my own worldview. Next, to explain the way in which I rely on the Bible, I’ll place it in the context of the whole skill of knowing. From there, I want to show why I believe the common person, not the well-educated, is better able to interpret scripture truthfully.

What Truth Is

The answer to how we know depends on what truth is. Have you ever been asked what the difference is between a water pump and a bull’s tail? If you said you don’t know, you got the response, well I know not to send you for a pail of water! In other words, if we didn’t already know what truth is, we wouldn’t know what to look for. So, we start with an idea of truth that we take as a starting point. Everyone does. If anyone tells you they are being completely neutral and unbiased, they are simply ignorant of their own prejudices (or are as clueless as someone pumping water with a bull’s tail). What we must do is answer the hard questions consistently according to our starting point to see if the answers are real and meaningful. If this starting point doesn’t allow a consistent and meaningful account for basic things we know, it’s BS and we’ll have to start over.

I start with this: the Bible on my desk is true. Now turn to John 14:6 and Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. Who is he? Read John 1:1-5 where his name is the Word, or Reason. He created everything—matter, energy, law, and order—from the beginning, and our life and light are in him. This is a radical claim requiring our unconditional surrender to his authority. The Apostle Paul says it like this in Col 1:16,17: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.  That consistency is how things cohere or hold together. All the diverse known facts have their meaning in relationship to the Creator and Word of God.

Bottom Line: Truth is primordially the way that the three divine persons of the Godhead completely know each other and love each other constantly and faithfully. When people say Christ is truth personified, it implies that truth is first impersonal and then Christ personified it. I think it’s therapeutic to realize the twisted assumption behind that point of view. Jesus said he is the truth, but in philosophy man has de-personalized truth to hide God. Therefore, instead of saying Christ is truth personified, I say truth is personal and knowing is fundamentally a personal relationship.

Scriptural Precepts of Knowledge

So, what does Scripture say about knowledge? First, it begins with the fear of God, Pr 1:7. This forces a decision at the start of our reasoning process: who or what we are ultimately faithful to. Truth is related to the English word betroth, so it has this connotation of pledge and faithfulness (being true). Reason is a tool that allows us to judge conclusions based on their faithfulness to premises.  Proverbs calls us to pledge faithfulness to God from the beginning of our reasoning process. Everything else is foolish.

Second, we are commanded to love God with all our mind, Mt 22:37. There are two elements I want to highlight: love and mind. Love is the driving force behind knowledge. We may not get this from school, but we should keep a clear distinction between mental effort and knowing. Applying our mind is part of knowing, but knowing is also much more. While it may be tempting to separate love and knowledge into independent categories, I say we can only understand knowing in terms of love. When it comes to knowing God, he initiates the relationship, Mt 11:27. Then once we know our Heavenly Father, we are commanded to love him with everything we have. To love the Lord with all my mind, this essay examines the act of knowing to purge everything that is contrary to God’s word. This will hopefully lead to a better handle on truth that I can keep despite the adversity of the world.

Third, we are called to not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of our mind, Ro 12:2. Knowing God renews our mind, and it transforms us out of line with the world. There is a worldly way to know, and a godly way to know. The worldly way to know is for pride (so I can be right), but the right way is to love God and man. It’s not wrong to want to be right; I’m emphasizing the vain motive. The pride of life is in my nature, and I must stop when I find myself arguing for the glory of being right—this in conformity with the world 1Jn 2:16. If we love our neighbor, then we want them to come to the truth on their own terms, so they see it for themselves, for their own benefit.

In 1 Co 8, Paul is speaking to those who know that eating meat sacrificed to idols is ok. He says that if we embolden those who don’t have that knowledge to go along with us, they are sinning against their own conscience. This is a key insight into what it means to teach someone the truth. If that brother stops trusting his own conscience, he loses what God gave him to guide him on other questions. That’s dangerous. Paul would rather give up eating meat than have his brother defile his conscience! Loving your brother means persuading his whole person, not just getting his assent.

This is always the consequence of forcing unity. We are careful not to pressure anyone to agree with us so they won’t look stupid, because the smartest people are on our side, because they will have an easier life, or because they will be fined or chastised for not assenting. This has been common in history but none of those things brings real unity. The only motive that draws people together in the truth is love from the heart, so winning the personal conscience is nonnegotiable.

Beware of Philosophy

Now, we need to heed a warning given by the Apostle Paul in Colossians 2:8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Notice he didn’t say ignore or avoid philosophy; he said beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy. Even if you’re not conscious of it, the philosophy we hear could spoil our walk in faith. There are many trying to spoil our stand for the truth, so beware.

Philosophy is a worldly discipline that seeks a foundation for our knowledge or wisdom of the world around us. It is self-consciously independent of divine revelation and as such results in serious confusion. In a manner of speaking, we could adopt a “philosophy” based on scriptural precepts, but for this discussion I call that wisdom and reserve the word philosophy to describe the discipline of establishing wisdom independent of God.

Knowing is unavoidably religious at the root. The process of studying something, or defining something, is a process of relating one particular, or set of particulars, to the rest of creation (the cosmos). To question what a thing is, is to question what it means or how it relates to other things known. Therefore, the philosophical drive to establish certainty looks for the coherence of all things. In other words, what is the central truth or key, through which all things can be related.

René Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, famously doubted everything he had ever heard in search of indubitable truth. What he decided was that in the act of doubting he was asserting his existence as a thinker. Therefore, he concluded that he exists based on his thinking (or doubting). That is the famous “I think, therefore I am”. 300 years later, Bertrand Russel demonstrated that this argument “smuggled in the I” and therefore is begging the question of personal existence. Russell showed that a more consistent form of the argument is: There are thoughts, therefore I am; which obviously does not follow. So, in essence, Descartes prejudicially believed in himself as the thinker to justify his own existence. Descartes made himself, as a rational thinker, the “I AM THAT I AM” that God claims for only himself.

Every rational philosophy must find something to relate everything. Human minds are finite, so people can quickly give up trying to rationally ground knowledge and give up certainty altogether. That’s irrational because if nothing is certain, then claims to truth, including every statement of every discussion, have no objective meaning. On the finite foundation of human wisdom, therefore, disputation boils down to merely my opinion verses your opinion.  This is subjectivism. The radical skepticism that philosophy aims to avoid is unavoidable once subjectivism is adopted.

So, worldly philosophers have been searching for a rational theory that can avoid absurdity when explaining all the various facets of experience. The reason it hasn’t been successful after thousands of years, is because it prejudicially rejects the God that created and maintains all things by the word of his power. Certainty is possible to finite humans because the omniscient God has revealed what we need to know in his word. Deu 29:29, The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Under a philosophical rational program, we are left with two mutually exclusive poles that we are pulled and pushed alternately between. On the one hand, we are pulled toward dogmatism and away from subjectivism. This provides a cohesion that fulfills our intuition that the world is rational and truth is objective. However, there is no room for individuals to conscientiously counter the dogma within the tradition because disagreement itself is heresy. For some, when they perceive the accepted narrative is false, the polarity switches and our need for liberty of conscience becomes obvious. Subjectivism reigns when enough people reject the prevailing dogma and leave every person to do what is right in their own eyes. The fruit of radical subjectivism is disorder and chaos and simultaneously leads others to rally around a new dogma and repeat the process all over. Ad Nauseum. I think this lens helps us understand much of human history.

My Worldview

I believe the Bible gives us the truth we ought to rally around but also requires patience as men naturally reject the truth. To the traditional religionist, who doubts the clarity and completeness of scripture, we appear to be heretics that are relegated to (blind, unguided) subjectivism. To the liberal individualist, we appear dogmatic as we submit unconditionally to (unloving, uninspired) scripture. But to the believer, truth is found where the external evidence of scripture rings in harmony with the internal testimony of conscience.

The Bible teaches that God and only God exists independently. God subsists in three persons relating to each other as Father, Son, and Spirit. They have been loving each other constantly since eternity. Love is as fundamental as existence. It was out of this abundance that he loved us and created the world so we would live with him in glory Eph 1:3-6. Secondly, man sinned against God by refusing his absolute authority. This brought a curse, drove us away from God, and keeps us from seeing the truth the way we ought to. Finally, we are redeemed through the blood of Christ, and through him God has made known to us the mystery of his will and shall gather us together in the end of time Eph 1:7-12. These truths furnish a framework through which I understand the world.

Within this framework, knowing God depends on the moral condition of the knower. We cannot know God, let alone identify his church, unless we’ve been regenerated into spiritual life 1 Co 2. We love him because he first loved us 1Jn 4:19. So those with a carnal mind, have no hope of understanding because they remain under the curse of sin which is spiritual death. For those that have been given spiritual life, there is still blindness that must be overcome on the moral level before we can see the truth. 2 Co 4:3-4 refers to those who have been blinded by the god of this world. I think this can be applied to anyone who defers to human authority, or whatever is more socially acceptable, instead of the humbling process of following Jesus with their whole heart.  When his disciples asked Jesus why he spoke to the multitude in parables (Mat 13:11-17), he told them he didn’t intend to show them the kingdom. Why? Because their hearts waxed gross and they shut their eyes. This goes back to the sovereignty of God: He sets the terms and conditions for how we know him.

This challenges the notion that anyone can understand if they just have the right information. However, it makes sense when you think about it from a privacy standpoint. We all hide certain things about ourselves from the public. There are certain things that only my wife is allowed to see. Revelation is a choice, and if we have that choice, why wouldn’t God? Knowing God, like any person, is intimate and can’t be done except on his terms.

Getting the Picture

The role of scripture is often misunderstood; so, to place scripture where it belongs, let’s think holistically about knowing using sight as an analogy. For an image to be seen, the subject must have the faculties necessary, have contact with the image, and make a skilled effort to see the image. Notice the three dimensions: the subject, the world, and the authority. The subject is the man doing the knowing or seeing by analogy, the world is the reality we know, and the authority provides guidance to the subject as he’s trying to skillfully understand.

When you look around the world, you see various things that you know. Yet, you know there is more calling you to figure it out. As Jesus was coming to Bethsaida, a blind man was brought to him. Jesus spit on his eyes and asked him if he saw ought. The man looked up and said, “I see men as trees, walking”, so Jesus put his hands on him one more time and he saw every man clearly. Reality didn’t change when the man saw more clearly, but his experience of the world became much richer. Likewise, knowledge enriches us. If our eyes work, light is detected, but it’s just random noise until we know what we’re seeing. The skill in knowing is integrating clues into an image that has meaning. Once an image comes into focus for us, we know it and the integration of the clues is so effortless that we may forget the clues even while relying on them subsidiarily. Now we’re ready to learn more about the world by using this new knowledge as a clue for our next integration effort.

I remember squirrel hunting with Paw Paw when I was a boy. When under threat, squirrels don’t want to be seen and are very good at hiding, especially from a boy that lacks skill in finding them. This is where the authority dimension is evident. How do we find something we can’t see? Paw Paw was the authority on squirrel hunting that I trusted. He knew where to find the squirrels and took me to the forest that I didn’t know about. He knew how to train dogs and read the clues they were giving us about where the squirrel had been. Even when Paw Paw placed me where the squirrel was, all I saw was a tree with several forks, branches, knots, and leaves. However, because of my faith in Paw Paw and his witness of what was in that tree, I earnestly kept looking at all the clues he had set before me trying to see what I couldn’t yet see. The more I struggled, the more he tried to explain how to see it, but it was I who had to identify the squirrel out of the shades of brown and gray in the tree top. Once I finally saw the truth, it was exciting and continuing to see it was effortless. If I had merely trusted that Paw Paw was correct and accepted where he said it was, I would have missed the whole fun of the hunt. Believing the truth is seeing for yourself what is out there and there is joy when we share it with others.

This picture of knowledge is more thoroughly worked out by the philosopher Esther Lightcap Meek in her book, Loving to Know: A Covenantal Epistemology. I also enjoyed her “epistemological therapy” in the shorter book, A Little Handbook for Knowing. If you’re interested in epistemology and the model of subsidiary focal integration that she teaches, I would suggest you read one of her books.

The Role of Scripture

The hunting example illustrates knowing, at least some key aspects. Now consider authority in the church. Scripture tells us how to see Jesus as Lord (Jn 5:39). When our church says the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice, it doesn’t mean that individuals don’t benefit from other authorities. Clearly my current state of knowledge has been immensely helped by the teachings and examples of my parents, pastors, human authors, peers, and others. Church tradition is very important. What it means is that the Bible is the only authoritative rule that we are bound to observe. The Bible doesn’t apply the truth to every question we face. It provides the guidance we need, but we must responsibly apply the light of scripture to our situation. Ps 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

The church wasn’t instituted by the Bible. She existed in her present form when Christ was on the earth, and the Bible wasn’t finished until later in the first century. I don’t think John finished writing until the 90’s A.D. So, not all church members had access to the Bible, and at least for a few hundred years, there were some churches that didn’t have the entire canon and yet they were still a church. Since these facts are used as evidence to undermine scriptural authority over the church, a little clarity is in order. It does not follow that because the church recognized which writings were the word of God, that the church then has authority to determine what is true, or to hold human writings as equally authoritative. The authority that established the church is the Word of God! The apostles wrote down, with the help of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:25-26, 15:26-27), what Christ taught them (Lu 1:1-4, 1Jo 1:3). Everything they taught was based on what God said, or it wasn’t authoritative. If a group of people were teaching and practicing the truth that Jesus Christ taught, they were the church no matter how many Bible copies they had in hand.

The Primitive Baptist Church holds that the King James Translation of the Bible faithfully conveys all scripture (2Ti 3:16) in our language, no more and no less. Therefore, all our preaching and articles of faith are based on scripture. If a question comes up that genuinely cannot be answered by scriptural principles, there is no need for the church to supply the principle because liberty on the question will not affect the peace of the church. Historical confessions and writings play a valuable role in guiding us to the answer of certain questions by pointing to biblical truth, but we don’t hold them on par with the Bible. We maintain that scripture is sufficient to justify all our defining beliefs. In other words, the Bible is the authority by which we judge the fitness of other authorities, including a tradition from the church.

Interpretation

If we are clear on the role of scripture, we agree that the Scripture is the word of God and is true. So of course, church teaching and organization should be agreed with scripture. Then what about variant interpretations? From history we learn about schisms and small churches refusing to fellowship the powerful catholic church. Should you look in scripture to interpret for yourself which church resembles the word of God on the various points in question? Or should we look at the institutions and decide which one had majority approval, imperial approval, or any other non-scriptural factor and submit to that? Can a “layman” interpret the Bible for himself given the competing interpretations presented from both sides?

I try to teach the way Paul taught in 2 Co 4: By manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. I want you to see the truth from God’s own words and love it for yourself, not just surrender to a decisive conclusion from someone much smarter than you. On the other hand, if the “laity” are too ignorant to understand the truth from the Bible based on a lack of philosophical training, we must get assent based on the authority of church “clergy”. That’s dogmatism and fits Paul’s description of walking in craftiness and handling the word of God deceitfully. This is dogmatism because without faith in God’s word, one loses his own internal guide and must accept the tradition of a group of men as his rule of truth. If the subject matter were something like quantum physics, or Classical Greek poetry; that would be alright. However, I’m arguing that the Bible was given by God to guide all believers into a real relationship with him in this life, so seeing Christ and identifying his church by scripture is not reserved for the philosophically trained, but for the humble, faithful, and persistent child of God.

Continuing in 2Co 4, we see that the gospel is hid to them that are lost because the god of this world hath blinded their minds, lest the light of the glorious gospel should shine unto them. Paul’s tactic is to preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. The light to see the glory of God comes from God, and we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us. Does this sound like we need to get more philosophy, or a Doctor of Divinity degree, to see the light of the glory of God? Or does this sound like the true teachers are sent by God to point you toward him so that you aren’t blinded by the great men of this world? The struggle is not because doctrine is complicated, it’s because there is a god of this world that wants you looking at men so that you miss the true glory.

Worldly education is kind of a liability that makes it harder to see the truth. 1Co 1:17-31  ¹⁷ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. ¹⁸ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. ²⁰ Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ²¹ For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. ²² For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: ²³ But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; ²⁴ But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. ²⁶ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: ²⁷ But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; ²⁸ And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: ²⁹ That no flesh should glory in his presence. ³⁰ But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: ³¹ That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

One of my favorites is in Matt 11:25-26 after Jesus expresses frustration with the cities he and John had been preaching to. They didn’t repent. The Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. It pleases God to reveal truth unto babes that he hides from the “wise and prudent”. Jesus told his disciples in Mat 18:3, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. The moral of this story is that education and intelligence is not how God reveals his truth or his kingdom. But this does not mean to just believe whatever you want to believe!

Jesus promised that For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened (Mat 7:8). Solomon says (Pro 25:2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. This tells me that although from the most elementary levels we know Christ as Lord and we can identify his presence, there is a growth and clarity that we should be seeking with zeal and perseverance. The parable of the sower in Mat 13/Mar 4/Luk 8 shows that the word is like a seed that can bear fruit. To get a good crop of fruit, you need not only to be introduced to the truth, but you need to understand, study, and apply focus. There is an enemy that wants to keep the truth from bearing fruit in your life and is successful in most people (Mat 7:12-14). You know Christ, so surround yourself with mentors and teachers that help you understand the word of God as your servants for Christ’s sake. In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge Col 2:3.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that identifying the church isn’t nearly as difficult as some make it. The difficulty is with pride, and those that rest on their own wisdom are farthest from the truth. In mercy, God has given us a home in this world that does not conform to this world, where we hear the gospel of his grace, and our hearts are comforted, being knit together in love unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding Col 2:2. We read the scripture as the very words of God and find that contradictions and variance in interpretation must be resolved on principles contained in scripture. The ideal of widespread unity and agreement throughout the world cannot be expected because men are driven by lust and pride, which is the source of confusion and darkness that we struggle against. However, we draw comfort from the promise our Lord gave in Luke 12:32: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 11

 The second mark of the apostolic church was the baptism, the immersion, of believers in water, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. –Hassell

The second way we characterize the church established by the Lord is the baptism itself. When believer presents himself to the church desiring to identify with Christ and serve in his body, they receive him on his credible confession of faith. A minister—one recognized by the church as called of God and given this authority by the laying on of hands by the presbytery—takes the candidate into the water, declaring the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, buries the candidate under the watery surface and raises him up again. This is the initiatory rite that permits the new member to all the privileges and fellowship in the church.

As far as I know, there is no debate that Christ was fully immersed and that this is the mode that was used by the apostles. However, this is a characteristic that sets the true church apart from the Roman Catholic Church because they decided that immersion wasn’t necessary. Most protestant denominations to this day follow the example of their mother and do not portray the burial and resurrection in the practice of baptism. We hold to this because of the word chosen to describe the rite in scripture and based on the symbolism that the New Testament text draws from the rite.

If you look up baptism in an English dictionary, you will see that refers to the Christian ceremony by applying water. But that is not the meaning of the word chosen by the apostles when establishing churches. The Greek word, baptizo, according to Strongs: from a derivative of bapto; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet). It means to cover fully with water or to dip something under. It is very disappointing that they failed to translate baptizo when they translated the Bible. It would make the practice of the official churches obviously out of step with scripture if people could read that we are commanded to be immersed or submerged. So, they transliterated the Greek word, thus inventing the English word baptize and defined it into something compatible with their ideas of expediency and decency. If the apostles had desired to convey the idea of applying water there were other Greek words that they knew about meaning to sprinkle, to pour, to wash, etc. but they used the word to dip purposefully.

The elements of the mode of baptism teach:

• The purifying power of the Spirit in regeneration (Col 2:12-14)
• The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in redemption (Rom 6:4-5)
• All three persons in the Godhead identified saving us (Ti 3:5-7)
• That faith in the word makes the bride of Christ clean and holy before him (Eph 5:25-27)

Seeing that the mode of baptism given to us by the apostles demonstrates such a vast survey of the gospel, it is clear to me that it was intended by him that his church keep demonstrating this truth by this ceremony throughout the ages. If it was good enough for Christ and his disciples, I don’t want anything less.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 10

Characteristic marks of the apostolic church 1/12

The apostolic church consisted only of persons that have been convicted by the Holy Spirit of their sins and have repented their lives to follow God’s will. --Hassell

The first mark of the apostolic church describes membership qualification, because the quickest way to destroy a church is to fail to keep the walls and boundaries that God has given for his kingdom.

Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following. Psalms 48:12-13

The bliss and peace we hope for in the immortal glory of heaven is possible only because God does not allow any trace of sin there. He has also given his church a kingdom in this world where we may enjoy a measure of bliss and peace as the earnest of our inheritance, because there are defensive measures (towers, bulwarks) he has placed in it to limit the destruction of sin. He has given a command of repentance and baptism for all those who desire to live in that peace.

This mark is proved by showing first the necessity of baptism before becoming a member of the church, and secondly by showing the pre-requisites for baptism. Notice in Acts 2, below, that there was conviction and repentance before baptism, then as a result they were added to and continued in the fellowship of the apostolic church.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:37-42

Now I give a long quote on baptism being the initiation into the church from Lemuel’s Potter’s synopsis of Close Communion, in which he is quoting an unnamed learned writer.

“The principal and most comprehensive design of this ordinance appears, from the scriptures, to be a solemn public and practical profession of Christianity.  Thus Paul sums up the baptism of John, Acts 19:4, ‘John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ!’  And thus he describes his own Gal. 3:27.  ‘As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.’ To the same purpose are the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost: ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ.’ Hence also a rejection of baptism is by our Lord called a rejection of the counsel of God, that is, of Christianity.  Luke 7:30. And the reception of baptism is represented as the act by which we justify God; that is, practically approve his method of salvation by faith in the Messiah.  Luke 7:29. Hence, whatever may be said of baptism as it is now generally understood and practiced, and of the personal religion of those who practice it, it is certain that it was originally appointed to be the boundary of visible Christianity.  But this general design of baptism comprehends many particulars.  Christianity consists partly of truths to be believed, partly of precepts to be obeyed and partly of promises to be hoped for, and this, its initiatory ordinance, is rich in significancy in relation to them all.  We are taught to regard it: 1. As a solemn profession of our faith in the Trinity, and particularly of our adoption by the Father, of our union to the Son, of our sanctification by the spirit.  2.   As a public pledge of the renunciation of sins.  3.   As the expression of our hope of a future and glorious resurrection.  4.   As a visible bond of union among Christians.”

This shows why I resist extremes in denying baptismal regeneration. I think some evangelicals go too far by making baptism merely a symbol of something that has already happened. While baptism doesn’t make Christ’s baptism on the cross effectual for the subject, it is a pledge that publicly admits him into Christ’s kingdom on earth and is a requirement before admittance to the Lord’s supper. Baptism has real consequences so it’s not merely a symbol.

No one denies that faith and willingness are taught for adult candidates for baptism. This mark is against mainly pedobaptism. There is no infant baptism mentioned in scripture. There are a couple cases where it refers to baptism of entire households which is sometimes given as an example of infant baptism. Given the clear pattern showing belief and repentance required prior to baptism, reference to a household doesn’t provide any reason to abandon the pattern. Even if there were infants present in the household, the term “all that were in his house” would be understood to mean all that it applies to. For example, if I went to a man’s house to register him to vote and said that I registered his whole family, you would naturally understand without confusion that I meant all those who were of a voting age and not the infants.

We don’t find any clear teachings of infant baptism in history until the middle of the third century. That’s two hundred years too late to be apostolic. Even then, it doesn’t appear to be in general use within the catholic church until the fifth century (Hassell p. 271). Catholics justify it based on the authority of the church to make changes like that. However, that isn’t applying principles from Christ’s teachings to new and evolving circumstances; that’s changing the definitional boundary of the church as taught and practiced by the apostles. A clean break.

Some say Ireneus taught infant baptism, but the quote is only teaching infant regeneration/salvation which Primitive Baptists believe. Baptismal (water) regeneration must be presupposed to interpret Ireneus to teach infant baptism. He doesn’t mention water here, but that infants are born again through Christ. Tertullian wrote in the early third century, c. 200 A.D. that baptism of children should be delayed until they can demonstrate a full understanding of the seriousness of the rite. Some say that means that the practice of infant baptism was in practice at the time for him to be writing against it. But all that he was arguing against is baptizing little children for merely being able to answer some basic questions or recite some creed. He was just concerned that they were baptizing children too hastily. There may be other quotes from Church fathers, but there is no clear evidence they were referring to physical water baptism or that the children were too young to be conscious or consensual. 

Baptizing infants seems to be introduced under the pretext that water was required to be born again and fit for heaven. This is against the teaching of Christ in John 3 regarding spiritual birth that it is like the wind in that it blows wherever it will and we can’t tell from whence it comes and where it goes. Water baptism obviously depends on the will of man and it is given for everyone to see. However, the fear of what might happen to their babies without baptism evidently drove the first practice of pedobaptism. 

A consistent view of the church as the enjoyment of the kingdom on earth would not lead anyone to fear someone dying without water baptism. So, we infer that sacramentalism preceded infant baptism. That is to say that the ordinances of the church were seen to be channels of divine grace that allowed people to live in heaven when they die—sacraments. This is a fundamental, definitionally different way of viewing what the church is. The apostles taught salvation by grace without works; that our eternal heavenly inheritance is based on the covenant faithfulness of God alone. This means that participation in the rituals of the church is for our understanding and fellowship here in this fallen world and are not doors into heaven after death.

Very often in reading history, we will see groups of people called Anabaptists. This is not one particular people, nor did they all believe the same things nor worship the same way. Anabaptist is a blanket term referring literally to one who rebaptizes. It’s not a name they would call themselves, but it was given to them by people who resent the practice. Anabaptists held that getting an infant wet didn’t constitute baptism and this infuriated all the pedobaptists—especially to the extent they believed anabaptists were denying their dying children an escape from hell or purgatory. Pedobaptists love to quote our Savior saying, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Ironically, it is the doctrine of sacramentalism or baptismal regeneration that denies that little children have access to heaven if they haven’t been washed in water. Primitive Baptists believe this scripture shows that deceased infants shall all be gathered to the Lord, and forbids anyone teach that heaven is denied to anyone for lack of water baptism. I think by an by the practice just became a tradition and doesn’t necessarily imply infant damnation today, but in reading the earliest discussions about infant baptism, there is a strong reference to the danger of one dying without water baptism or the vital cleansing received from the holy water.

Protestants obviously can’t justify infant baptism from church authority because they hold to the principle of sola scriptura. Therefore, they teach a complex doctrine that ties baptism to a continuation of the practice of circumcision. This doctrine is necessary to them because they were unwilling to share in the reproach of the Anabaptists and submit to their baptism. They liked the idea that people could be coerced into the church against their will and didn’t want to stray too far from the practice they were raised in but needed a new scriptural argument to sustain it. I believe the scripture’s plain teaching of baptism is simple enough and don’t have a problem identifying with those hated anabaptists who preserved the tradition against violent opposition from the Catholic church. So, consider the following simple arguments instead of a complete analysis of that doctrine. 

• If baptism is to be understood as a continuation of circumcision in some way, then Acts 15 would be the perfect place to find that explained.
• Circumcision applied only to males, but baptism is given to male and female.
• There is a similarity in that circumcision was the formal entry into the Old Covenant and baptism is the formal entry into the New Covenant. The covenants are different so the qualifications to enter it are also different.
• Interest in the Old Covenant was based on one’s genealogy, so natural birth to the right parents qualified those for entry into that church. Interest in the New Covenant is based on having God’s law put into our mind and written in our hearts by God, so spiritual birth is a prerequisite to water baptism. Heb 8, John 3:3.
• The Old Covenant also encompassed a natural inheritance and civil laws, so everyone in the nation was subject to it. The kingdom Christ established is not of this world, it is spiritual, so those without spiritual life are not subject to this kingdom. John 18:36, Rom 8:7, 1Cor 2:14.

I will not exhaust this subject, nor do I think the above arguments haven’t already been dealt with to the satisfaction of pedobaptists. My primary aim is to identify the apostolic church as a church that did not extend membership based on natural birth or on the faith of others in their behalf. I also tried to emphasize how fundamentally the practice of infant baptism changes the nature and identity of the church. It goes from being the fellowship of the subjects of Christ the King who have been born of his Spirit, to a channel of grace that offers to all of mankind to mediate the redemption purchased by the blood of Christ and make them children of God. The first and most important mark of the church is a regenerated and converted membership.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 9

 Sylvester Hassell wrote a comprehensive history of the Primitive Baptists. Published in 1886, it is still the definitive church history for us today. Chapter IX of that work is called the Characteristics of the Apostolic Church. The first eight chapters of the history covers the time from creation to the end of the first century or the death of the apostle John. The story over these years is told by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and the apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ endued with unique and special powers by the Holy Ghost sealing their authority to teach and write scripture. Tracing the history of this church after bible times requires judgment about who kept the identity of the Lord's church when splits happened.

Elder Hassell wrote this ninth chapter because it is the whole key to the argument for Primitive Baptist succession of baptism and identity as the Lord’s church. He states very clearly that the standard for who is the true church is the apostolic church. The church described by the Apostles in scripture is true and correct. Nothing that is opposed to the apostolic doctrine and practice is correct. He gives twelve identifying marks, or characteristics, that are taught in scripture and are useful for identifying the true church in every successive generation.

Based on the promises of God, principally given in Dan 2:44 and Mat 16:18, we believe that the kingdom identified by the teaching of Christ and his apostles is still in existence today, has always been in existence since the day of John the Baptist (Luke 16:16), and will be preserved by God for those exercising biblical church discipline. We cannot go to history to prove the continued existence of the church if we don’t already believe it by the promise of God. Uninspired, extra-biblical history is valuable and interesting, but it is secondary to scripture.

The data from history is woefully incomplete compared to all the people and events that took place over time. This makes tracing the identity of the church through history comparable to watching a train. We may see it start off from the station and then it may enter a tunnel and be hid from our sight for long stretches of time. But when it emerges out of the tunnel here or there, we wouldn’t doubt that it survived in an uninterrupted succession from trestle to trestle, even though we couldn’t prove it by our sight. In other words, we don’t get our belief in church perpetuity from reading history, rather we bring it into our reading of history.

By taking a clear stand that we aren’t protestants, we are making a statement that the church is of a nature where it never needed to be reformed. The fact is that the protestant reformers were excluded by the church they were trying to reform. History records pre-reformational traditions that influenced some of what Luther and Calvin believed such as the Waldenses and other Ana-baptists, but the reformers didn't leave the catholic church and join them. They started their own tradition when they were excommunicated from their church. Whether we can or cannot identify which ancient groups carried the torch we have, we surely believe that our church wasn’t started by some man in protest to the tradition he was handed.

Going forward, I want to summarize and defend each of the twelve marks that Hassell has so ably laid out in his history to show us how we relate to the apostolic church.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 8

 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. Exodus 25:22

I want to notice the opening of the book of Revelation, particularly the candlestick image. John is commanded to write a message from the Lord to seven of his churches. He turned to see the Lord and saw him in the midst of the seven candlesticks, which are the seven churches. The relevance of a candlestick is that it is a stand or platform from which light may shine. It isn’t the light, but the light dwells there. Paul refers to the church of the living God as the pillar and ground of the truth 1Ti 3:15. She isn’t the authority, but she upholds the truth she was given. I quoted Ex 25:22 because we see a mercy seat that sat in the Holiest place, and like a flame on a candlestick, God designed it for the place where he would dwell and commune with God’s people on earth.

There is one Lord but seven candlesticks here. One candlestick for each local congregation mentioned. The Lord is addressing each one independently which wouldn’t make sense if their identity was tied together as a catholic church. They are each given encouragements and commendations as appropriate and also warnings for things to change with the consequence of the Lord removing their candlestick. Removing the candlestick is something more permanent than merely removing the light. It’s conceivable that on any given day a church could be caught up in the flesh or some sin and miss the presence of the Holy Spirit for some time. That’s depressing and I wouldn’t want that at all. But removing the candlestick, means God no longer even recognizes them as a church and therefore removes the platform from which he communes with his people. God doesn’t do this unfairly or abruptly, but as he told the church of the Laodiceans, he beckons church members to repent from their own self-sufficiency. If any member will answer the knock of the Savior, he will commune with the Lord. So even a small minority dissenting from the majority and leadership of the church, carries the identity of the church forward as long they are the ones eating at the Lord’s table.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 7

 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2Co 3:17

I want to cut the core now and ask the baseline question. What really makes a church a true church? Or more to the point, Who decides who’s in and who’s out? The answer is God decides and the presence of the Spirit of God is what makes the difference between the true church and a “knock-off” or “look alike”. At the end of the day all that really matters to me is that I am where the Lord is. It’s not the name on the front of the building, it’s not the folks we fellowship with, it’s not the creeds or confessions, it’s not the degree or intelligence of the pastor, it’s not the activities for the kids, It’s where God is revealing himself in the spirit.

The work of the Holy Spirit is vital to the church. John 14:25-26; 16:7,13. Jesus taught and established his church while he was present but didn’t leave us alone when he returned to the Father. He sent the Holy Ghost to teach us the meaning of his words and guide us into all truth. Eph 4:7-14, 1Co 12:4-11. The Holy Spirit brings gifts the church needs. The presence of the Holy Spirit is conditional and a dying church is simply one that isn’t enjoying the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A church has either both spirit and truth or neither. Spirit without the truth is the wrong spirit, and doctrine without spirit is a dead formality and not truth at all. 

Truth is alive and has a taste that goes with it. Paul said God made manifest the savor of his knowledge by his preaching 2Co 2:14. Preaching (which isn’t just speaking but is a demonstration of the Spirit and of power 1Co 2:4) makes truth evident to those who are born of God because it is the savor of life. That happens when the weight of sin melts off and the smile of God lifts your heart above all your troubles. The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life 2Co 3:6. 

There are plenty of wrong spirits. When God removes his candlestick, the only spirit available to a group of people wanting to attract members is a manufactured spirit. We experience spirit-filled events all the time in the world. There is spirit at music concerts, there is spirit at exciting ball games, comedy clubs, political debates, and so many other forms of social gatherings. There may be a lot of spirit at a church meeting, but if it isn’t according to truth, it’s just importing our own spirit, and not worship which is in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Our fellowship with this or that church is not what makes them a true church and removing our fellowship doesn’t remove the candlestick. There is no governing board that decided who’s in, God reserves that right to himself and thankfully he is long-suffering (Rev 2:5). Our responsibility is to keep fellowship with God and that means avoiding fellowship with darkness or confusion Eph 5:11, 1Jo 1:6. That’s not easy, but I think it’s that simple.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 6

Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire. Heb 12:28-29

The true church seeks to conform herself to the commands of God and doesn’t expect God to adapt to her offerings. Let’s consider how God is to be approached.

God sent Moses to tell Pharaoh to let his people go so they could hold a feast unto him. Ex 5:1. It was imperative that they worship him outside of Pharaoh’s domain. Having delivered them from Egyptian bondage with his own power, God gave his people instructions on how he was to be worshipped. He told him how to build a sanctuary: the tabernacle, instruments, sacrifices, and priesthood. Ex 25:8-9. God declared how to construct the place where he would dwell among his people. The high priest was to place a golden bell on the hem of his robe that gave a constant reminder on how seriously God expected his people to follow his instructions in worship. Ex 28:35. Nadab and Abihu were priests killed by God because they offered strange fire to God, which is defined as a step that was not commanded by God. This tells me that God’s instructions were complete and additions were unlawful. Lev 10:1-2. While disobeying God’s commands resulted in death, following them had the exclusive benefit of seeing God’s glory in the earth. Ex 29:43.

At the end of Joshua’s life, he very famously challenged the people to follow the Lord. He gave a principle about the worship of God that will be critical for finding the true church in history. In Joshua 24, he said that to serve the Lord, all the gods of the world had to be put away and forsaken. God is a jealous God, a holy God. The worship of God means doing his will without mixing it with anything from men.

When Christ came, he signaled a change in worship for the New Testament era to the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4. The woman pointed out that her people worshipped in this mountain, but the Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place to worship. While Jesus pointed to the new era, he also acknowledged that in the old era it did matter where worship was conducted. Jesus said, ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. This goes back to the division of Israel by Rehoboam and Jeroboam after Solomon died. In 1Ki 12 we read that Jeroboam was concerned of losing his power over the ten tribes of the north by them attending worship in Jerusalem. So, he established a worship that was more convenient for them. Jesus was saying that tradition was illegitimate. Today, true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. If the Samaritans put themselves outside the covenant by abandoning Jerusalem, we know that any sect—however powerful or popular—that mixes God’s word with man’s tradition is illegitimate.