faith for faith

A name is a loaded thing. It gives one description, a moniker, categories, and a sense of belonging. It also permits social interaction, structure, and order. Names are a fundamental element of human existence. But what does one do if a name no longer correctly describes him, or if the meaning the name portrays has changed over time, or if that name has become so broad that it encompasses those with whom one would never associate?

These are some of the questions I have been asking myself for years regarding the “Baptist” title. Baptist is one of those names that has become so broad and has developed so many connotations that it is hardly helpful as a name any more. Generally, the Baptist name encompasses almost anyone who professes Christ who does not hold to infant baptism. Apart from that, one can be Calvinistic or Arminian in his soteriology, covenantal, dispensational, etc., in his view of the New Covenant, charismatic or cessationist with regard to the gifts of the Spirit, congregational or elder-ruled with regard to ecclesiology, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the only thing that holds Baptists together is the dryness of their infants.

Read more…

Having been exposed to Southern Baptist “life” far more than I have ever desired by attending a Southern Baptist seminary for near countless years, I have become well-acquainted with the controversies that have plagued churches throughout the country. In that, the one controversy that seems to creep upon the stoop of every church at one time or another is the “contemporary” music controversy. To put it briefly for those who are fortunate enough to be unaware of it, it is the struggle between generations in a church over the type of music that is played in Sunday morning services, whether it be the type that is labeled “traditional” or that which is labeled “contemporary,” i.e. that which is more in tune with the types of music popular in the secular world.

And having attended a school and through it becoming familiar with it, I have to say that the presentation of the controversy has been typically one-sided, namely coming from those who are younger who have a general animosity toward those who are older. And though this is not always the case, it is typically the case. Those who are in the seminaries are usually those who are younger, and therefore they reside in a different generation and in a different understanding of the world around them. Therefore, when they hear that the “old folks” in the church do not like the new music, they immediately conclude that they are old fogies who are set in their ways and who are not as “spiritual” and spiritually discerning as they are.

Read more…

It is difficult to pinpoint its source, but there is something about Sundays that causes to me to be discontent with the state of the church in our country. And its effects upon me are such that I have to almost force myself to go to the building that we call, “the church,” on Sunday mornings though I scarcely doubt that God’s saints do indeed gather there. And if this discontentment with Sundays were coupled with a disdain for fellowship with the saints, I would necessarily conclude that my own heart was to blame for it. Yet, I find that despite my discontentment with “church” on Sunday mornings I do in fact enjoy and indeed yearn for fellowship with God’s people. Therefore the question that rests heavy upon my heart is, “If I am indeed in Christ and if I truly long for the company of the saints, why is then that I have such reluctance toward “church” on Sunday mornings?”

Assuming that I am not wholly wicked (which is sometimes a shaky assumption), what is it about "church” on Sunday mornings that causes my heart at times to shy away from it rather than be drawn to it? What merit (if any) is there for this disposition of my heart?

Read more…

I have heard it said, “The one thing that we can learn from history is that no one learns from history.” It does not take much to validate this statement. We see it in politics where present governments repeat the mistakes of past governments, we see it in families where children repeat the mistakes of their parents, and we see it in religion where traditionalists misapply the truth behind practices of the past. We all return like dogs to the vomit of our predecessors, and we like them all reject the nourishment of those who by wisdom rejected the viscous cycle of willful obstinacy.

And in the case of religion whereas this traditionalism against truth reared its fleshly head in the Jews who were thus blinded to the Messiah for whom they were looking, and in the Catholic church whose papal decrees and councils blinded it to the Gospel of our Lord, so too now many Baptists have taken up with great zealotry the doctrines of believer’s baptism and baptism by immersion without regard for the foundation upon which it was built. These have perpetuated divisions in God’s church by holding onto the spoils of a battle long past, and these have cherished the spoils and yet have forgotten and even contradicted those who fought the battle that produced the spoils.

Read more…

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:1-7).

When we think upon the writings of Paul compared to our own context, it is interesting to think about those whom he is addressing. He is not writing to the First Baptist Church of Ephesus or to the Ephesus Presbyterian Church or to the Reformed Church of Ephesus, but he is writing to the church at Ephesus. And what exactly does the apostle mean when he says that he is writing to the church at Ephesus? He explains this at the beginning of his letter: “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (v. 1:1). Therefore, his letter (shockingly) is intended for all who are in Christ in Ephesus–who have been bought with his blood and who share in the Blessing of his Spirit.

Read more…

I realize that the subject I am addressing is an extremely weighty and relevant one, and I have been blessed to have received wise counsel on my addressing it. I could not tell you the exact reasons for my dealing with the subject now apart from it being placed upon my heart the other day and the change of opinion that I have had on it over the years. My former position was a common one among conservative theologians, and it was in short that there is no biblical foundation for divorce, and that if anyone seeks for divorce for any reason at all, they are dishonoring God and his Word. And since my opinion has since changed from that, I will essentially be rebutting myself and my own former arguments. If you wish to read my former written arguments, they can be found here.

Covenants: Unconditional or Conditional?
One matter that greatly shaped my former opinion on the practice of divorce was that of marriage being a covenant and a former professor’s teaching on the nature of covenants. And while I still highly esteem this teacher, I must say that I absolutely disagree with his view of the covenant, namely that a covenant is an unconditional agreement between two parties. His opinion on all covenants being unconditional is founded upon the New Covenant where the promises of God are not able to be thwarted by human design or transgression. We Christians often call this the “unconditional” love of God, whereby he saves sinners and continues to love them in spite of their constant failings.

Read more…

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up (Rm. 15:1,2).

As God has ordained it, his church is comprised of many people of many varying strengths and degrees of faith (cf. Rm. 12:3). And in spite of these variances, God has ordained that his church be one Body, united for the sake of his glory. And as such, the attainment of unity in the church for the sake of God’s glory must come through love and longsuffering, for the church at present remains in a fallen world and will, because of the variance within it, contain those who fail.

Read more…

What is speaking the truth in love? It is a question that I seem to ask to myself incessantly, for there are many who take offense to many of the things that I write and speak, and there are many who claim that I do not write and speak in love. It is a question that judges me whenever I hear of the offenses and the hostilities that some of my writings raise, and it is one that causes to me to examine every topic that I address and every word that I use to address them. It is a question that haunts my soul and my very purpose for existence, and one that causes me to question the very path that I have walked thus far. And being such a reoccurring question, I have addressed it before in my soul and in my writings and will likely address it for the rest of my life.

What then is speaking the truth in love? If you were to take a random survey of people in our country, you would likely receive a host of different answers. If you were to ask the question of a person of a postmodern persuasion, you would likely get an answer similar to, “Speaking the truth in love is not speaking at all, for truth is relative to the individual, and to force one’s opinion of truth upon another is offensive and intolerant and therefore unloving.” If you were to ask it of another, you might get the answer, “Speaking the truth in love is sharing what is true in such a way that it presents one’s view of truth as an opinion thereby making compliance to it optional and thus making it inoffensive.” If you were to ask it of one who professes to be a Christian, you might get an answer like, “Speaking the truth in love is sharing the truth of God’s Word in a way that is not judgmental and that withholds matters that might offend a person and turn them away from a church or the Faith.”

Read more…

The Southern Baptist Convention, began, a most Baptist affiliations do, as a gathering together Baptist churches for the purpose of centralizing resources for the propagation of the Gospel around the world. Fast forward over a hundred years later, you will find a corporate conglomerate that dictates doctrine, that owns the largest publisher of Christian literature in world (viz. LifeWay Christian Resources), that operates its own Willow Tree figurine, VeggieTales, and The Shack distribution stores (viz. LifeWay Christian Stores), that possesses its own insurance agency (viz. Guidestone Financial Resources), that has created and owns its own translation of the Bible (viz. the Holman Christian Standard version), that owns and operates six American seminaries, and that does missions through the International and North American Mission Boards. This transformation is indicative of the shift in the SBC from its former role as the mere centralization of resources for the sake of the Gospel to its present role as a massive, bureaucratic entity that makes preaching the Gospel to the nations a great ordeal.

To understand the great difficulty that the SBC causes with regards to missions, one simply has to look at a decently sized Southern Baptist church. In those churches you might find missionaries who go through the International Mission Board into the nations, but you are likely to find a greater number being sent out directly by those churches thereby by-passing the IMB. The purpose is not that those churches desire to establish their own international identity apart from the IMB, but it is because the IMB has made the process of sending out missionaries so difficult that many who would desire to be missionaries have looked upon the IMB as a great barrier rather than as a great help. They look at the mandatory education requirements and the strict doctrinal conformities and then turn their backs on the IMB and its numerous hoops and look for other options.

Read more…

John Piper caused quite a stir among Baptists a few years ago when he declared his intentions to make it possible for non-Baptist persons (viz. those who come from other orthodox denominations that practice infant baptism rather than believer’s baptism) to join his church without being baptized as an adult by immersion. I, at that time along with the majority of Baptists, openly ridiculed Piper for what I said was his “pansy stance on Baptism” and his apparent capitulation of doctrine for the sake of church membership. I, however (never to be one to put my foot in my mouth) since that time have reversed my former position and have found myself, for the most part, agreeing with the stance that Piper has made in his church. Though I am sure that I will receive much flak for siding with Piper on this issue, I am convinced that it is the best stance that Baptists can take for the sake of the health of the Body and for its testimony of Christ to the world.

Though I find myself agreeing with Piper on his stance on baptism and church membership, it is not because I have wavered in what I believe is biblical concerning baptism (see Why I am a Baptist). I have, however, since concluded that the issue is not one on the validity of believer’s baptism over other teachings on baptism, but it is one concerning the doctrine of the Church and how the Church is to be gathered together and comprised. The question that must be raised is not, “Is believer’s baptism biblical?” but it is, “Should fellowship be severed because of one’s stance on baptism?” Should we as Baptists deny membership to one who is clearly in Christ and desires membership in a Baptist church but disagrees on the nature of the doctrine of baptism?

Read more…