I love reading this about the Yankees...
"New York (8-13), whose April began to unravel with three straight losses at Fenway Park last weekend, has lost seven consecutive games for the first time since the last week of the 2000 season. The Yankees are a $195 million last-place team, 6½ games back of the division-leading Red Sox."
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Piper on abortion
Check out this great biblical post on partial birth abortion. Piper pointed out that both H Clinton and B Obama support a woman's right to murder. Read on
Let the Python Eat Its Tail. Amen.
By John Piper April 25, 2007
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court in upholding the ban on partial birth abortions on April 18, 2007. It is astonishing to read the opinion (PDF). The detail with which abortion is discussed exceeded my expectation. Kennedy’s own descriptions of the various forms of abortion are explicit and extensive. Descriptions of the procedure of partial birth abortion (“intact dilation and extraction”) are given from both doctors’ and nurses’ perspectives.
For example, one nurse described the procedure on a twenty-six-week-old “fetus” as follows—and remember this is a quote from Justice Kennedy’s official Supreme Court decision:
(read on below by following the link)
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2159_Let_the_Python_Eat_Its_Tail_Amen/
Let the Python Eat Its Tail. Amen.
By John Piper April 25, 2007
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court in upholding the ban on partial birth abortions on April 18, 2007. It is astonishing to read the opinion (PDF). The detail with which abortion is discussed exceeded my expectation. Kennedy’s own descriptions of the various forms of abortion are explicit and extensive. Descriptions of the procedure of partial birth abortion (“intact dilation and extraction”) are given from both doctors’ and nurses’ perspectives.
For example, one nurse described the procedure on a twenty-six-week-old “fetus” as follows—and remember this is a quote from Justice Kennedy’s official Supreme Court decision:
(read on below by following the link)
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2159_Let_the_Python_Eat_Its_Tail_Amen/
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
A God-centered Approach to Money and Finances: Pt II
If you like putting things into simple categories what we’re talking about is:
1. Making money
2. Managing money
3. Saving money
4. Giving money.
The Bible is very clear on this point: Money is morally neutral. Having money is NOT a sin but the love of money most definitely is! Notice what 1 Timothy 6:9-10 says, 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
So what are some red flags regarding the "love of money" (sinful desires)?
A. When you’re bent on making money any way you possibly can. (cheat, lie, steal, manipulate, sacrifice your marriage or your kids, etc).
B. If you never think you have enough, then you probably love money.
C. People who love money usually love to flaunt it.
Showing off their "bling bling."
Everything in their house is over the top.
Everything in their wardrobe is over the top and they have way too much of everything.
They brag about their vacations.
Their kids and even their pets are spoiled rotten.
D. Lovers of money usually hate to give it to others.
Because life is really all about them and if they do give, it’s still about them. (“Look how much I donated to such and such or to so and so…” “Please don’t applaud, no really, please don’t (wink, wink).”
->Money, in and of itself, does not corrupt. The real problem is our sinful hearts!! The world, the devil, and our own sinful flesh want us to spend all of our money, to selfishly hoard things, so we have none left for God’s purposes.
Many, many Christians struggle with divine contentment. What do you suppose are some of the potential manifestations of a discontented person? One possible answer is “Debt”: Because they are never content. Debt can lead to bankruptcy—
One pastor added the following insight, “All believers, not just pastors, need to realize it’s not a question of how much money you have; it’s a question of where your heart is and what you DO with what you have.”
All of us need to examine our own lives and hearts during this series. What is my attitude towards luxuries and necessities? Let's learn from this wise mans prayer in Proverbs 30:8-9 8 Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, 9 lest I be full and deny you and say, "Who is the LORD?" or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God. Faith in God is central to the entire Christian life. The righteous walk by faith (2 Cor 5:7). Is your hope and confidence and trust IN GOD or is it in your wealth or in your circumstances? How does God test us in this area? (One answer: With Trials! Note James 1 & Hebrew 12).
Money is a very uncertain and unpredictable commodity in your life. Just when you think you can count on it, it’s gone. (E.G.) After the booming 20’s America experienced the great stock market crash and the great depression era.
That is why we must find our true satisfaction in God & in Christ alone. C.S. Lewis put it this way; “We are halfhearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at sea. We are far too easily pleased.” Augustine was spot on, “Our hearts are restless until we find our rest in Thee.” Psalm 37:4, Delight yourself in GOD! Christians live to glorify and know God. We should enjoy this relationship more than anything else.
One sign of a healthy Christian is an attitude of contentment no matter what’s going on in his/her life! We find an amazing example of this in Philippians 4. Paul writes in vv 10-14, I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. 11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. 14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble.
If you want to have “a God-centered approach to money and finances” as a Christian you need to learn the secret of contentment.
This passage (vv.10-19) expresses Paul’s gratitude for the generous gift received at the hands of Epaphroditus (note vv. 18-19). Remember now, Paul is prison when he writes this letter! He was probably chained to a Roman soldier…F. B. Meyer explains, "Deprived of every comfort and cast as a lonely man on the shores of the great strange metropolis with every movement of his hand clanking a fetter and nothing before him but the lion's mouth or the sword."
Humanly speaking Paul’s circumstances were really messed up! He faithfully served God, yet his life was one giant trial after another. 2 Corinthians 11:24-28, Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Have you ever felt this way? God i have faithfully served you for what? Where is GOD in this suffering? Yet Paul says something totally amazing in verse 12. Paul says he learned the SECRET to being content.
John MacArthur provides five principles that will help us cultivate biblical contentment. These points flow from the text of Philippians 4.
1. Contentment comes from a genuine confidence in God’s providence. Note Phil. 4:10, I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.
It had been 10 years since Paul received his last gift from the Philippians. Paul was confident in God’s sovereignty. He knew how to WAIT on the Lord. Paul thought the best about the Philippian Christians (v.10 “you simply lacked opportunity”). It appears that Paul believed God never providentially made it possible for them to give.
2. Learning to be satisfied with the bare necessities of life. This is the 2nd secret to contentment. It’s easy being a fair-weather Christian. Many in our society are FW Christians. Our faith is truly put on display when we trust God even during trials. This is what separates a true disciple from a false one. (Phil. 1:6). Contentment is not something I can simply teach you. Is something all of us have to LEARN (Verse 11, Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.) Paul said in verse 12, “I know how to get along with humble means…”
It’s easy to live our Christian lives with a sense of entitlement (God owes me good health, home ownership, success at work, Christian children, a fair boss, a happy marriage, etc, etc.). We often say, “God, you meet my every NEED yes, but you’re not meeting my every WANT!” When we compare our situation with that of others, we often get mad at God! Or we become jealous of other people!!! Or we get another credit card and buy what we can’t afford. Debt is often a byproduct of discontentment.
3. True contentment exists independent from our circumstances. Paul said, “In whatsoever circumstances I am, I've learned to be content.” (Phil. 4:11) Paul did not have a victim mentality. He found his greatest joy and pleasure in God. Is this really true of you? What evidences would you give to support your claim? Paul’s faith rested in the character and promises of God not in his earthly circumstances! Observe Philippians 4:11-12, Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.
4. True contentment is sustained by Divine power. Notice, Philippians 4:13, I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
5. True contentment is cultivated when we live for other people. Please observe Philippians 4:14-19, 14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.1 18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. 19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
***In other words, IF you spend your whole life worrying about you, you'll probably never be content. Life is about God, His Kingdom, the gospel, and others! Giving is a wonderful antidote against the sin of materialism.***
Let’s close by meditating on some inspired words from Deuteronomy 8:11-14 "Take care lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you today, 12 lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, 13 and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, 14 then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery…”
1. Making money
2. Managing money
3. Saving money
4. Giving money.
The Bible is very clear on this point: Money is morally neutral. Having money is NOT a sin but the love of money most definitely is! Notice what 1 Timothy 6:9-10 says, 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
So what are some red flags regarding the "love of money" (sinful desires)?
A. When you’re bent on making money any way you possibly can. (cheat, lie, steal, manipulate, sacrifice your marriage or your kids, etc).
B. If you never think you have enough, then you probably love money.
C. People who love money usually love to flaunt it.
Showing off their "bling bling."
Everything in their house is over the top.
Everything in their wardrobe is over the top and they have way too much of everything.
They brag about their vacations.
Their kids and even their pets are spoiled rotten.
D. Lovers of money usually hate to give it to others.
Because life is really all about them and if they do give, it’s still about them. (“Look how much I donated to such and such or to so and so…” “Please don’t applaud, no really, please don’t (wink, wink).”
->Money, in and of itself, does not corrupt. The real problem is our sinful hearts!! The world, the devil, and our own sinful flesh want us to spend all of our money, to selfishly hoard things, so we have none left for God’s purposes.
Many, many Christians struggle with divine contentment. What do you suppose are some of the potential manifestations of a discontented person? One possible answer is “Debt”: Because they are never content. Debt can lead to bankruptcy—
One pastor added the following insight, “All believers, not just pastors, need to realize it’s not a question of how much money you have; it’s a question of where your heart is and what you DO with what you have.”
All of us need to examine our own lives and hearts during this series. What is my attitude towards luxuries and necessities? Let's learn from this wise mans prayer in Proverbs 30:8-9 8 Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, 9 lest I be full and deny you and say, "Who is the LORD?" or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God. Faith in God is central to the entire Christian life. The righteous walk by faith (2 Cor 5:7). Is your hope and confidence and trust IN GOD or is it in your wealth or in your circumstances? How does God test us in this area? (One answer: With Trials! Note James 1 & Hebrew 12).
Money is a very uncertain and unpredictable commodity in your life. Just when you think you can count on it, it’s gone. (E.G.) After the booming 20’s America experienced the great stock market crash and the great depression era.
That is why we must find our true satisfaction in God & in Christ alone. C.S. Lewis put it this way; “We are halfhearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at sea. We are far too easily pleased.” Augustine was spot on, “Our hearts are restless until we find our rest in Thee.” Psalm 37:4, Delight yourself in GOD! Christians live to glorify and know God. We should enjoy this relationship more than anything else.
One sign of a healthy Christian is an attitude of contentment no matter what’s going on in his/her life! We find an amazing example of this in Philippians 4. Paul writes in vv 10-14, I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. 11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. 14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble.
If you want to have “a God-centered approach to money and finances” as a Christian you need to learn the secret of contentment.
This passage (vv.10-19) expresses Paul’s gratitude for the generous gift received at the hands of Epaphroditus (note vv. 18-19). Remember now, Paul is prison when he writes this letter! He was probably chained to a Roman soldier…F. B. Meyer explains, "Deprived of every comfort and cast as a lonely man on the shores of the great strange metropolis with every movement of his hand clanking a fetter and nothing before him but the lion's mouth or the sword."
Humanly speaking Paul’s circumstances were really messed up! He faithfully served God, yet his life was one giant trial after another. 2 Corinthians 11:24-28, Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Have you ever felt this way? God i have faithfully served you for what? Where is GOD in this suffering? Yet Paul says something totally amazing in verse 12. Paul says he learned the SECRET to being content.
John MacArthur provides five principles that will help us cultivate biblical contentment. These points flow from the text of Philippians 4.
1. Contentment comes from a genuine confidence in God’s providence. Note Phil. 4:10, I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.
It had been 10 years since Paul received his last gift from the Philippians. Paul was confident in God’s sovereignty. He knew how to WAIT on the Lord. Paul thought the best about the Philippian Christians (v.10 “you simply lacked opportunity”). It appears that Paul believed God never providentially made it possible for them to give.
2. Learning to be satisfied with the bare necessities of life. This is the 2nd secret to contentment. It’s easy being a fair-weather Christian. Many in our society are FW Christians. Our faith is truly put on display when we trust God even during trials. This is what separates a true disciple from a false one. (Phil. 1:6). Contentment is not something I can simply teach you. Is something all of us have to LEARN (Verse 11, Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.) Paul said in verse 12, “I know how to get along with humble means…”
It’s easy to live our Christian lives with a sense of entitlement (God owes me good health, home ownership, success at work, Christian children, a fair boss, a happy marriage, etc, etc.). We often say, “God, you meet my every NEED yes, but you’re not meeting my every WANT!” When we compare our situation with that of others, we often get mad at God! Or we become jealous of other people!!! Or we get another credit card and buy what we can’t afford. Debt is often a byproduct of discontentment.
3. True contentment exists independent from our circumstances. Paul said, “In whatsoever circumstances I am, I've learned to be content.” (Phil. 4:11) Paul did not have a victim mentality. He found his greatest joy and pleasure in God. Is this really true of you? What evidences would you give to support your claim? Paul’s faith rested in the character and promises of God not in his earthly circumstances! Observe Philippians 4:11-12, Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.
4. True contentment is sustained by Divine power. Notice, Philippians 4:13, I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
5. True contentment is cultivated when we live for other people. Please observe Philippians 4:14-19, 14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.1 18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. 19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
***In other words, IF you spend your whole life worrying about you, you'll probably never be content. Life is about God, His Kingdom, the gospel, and others! Giving is a wonderful antidote against the sin of materialism.***
Let’s close by meditating on some inspired words from Deuteronomy 8:11-14 "Take care lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you today, 12 lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, 13 and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, 14 then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery…”
A God-centered Approach to Money and Finances: PT I
Our world is consumed with money. In the minds of many, the dollar bill makes the whole world go round. Different musicians have offered different takes on money. From “Mo money, mo problems” to “Man make the money, money never make the man.” People have alot of opinions when it comes to this topic.
It is estimated that people spend half of their time thinking about money (how to get it, spend it, save it, invest it, borrow it, etc). For example, the hit TV show, The Apprentice is all about rich people trying to get richer. Listen to the lyrics from the Apprentice (theme song):
It is estimated that people spend half of their time thinking about money (how to get it, spend it, save it, invest it, borrow it, etc). For example, the hit TV show, The Apprentice is all about rich people trying to get richer. Listen to the lyrics from the Apprentice (theme song):
Money, money, money, money, money (repeat 2 times)
Some people got to have it
Some people really need it
Listen to me y'all, do things....
For the love of money
People will steal from their mother
For the love of money
People will rob their own brother
For the love of money
People can't even walk the street
Because they never know
Who in the world they're gonna beat
For that lean, mean, mean green
Almighty dollar, money
For the love of money
People will lie,
Ohh, they will cheat
For the love of money
People don't care who they hurt or beat
For the love of money
A woman will sell her precious body
For a small piece of paper
It carries a lot of weight
Call it lean, mean, mean green
Almighty dollar
We are going to start a four-part series on “A God-Centered Approach to Money and Finances.” Before we begin, let me tell you up front that I’ll be heavily drawing on the following resources for this study.
1. The Holy Bible
2. Randy Alcorn’s The Treasure Principle.
3. Tim Keeter’s presentation on Counseling People with Financial Issues
4. John MacArthur’s, Whose Money Is It Anyway?
Now some of you may think that money is a personal issue. You are right. It is, to a certain degree. Some of you may think the church already talks way too much about money. In some cases you’d be right. A few of you may even think that the Bible doesn’t address money and possessions that much anyway. On that point, you’d be wrong.
Let me give you my theses up front:
-->It is very important that we Christians have a proper view of money and possessions!
-->It is also crucial that we who are saved manage them scripturally!
-->How we handle money, how we think about money, etc. is a spiritual thermometer into our very soul. (Note Matthew 6:19-21 19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust1 destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.)
Let’s play a quick game of "Did you know that"…
(a) …every day more money is printed for Monopoly than the US Treasury?
(b) …money isn't made out of paper; it's made out of cotton?
(c) …Bill Gates is worth enough money to send every single 18-year-old in the country to a 4-year college?
Now some more important facts: Did you know that…
(d) …16 of 38 of Christ’s parables speak about how we should handle earthly treasures?
(e) …1 in 10 verses in the Gospels speaks of Jesus’ teaching on stewardship?
(f) …the Gospels speak more often about money than they do about heaven or hell?
(g) …there are over 2000 references to wealth and property in the Bible?
CONCLUSION: What we do with the things God has given us is very important to Him! Biblical stewardship is very important to God (1 Cor 4:2).
Monday, April 23, 2007
http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com
If you would like to finish reading my series on the ATONEMENT of CHRIST please check out my group blog at http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
I have asked a number of my pastoral friends from around the country to contribute to this series. I hope you are blessed as a result of this study and of course that God is glorified through it as well. Preacher boy left off at "April 19th" if you want to read the rest of the series in order.... Let me know what you think.
Together for the Gospel
I have asked a number of my pastoral friends from around the country to contribute to this series. I hope you are blessed as a result of this study and of course that God is glorified through it as well. Preacher boy left off at "April 19th" if you want to read the rest of the series in order.... Let me know what you think.
Together for the Gospel
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Is 52-53 and the Atonement
These reflections are part of my ongoing series at my group blog "Expository Thoughts" about the extent of the atonement.
BY Randy Mckinion
52:13 See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. 14 Just as there were many who were astonished at him—so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of mortals—15 so he shall startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.
The first stanza of this marvelous poem recounts the prosperity and success that the Servant of Yhwh will enjoy, as he shares in the exaltation that is fit only for God (cf. 6:1; 33:10; 57:15). The poem will return to this at a later point, but the subject of the majority of it will be the Servant’s affliction, to which this stanza quickly turns. The author’s point seems to be that the nations shall contemplate with bewilderment the idea that the Servant will be exalted only after having lost all things. The implication seems to be that they will understand the message in the rest of the poem and shutter at the thought.
In this sense (and in keeping with the theme of this series), there is already a hint that the work of the Servant has a worldwide impact.
53:1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised, and we held him of no account.
Already in 52:10, the reader of Isaiah has heard that the holy arm of Yhwh would appear in the sight of all nations, revealing God’s salvation. The point in this stanza seems to build on this and the previous stanza in asking the question, Who would have thought that the salvation brought by the arm of Yhwh would come through one marred in appearance and barely recognizable as human?
As can be seen from the underlined words, there is a shift from “they” and “many nations” to “we.” Most likely, the author is identifying himself with his own people, so that the reference to “we” is referring to Israel, as it does typically throughout the book (e.g. 16:6; 24:16; etc.).
4 Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Continuing from the previous stanza, the reader finds that indeed this man was suffering, but it was not for his own sake. The Servant’s wounds were for “our” infirmities, diseases, and transgressions. If the referent of these pronouns is the same as the last stanza, then it appears that the Servant bore the iniquities of his people, namely Israel. The question we would then need to ask is whether it was exclusively for his people. If we read correctly the worldwide impact of the Servant’s humiliation and substitution as expressed in the first stanza, then the conclusion has to be that there is more impact that just Israel’s iniquities. [On the subject of the extent of the atonement: In my opinion, based on the implied antecedent of the pronoun, I would be cautious reading “us all” in v. 6 as a proof for an unlimited atonement view, because the verse has the people of Israel in view.] 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. 9 They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
This stanza expresses how the Servant suffered unjustly yet without opening his mouth. On the subject, however, it continues the exclusivity of the previous stanza in that his sufferings were for “my people.”
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper. 11 Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
In the final stanza of this magnificent poem, the reader finds (perhaps with surprise) that all of this was not at the arbitrary will of man but part of the sovereign plan of Yhwh. Yhwh will exalt the Servant because of the good work he has done. Moreover, the author seems to abandon the language of national exclusivity and return to the worldwide language of the first stanza. The Servant suffered for “many,” made “many” righteous, and interceded for “the transgressors,” which would include all men.
This is a consistent theme throughout the book of Isaiah: The Servant’s work will reach beyond his own people to all nations. For example, in Isaiah 42:6, Yhwh says of the Servant: “I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations” (see also 49:6). This work of the Servant will bring “justice to the nations” (v. 1) and “justice in the earth” (v. 4). Thus, one of the great themes of the book of Isaiah is that Yhwh’s salvation will reach to all nations, a theme that finds expression here as well.
Furthermore, in relation to the theme of this series on the extent of the atonement, this poem (52:13–53:12) gives no resolution in itself to the question at hand. It’s not that I do not have a opinion about the greater question, but I believe the author’s purpose was to show the atoning value of the Servant’s suffering for both his own people and more surprisingly to all the nations. It’s no surprise, then, that Paul picks up on this more general message in Romans 15:21 (quoting 52:13) and applies this message to the good news for Gentiles.
BY Randy Mckinion
52:13 See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. 14 Just as there were many who were astonished at him—so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of mortals—15 so he shall startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.
The first stanza of this marvelous poem recounts the prosperity and success that the Servant of Yhwh will enjoy, as he shares in the exaltation that is fit only for God (cf. 6:1; 33:10; 57:15). The poem will return to this at a later point, but the subject of the majority of it will be the Servant’s affliction, to which this stanza quickly turns. The author’s point seems to be that the nations shall contemplate with bewilderment the idea that the Servant will be exalted only after having lost all things. The implication seems to be that they will understand the message in the rest of the poem and shutter at the thought.
In this sense (and in keeping with the theme of this series), there is already a hint that the work of the Servant has a worldwide impact.
53:1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised, and we held him of no account.
Already in 52:10, the reader of Isaiah has heard that the holy arm of Yhwh would appear in the sight of all nations, revealing God’s salvation. The point in this stanza seems to build on this and the previous stanza in asking the question, Who would have thought that the salvation brought by the arm of Yhwh would come through one marred in appearance and barely recognizable as human?
As can be seen from the underlined words, there is a shift from “they” and “many nations” to “we.” Most likely, the author is identifying himself with his own people, so that the reference to “we” is referring to Israel, as it does typically throughout the book (e.g. 16:6; 24:16; etc.).
4 Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Continuing from the previous stanza, the reader finds that indeed this man was suffering, but it was not for his own sake. The Servant’s wounds were for “our” infirmities, diseases, and transgressions. If the referent of these pronouns is the same as the last stanza, then it appears that the Servant bore the iniquities of his people, namely Israel. The question we would then need to ask is whether it was exclusively for his people. If we read correctly the worldwide impact of the Servant’s humiliation and substitution as expressed in the first stanza, then the conclusion has to be that there is more impact that just Israel’s iniquities. [On the subject of the extent of the atonement: In my opinion, based on the implied antecedent of the pronoun, I would be cautious reading “us all” in v. 6 as a proof for an unlimited atonement view, because the verse has the people of Israel in view.] 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. 9 They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
This stanza expresses how the Servant suffered unjustly yet without opening his mouth. On the subject, however, it continues the exclusivity of the previous stanza in that his sufferings were for “my people.”
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper. 11 Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
In the final stanza of this magnificent poem, the reader finds (perhaps with surprise) that all of this was not at the arbitrary will of man but part of the sovereign plan of Yhwh. Yhwh will exalt the Servant because of the good work he has done. Moreover, the author seems to abandon the language of national exclusivity and return to the worldwide language of the first stanza. The Servant suffered for “many,” made “many” righteous, and interceded for “the transgressors,” which would include all men.
This is a consistent theme throughout the book of Isaiah: The Servant’s work will reach beyond his own people to all nations. For example, in Isaiah 42:6, Yhwh says of the Servant: “I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations” (see also 49:6). This work of the Servant will bring “justice to the nations” (v. 1) and “justice in the earth” (v. 4). Thus, one of the great themes of the book of Isaiah is that Yhwh’s salvation will reach to all nations, a theme that finds expression here as well.
Furthermore, in relation to the theme of this series on the extent of the atonement, this poem (52:13–53:12) gives no resolution in itself to the question at hand. It’s not that I do not have a opinion about the greater question, but I believe the author’s purpose was to show the atoning value of the Servant’s suffering for both his own people and more surprisingly to all the nations. It’s no surprise, then, that Paul picks up on this more general message in Romans 15:21 (quoting 52:13) and applies this message to the good news for Gentiles.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Sufficient for all? The Atonement of Jesus Christ
Limited Atonement: Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect
Dr. Nettles does a wonderful job of summarizing the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” position(s) in his book By His Grace and For His Glory (note pages 302-05). He believes this view represents “a majority view among Calvinists” though as I demonstrated in previous posts, is not the position he himself prefers. From this point on I will refer to the Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect view as the SFA position.
The SFA position basically affirms both the sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to the elect in its divine intent. It is unlimited in extent but limited in its intent. According to the Synod of Dort, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” W. G. T Shedd (a Presbyterian theologian form the nineteenth century) wrote, “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.”
This view would say Jesus Christ bore the sins of the entire world (Isaiah 53:1-6) on his shoulders when he died on the old rugged cross. As the sinless God-man He offered up a perfect sacrifice of infinite value. The extent of the atonement is universal but the intent of the atonement (to save only the elect) is clearly limited. Steele and Thomas explain it this way, the atonement was limited in its original design; not in its worth, value, or scope.
Richard Mayhue believes the atonement of Christ is in some ways a paradox. He argues that this atonement is limited in some senses, and in other ways it is unlimited. He believes it is limited in that it does not extend to angels or animals (Heb 2:16); and that it is not effaciously applied to all humans by God’s choice (via sovereign election). It is unlimited in that its message is extended to all humans in its proclamation; Its sufficiency is unlimited in value; it makes all men accountable in terms of eternal responsibility; It makes common grace available in non-eternal ways to all mankind (Matt 5:45); It benefits all the elect in its redemptive, eternal efficacy. Mayhue points to the Day of Atonement as a OT picture of this NT concept. He concludes his essay with the following words, “Christ’s atonement is unlimited in a non-saving sense for all of sinful humanity, but it is limited in its redemptive efficacy only to those who God particularly and unconditionally elected unto eternal salvation.” According to Dr. Daniels Thomas Boston and the other Marrowmen taught that there were two aspects of the atonement, one general for all men and one particular for the elect alone.
So the argument between those who hold a SFA position and a more limited 5 point view is really over whether or not the atonement of Jesus Christ was truly sufficient for all. In other words, does Jesus’ atonement really cover the sins of the non-elect? Is that what Isaiah 53:1-6 mean? Is that what 2 Peter 2:1ff implies? Is that the John’s intention when he uses the Greek word holos in 1 John 2:2? Please stay with me friends the biblical exegesis is just around the corner…
Thursday, April 19, 2007
John Owen on the Atonement
The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
By John Owen
By John Owen
“Book III contains sixteen arguments against the “general ransom” idea. All except the third have a directly exegetical basis and aim to show that this idea is inconsistent with the biblical witness to Christ’s work. Between them, they deal with every significant category and concept which the Bible employs to define that work. These arguments are primarily aimed at “4-Pt” Calvinists and/or Arminians.
Arguments:
From the fact that the new covenant, which Christ’s death ratified, is not made with all men.
Arguments:
From the fact that the new covenant, which Christ’s death ratified, is not made with all men.
From the fact that the gospel, which reveals faith in Christ to be the only way of salvation, is not published to all men. (III. i)
From the dilemmas involved in asserting that the divine intention in Christ’s death was to redeem every man.
From the fact that Christ is said to die for one of the two classes (elect and reprobate) into which God divided men, and not for the other.
From the fact that Scripture nowhere asserts that Christ died for all men, as such (III. ii)
From the fact that Christ died as sponsor (surety) for those for whom He died.
From the fact that Christ is a Mediator, and as such a priest, for those for whom He died. (III. iii)
From the fact that Christ’s death cleanses and sanctifies those for whom He died, whereas not all men are cleansed and sanctified.
From the fact that Faith (which is necessary to salvation) was procured by the death of Christ, whereas not all men have faith.
From the fact that the deliverance of Israel fromEgypt is a type of Christ’s saving work. (III. iv)
(The next five arguments form a group on their own. They have a common form and are all taken from the biblical terms in which Christ’s work is described.)
(i) From the fact that Christ’s death wrought redemption (deliverance by payment). (III. v)
(ii) From the fact that Christ’s death effected reconciliation (between God and men. (III. vi)
(iii) From the fact that Christ’s death made satisfaction for sins. (III. vii-ix)
(iv) From the fact that Christ’s death merited salvation for men.
(v) From the fact that Christ died for men. (III. x)
From particular texts: Gen. 3:15; Matt. 7:33, 11:25; John 10:11ff;Rom. 1:32-34; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; John 17:9; Eph. 5:25. (III. xi).”
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Atonement: Questions and Answers
Pastor Joseph Flatt provided the following answers to common objections against particular redemption in a seminar he offered church members last year.
1. The gospel cannot be offered freely to all men if the atonement is limited. However, this free offer is valid only a limited basis (salvation is offered, not the provision of it). Christ’s work and the offer of the gospel made indiscriminately are not necessarily co-extensive with the offer. Yet, our task is to share the gospel indiscriminately. We should preach the gospel to all men (Rom 1:16, Mt 28).
2. How can I tell men that God loves them and died for them? You can’t and you shouldn’t. This is not how you should approach the unbeliever. Tell them they’re sinners and must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved, etc.
3. This view limits God’s love. Yes, it does. Rom 9:13; Ps 5:5, 11:5. If God’s love is measured by how far it extends, then the general redemptionist also limits it (it’s not available for angels . . .). But God does love every man in a non-redemptive sense; in that he gives common grace to every man. God has compassion on men everywhere, but this is different from a redemptive love for all men—a distinction in His love.
4. The sin question has been cared for by Christ for all men; people go to hell for their unbelief. But Scripture lists sins for which people will go to hell.
NOTE:
Rev 21:8 – cowardly, unbelieving, immoral, idolaters, etc., à lake of fire
Rom 2:6-16
Rev 20:11-13
1 Cor 6:9-10
5. The passages which exhort men to believe and be saved argue for the potential nature of Christ’s death on the cross (the “whosoever will” passages).
Acts 16:31 – believe and you will be saved (≠ regeneration, which comes first; you must be alive to believe!). This is not a condition; it is a FACT. Men can’t and won’t “will” (1 Cor 2:14; John 1:13; John 6:44). Note Rom 10:13 – everyone who . . .
Final thoughts:
Boettner notes, “For the Calvinist, the atonement is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it’s like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across.” There’s a disconnect between a Savior who died for all men and the Father who doesn’t save everyone. Why the difference?
For a definitive defense of this position please read through “The Death of Death In the Death of Christ” by John Owen.
1. The gospel cannot be offered freely to all men if the atonement is limited. However, this free offer is valid only a limited basis (salvation is offered, not the provision of it). Christ’s work and the offer of the gospel made indiscriminately are not necessarily co-extensive with the offer. Yet, our task is to share the gospel indiscriminately. We should preach the gospel to all men (Rom 1:16, Mt 28).
2. How can I tell men that God loves them and died for them? You can’t and you shouldn’t. This is not how you should approach the unbeliever. Tell them they’re sinners and must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved, etc.
3. This view limits God’s love. Yes, it does. Rom 9:13; Ps 5:5, 11:5. If God’s love is measured by how far it extends, then the general redemptionist also limits it (it’s not available for angels . . .). But God does love every man in a non-redemptive sense; in that he gives common grace to every man. God has compassion on men everywhere, but this is different from a redemptive love for all men—a distinction in His love.
4. The sin question has been cared for by Christ for all men; people go to hell for their unbelief. But Scripture lists sins for which people will go to hell.
NOTE:
Rev 21:8 – cowardly, unbelieving, immoral, idolaters, etc., à lake of fire
Rom 2:6-16
Rev 20:11-13
1 Cor 6:9-10
5. The passages which exhort men to believe and be saved argue for the potential nature of Christ’s death on the cross (the “whosoever will” passages).
Acts 16:31 – believe and you will be saved (≠ regeneration, which comes first; you must be alive to believe!). This is not a condition; it is a FACT. Men can’t and won’t “will” (1 Cor 2:14; John 1:13; John 6:44). Note Rom 10:13 – everyone who . . .
Final thoughts:
Boettner notes, “For the Calvinist, the atonement is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it’s like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across.” There’s a disconnect between a Savior who died for all men and the Father who doesn’t save everyone. Why the difference?
For a definitive defense of this position please read through “The Death of Death In the Death of Christ” by John Owen.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Limited Atonement: A More Limited View (Pt 2)
Limited Atonement: A More Limited View (pt 2)
As defended by Dr. Tom Nettles
Though Dr. Nettle’s argues for a more limited view of the atonement I really do appreciate the honesty and the humility he displays throughout his book. On page 305 in his classic work By His Grace and For His Glory Nettles writes, “One must understand that those who maintain the above view (the sufficient for all, efficient for the elect position) are certainly in the historic stream of Calvinists who affirm limited atonement. This is refreshing to read because some who hold to a more ‘John Owen interpretation of the atonement’ think that those maintaining a ‘modified view’ of Limited Atonement are not “true Calvinists.” This series of essays are intramural discussions between likeminded Reformed brethren. I hope to display this attitude as I continue posting these articles.
In his third major section Nettles answers the following question: What biblical truths must be present in a doctrine of the atonement? First, in its nature, all sin is the same (James 2:8-11). All violations are deserving of eternal punishment in that they are against an eternal God. Second, one must handle the degrees of heinousness of sin in relation to the atonement(1 Cor 6:9-10, Eph 5:3-6, Col 3:5-6, Gal 5:19-21, Heb 10:28-29, Rev 21:8). “Thus, one should readily see that though all sin deserves eternal punishment, some are worthy of more intense punishment or a greater display of wrath.” The third and final feature in a doctrine of atonement “highlights the truth that God’s justice is exact” (Rom 3:25-26). It’s my understanding that a “strict 5 point Calvinist” believes that if the atonement of Christ were in fact ‘sufficient for all’ that this would undermine the precious nature of God’s wrath and the exactness that His strict justice demands. I’ve heard some people argue that this would in effect be “wasted blood” if Christ paid the penalty for those whom God ultimately did not elect, etc, etc. In Nettles own vocabulary, “If we affirm the meritorious nature of the substitution of Christ, it must come to the sinner for whom Christ has died.”
I conclude this essay with the following 4 points (as found in Nettle’s book, p. 320):
1. The creature’s sin must be punished eternally and in differing degrees of intensity.
2. Forgiveness of sin means that some other way has been found to inflict an eternal punishment of the necessary intensity.
3. A substitute must meet those qualifications: that is, by his nature give eternal value to the sufferings and in his person be able to absorb the just intensity of wrath.
4. The just nature of God does not permit him to inflict more wrath on the substitute than actually becomes effectual for forgiveness of the criminal. Nor does the love of God for the Son permit such an overkill.
“With these four elements in place, it is proper to speak of a quantitative, as well as a qualitative, element in the atonement.” In short, Nettles is arguing for a definite, quantitative atonement. In this view, the nature of the atonement settles the issue of the extent of the atonement. That atonement was thus sufficient and efficient only for God’s elect.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Me centered worship
"It's All About Me" is the most compelling collection of praise and worship music you'll ever own. Buy it today!
Friday, April 13, 2007
A More Limited View: The Atonement of Christ
Limited Atonement: A More Limited View
As defended by Dr. Tom Nettles
This will be my humble attempt to summarize the major arguments made by Dr. Nettles in his book By His Grace and For His Glory. I would encourage you to purchase this book here www.monergismbooks.com Dr. Nettles asks the following question: “If Christ did not provide sufficient atonement for all men without exception, would we not impute our perishing to ourselves?” According to both Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 3:19-20 we would still be without excuse would we not? In Nettles words, “Atonement is not designed to render one inexcusable; atonement is designed to save justly some of those who already stand inexcusable and under condemnation.” In this regards the limited nature of the atonement is similar to the limited nature of unconditional election.
Nettles then focus in on a second major concern that often prompts Calvinists to be “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” in relation to the deity of Christ. W.G.T. Shedd said the obedience of Christ was “theanthropic obedience, not merely human obedience. As such, it was divine and infinite.” In this view the passive obedience of Christ had to be perfectly sufficient because the Person who died was infinitely perfect (God very God). Andrew Fuller supports this view with the following statement, “I know but that there is the same objective fullness and sufficiency in the obedience and sufferings of Christ for the salvation of sinners as there is in the power of the H.S. for their renovation; both are infinite; yet both are applied under the direction of infinite wisdom and uncontrollable sovereignty.” Dr. Nettles counters this reasoning with the following argument, “None would doubt that Christ by his nature could have provided atonement sufficient for all men without exception, just as the Holy Spirit could regenerate all men with out exception. But in actual fact the H.S. does not regenerate all men, though he is entirely capable of doing so.” Christ’s work of atonement was a once for all event. The work of the Holy Spirit is of course an ongoing work as he “regenerates man in every age.” Latter Nettles adds, “Moreover is a non sequitur to move from the deity of the sacrifice to sufficiency for every man. Such a conclusion assumes that deity can perform nothing by measure.” Nettles then goes on to provide numerous examples such as the feeding of the 5,000, the raising of Lazarus, etc.
In section two of his chapter on the atonement Nettles points out the errors he sees in the “sufficient” view. He notes, “One error of this view is found in its lack of precise distinction between atonement and either unconditional election or effectual calling—or both….If he has died for all sufficiently—and the only line of demarcation is the ‘personal application to individuals by the Holy Spirit’ or the gracious influences by which they will be led to comply with those conditions’ or ‘the effectual provision.…made for our walking that way’—I can not tell how one distinguishes this from the general atonement of the Arminians, who claim that Christ has died for all men, but its benefits accrue only to those who believe. The difference in the two does not lie in the atonement, but in the Spirit’s work of calling.” Nettles then goes onto to talk about the actual passive obedience of Christ in which “the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.” In Tom’s view, “Christ’s nature does not increase the intensity or quantity of what was placed upon him but enables him to bear whatever it might have been…His deity does not increase the stringency of the punishment but rather gives eternal quality to it and strengthens him to bear its force.” On p. 311 Nettles goes onto to examine Jesus’ fulfillment of all the demands of the law. Dr. Nettles disagrees with Hodge and Shedd here who taught that the atonement removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men. In his own words, “Logically, he can no longer be justly condemned for his sins (if this view be accurate) but only for his unbelief. But think further. Is not unbelief a sin for which Christ has suffered the legal penalties?”
This position is perhaps summarized best in the following statement: “That Christ was entirely capable in his person and by his death of gaining satisfaction for all the sins of all men admits of no debate…But that the actual atonement was sufficient in every particular included in the word atonement must be doubted.” This gets at the heart of the disagreement between Nettles and those who hold a “modified 5 point view” (that which was taught by the Synod of Dort, etc). In Nettles mind, “To say that Christ’s death is sufficient for everyone, but not that everyone receives forgiveness, is to say that God accomplishes the greater but not the lesser. He sets in motion a cause—the most powerful and compelling spiritual and more cause conceivable—that does not consummate in an effect.” More to come…
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Intro to the Atonement (pt 2)
After Theodore Beza died, an important document was put together now known as the Synod of Dort. According to Wilkipedia, “The Synod of Dort was a National Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618/19, by the Dutch Reformed Church, in order to settle a serious controversy in the Dutch churches initiated by the rise of Arminianism.” TULIP or the “5-Points of Calvinism” were officially formulated as a result of this Synod. Article three under the second heading of doctrine in the Synod of Dort states: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” Dort rejected the Arminian doctrine of universal atonement and stated that the atonement was properly for the elect alone. The Synod of Dort seems to teach that the death of Christ was sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. Dr. Tom Nettles makes the following observation (see p. 302ff), “In his commentary on 1 John, Calvin, in harmony with the medieval Fathers, accepts this position.” Though Nettles himself rejects the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” argument, he seems to agree with Curt Daniel that this was in fact the preferred view of John Calvin, W. G. T. Shedd, Andrew Fuller, J. P. Boyce, A. A. Hodge and others (see By His Grace and For His Glory, pp. 302-05).
According to Nettles, “Two streams of though emerge from the writings of those who have defended limited atonement. We must not confuse either with those who purposefully rejected limited atonement. One stream, represented by such Baptists as Fuller in England and Boyce in the U.S; affirms both the sufficiency of the atonement in its nature to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to elect only in its intent. This probably represents the majority view among Calvinists.” This is the camp I currently find myself in, though I am very intrigued at the logical arguments presented in the second “stream.” Biblical exegesis will ultimately need to convince me of what view is most correct. Dr. Nettles goes on to say, “The second stream, represented by Booth in England and John Dagg in theUnited States, affirms that it is the nature of the atonement to save all for whom it is sufficient, and therefore its limitation in intent is necessarily a limitation of its sufficiency.” This is the preferred view of Dr. Nettles and many other Calvinist proponents today. We will examine these two views in greater detail in the days to come. Dr. Curt Daniel makes an important distinction between those holding a Four-Point view, (men like John Bunyan); those holding a Four-and-a-Half-Point view, (men like Richard Baxter); those holding a “Strict 5-Point” view, (men like John Owen); and those holding a “Supralapsarianism” view, (men like Theodore Beza). Daniel breaks these categories down even further on page 68 of his thesis, “The History and Theology of Calvinism.”
In summary, he notes “There is no one mainstream Reformed view regarding the extent of the atonement. The more Limited view has probably had more adherents, but then again, the Reformers (except Beza) all accepted the more Universal view.” It appears Dr. Daniel and Dr. Nettles would both include the sufficient for all efficient for the elect interpretation under the moderate/mainstream Calvinism category. Dr. Nettles would see this “unlimited in extent, limited in intent” interpretation as a fair (though not entirely accurate) 5-Point view. Now before we get to our essential “what sayeth the Scriptures” expository thoughts portion of this post I want to summarize the arguments of Nettles (limited in extent and intent view) and Daniel’s (unlimited in extent, limited in intent view). This post will be continued…
According to Nettles, “Two streams of though emerge from the writings of those who have defended limited atonement. We must not confuse either with those who purposefully rejected limited atonement. One stream, represented by such Baptists as Fuller in England and Boyce in the U.S; affirms both the sufficiency of the atonement in its nature to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to elect only in its intent. This probably represents the majority view among Calvinists.” This is the camp I currently find myself in, though I am very intrigued at the logical arguments presented in the second “stream.” Biblical exegesis will ultimately need to convince me of what view is most correct. Dr. Nettles goes on to say, “The second stream, represented by Booth in England and John Dagg in theUnited States, affirms that it is the nature of the atonement to save all for whom it is sufficient, and therefore its limitation in intent is necessarily a limitation of its sufficiency.” This is the preferred view of Dr. Nettles and many other Calvinist proponents today. We will examine these two views in greater detail in the days to come. Dr. Curt Daniel makes an important distinction between those holding a Four-Point view, (men like John Bunyan); those holding a Four-and-a-Half-Point view, (men like Richard Baxter); those holding a “Strict 5-Point” view, (men like John Owen); and those holding a “Supralapsarianism” view, (men like Theodore Beza). Daniel breaks these categories down even further on page 68 of his thesis, “The History and Theology of Calvinism.”
In summary, he notes “There is no one mainstream Reformed view regarding the extent of the atonement. The more Limited view has probably had more adherents, but then again, the Reformers (except Beza) all accepted the more Universal view.” It appears Dr. Daniel and Dr. Nettles would both include the sufficient for all efficient for the elect interpretation under the moderate/mainstream Calvinism category. Dr. Nettles would see this “unlimited in extent, limited in intent” interpretation as a fair (though not entirely accurate) 5-Point view. Now before we get to our essential “what sayeth the Scriptures” expository thoughts portion of this post I want to summarize the arguments of Nettles (limited in extent and intent view) and Daniel’s (unlimited in extent, limited in intent view). This post will be continued…
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Atonement of Christ: Historical Introduction
Limited Atonement: Historical Introduction
One of the most challenging topics to come to grips with in Biblical theology are issues surrounding the atonement. As a young pastor I have racked my brains over this topic on numerous occasions. I have begun to formulate some convictions concerning this topic but they are not set in stone. In what ways is the atonement of Christ limited? For whom did Christ die? If you really want to swim in the “deep end” of the pool ponder the following question: For whom did God foreordain the atonement? For today, I am more concerned with the former question since I think it has more practical implications.
My goal is to present a brief summary of two excellent works by notable modern day church historians. These historians provide wonderful documentation that will hopefully set the table for some actual biblical exegesis (or perhaps better put some Expository Thoughts). Dr. Tom Nettles has written a wonderful book titled, “By His Grace and For His Glory”. Dr. Curt Daniel has put together an exceptional thesis on “The History and Theology of Calvinism.” I would highly recommend both books for your reading pleasure. The research below is primarily from these two sources (I want to make sure I give credit to whom credit is due).
On page 360ff Curt Daniel provides some interesting historical information about the people and documents that surrounded this ‘controversy.’ He notes the following historical information: There were occasional debates about this issue (concerning the extent of the atonement) long before the days of Calvin. Augustine himself believed that Christ died for every human being. Some Roman Catholic “Schoolmen” added the proviso that atonement is not applied to all but only those who receive it by faith.
Then the Reformation came along. Issues concerning soteriology were hashed out in great detail. Martin Luther appears to have been a “4-pt Calvinist” (for lack of a better description). Dr. Daniel points out that all succeeding Lutherans have believed in a ‘Universal Atonement’. This was also the view of all the English Reformers (as expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles).
“When we come to the Swiss Reformation, we find the same views.” Zwingli, Bullinger, and Musculus all believed that Christ died for every man. Daniel than makes, what some may argue, is a controversial statement: “The evidence is overwhelming that John Calvin agreed with all the other Reformers that Christ died for all…Universal Atonement was clearly the accepted viewpoint of Reformed Theology up to about the year 1600.” To support this general statement Daniel sites the Heidelberg Catechism, “That all the time He lived on the earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the whole human race…” (Question 37).
Curt Daniel believes Theodore Beza was probably the first Reformer to explicitly teach Limited Atonement (as well as Supralapsarianism). Soon other Calvinists began making similar conclusions, such as William Perkins and Johannes Piscator. This article will be continued…
One of the most challenging topics to come to grips with in Biblical theology are issues surrounding the atonement. As a young pastor I have racked my brains over this topic on numerous occasions. I have begun to formulate some convictions concerning this topic but they are not set in stone. In what ways is the atonement of Christ limited? For whom did Christ die? If you really want to swim in the “deep end” of the pool ponder the following question: For whom did God foreordain the atonement? For today, I am more concerned with the former question since I think it has more practical implications.
My goal is to present a brief summary of two excellent works by notable modern day church historians. These historians provide wonderful documentation that will hopefully set the table for some actual biblical exegesis (or perhaps better put some Expository Thoughts). Dr. Tom Nettles has written a wonderful book titled, “By His Grace and For His Glory”. Dr. Curt Daniel has put together an exceptional thesis on “The History and Theology of Calvinism.” I would highly recommend both books for your reading pleasure. The research below is primarily from these two sources (I want to make sure I give credit to whom credit is due).
On page 360ff Curt Daniel provides some interesting historical information about the people and documents that surrounded this ‘controversy.’ He notes the following historical information: There were occasional debates about this issue (concerning the extent of the atonement) long before the days of Calvin. Augustine himself believed that Christ died for every human being. Some Roman Catholic “Schoolmen” added the proviso that atonement is not applied to all but only those who receive it by faith.
Then the Reformation came along. Issues concerning soteriology were hashed out in great detail. Martin Luther appears to have been a “4-pt Calvinist” (for lack of a better description). Dr. Daniel points out that all succeeding Lutherans have believed in a ‘Universal Atonement’. This was also the view of all the English Reformers (as expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles).
“When we come to the Swiss Reformation, we find the same views.” Zwingli, Bullinger, and Musculus all believed that Christ died for every man. Daniel than makes, what some may argue, is a controversial statement: “The evidence is overwhelming that John Calvin agreed with all the other Reformers that Christ died for all…Universal Atonement was clearly the accepted viewpoint of Reformed Theology up to about the year 1600.” To support this general statement Daniel sites the Heidelberg Catechism, “That all the time He lived on the earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the whole human race…” (Question 37).
Curt Daniel believes Theodore Beza was probably the first Reformer to explicitly teach Limited Atonement (as well as Supralapsarianism). Soon other Calvinists began making similar conclusions, such as William Perkins and Johannes Piscator. This article will be continued…
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Baptists and Calvinism
The following Baptist leaders from church history, to name just a few, were passionately committed to the Doctrines of Grace: Benjamin Keach, John Gill, Andrew Fuller, Isaac Backus, Adoniram Judson, John C. Dagg, J.P. Boyce, Charles Spurgeon, John Broadus, B.H. Carroll, and A.H. Strong. Perhaps Spurgeon summarized this conviction best when he said, “The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach today, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again” (The Forgotten Spurgeon, p. 55-56). May the gospel of sovereign grace thunder through the Baptist pulpits in our nation once again!
It is historically naïve to assume that the recent resurgence in Calvinistic theology in America (specifically the “Founders movement” within the Southern Baptist denomination) does not have historical and theological precedence. There have been English and American Particular Baptists from the very beginning of Baptist life and practice. Baptist churches that are elder-led and that are also Calvinistic in doctrine stand on the shoulders of giants. More importantly, these convictions seem to accurately reflect the theology and practice of the Apostles and the early New Testament church.
It is historically naïve to assume that the recent resurgence in Calvinistic theology in America (specifically the “Founders movement” within the Southern Baptist denomination) does not have historical and theological precedence. There have been English and American Particular Baptists from the very beginning of Baptist life and practice. Baptist churches that are elder-led and that are also Calvinistic in doctrine stand on the shoulders of giants. More importantly, these convictions seem to accurately reflect the theology and practice of the Apostles and the early New Testament church.
Baptists and the Doctrines of Grace
Calvinism was another source of contention within the Baptist movement from the early stages of Baptist history. As Baptist congregations began to mature, a theological distinction arose between General and Particular Baptists. “The General Baptists, following the leadership of John Smyth and his successor Thomas Helwys, subscribed to Arminian interpretations, which viewed God’s grace as broad or general, hence the label. Others, however, became known as Particular Baptists, having adopted a limited view of the atonement, a view that ultimately came to predominate among Baptists in England” (Baptist Life, p. 25).
In the seventeenth century, there were a number of prominent Particular Baptist leaders: Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, Benjamin Keach, Hohn Spilsbery, Henry Jessey, and John Bunyan. “The two London Confessions actually represent the theological commitments of Particular Baptists nationwide during this period, the 1689 Confession having been signed by representatives from more than 107 churches all over England and Wales” (By His Grace, p. 29). A commitment to Baptist theology that was Calvinistic in nature was carried on throughout the eighteenth and into the twentieth centuries by men like Joseph Stennet, Samuel Medley, John Hirst, and C.H. Spurgeon.
In Colonial America, there were divisions taking place among many of the Baptist churches as well. The most basic division was between the Arminian and Calvinist wings. Brackney observes, “Until the mid-eighteenth century the General Baptists were more numerous in New England and the Southern colonies than the Particular Baptists, while the Particular Baptists probably were in the majority in the Middle Colonies, especially around Philadelphia and southern New Jersey where they organized the first Calvinistic association in 1707” (Baptist Life, p. 97). Prominent religious leaders from Rhode Island—Roger Williams, John Clarke, and Obadiah Holmes—were faithful proponents of the Doctrines of Grace (By His Grace, p. 40). As early as 1639, a Particular Baptist church existed within Colonial America.
In his massive tome, By His Grace and for His Glory, Dr. Nettles presents us with a very important historical thesis: that the doctrines of grace formed a theological consensus among Baptists in the Southern states from the mid-nineteenth century into the first quarter of the twentieth century. Dr. Nettles goes on to support his thesis with 400 pages of historical documentation. In fact, the first Baptist church established in the South was Calvinistic in theology (the First Baptist Church of Charleston, South Carolina). “In 1905 F.H. Kerfoot could still say, ‘Nearly all Baptists believe what are usually termed the doctrines of grace’” (By His Grace, p. 50).
In the seventeenth century, there were a number of prominent Particular Baptist leaders: Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, Benjamin Keach, Hohn Spilsbery, Henry Jessey, and John Bunyan. “The two London Confessions actually represent the theological commitments of Particular Baptists nationwide during this period, the 1689 Confession having been signed by representatives from more than 107 churches all over England and Wales” (By His Grace, p. 29). A commitment to Baptist theology that was Calvinistic in nature was carried on throughout the eighteenth and into the twentieth centuries by men like Joseph Stennet, Samuel Medley, John Hirst, and C.H. Spurgeon.
In Colonial America, there were divisions taking place among many of the Baptist churches as well. The most basic division was between the Arminian and Calvinist wings. Brackney observes, “Until the mid-eighteenth century the General Baptists were more numerous in New England and the Southern colonies than the Particular Baptists, while the Particular Baptists probably were in the majority in the Middle Colonies, especially around Philadelphia and southern New Jersey where they organized the first Calvinistic association in 1707” (Baptist Life, p. 97). Prominent religious leaders from Rhode Island—Roger Williams, John Clarke, and Obadiah Holmes—were faithful proponents of the Doctrines of Grace (By His Grace, p. 40). As early as 1639, a Particular Baptist church existed within Colonial America.
In his massive tome, By His Grace and for His Glory, Dr. Nettles presents us with a very important historical thesis: that the doctrines of grace formed a theological consensus among Baptists in the Southern states from the mid-nineteenth century into the first quarter of the twentieth century. Dr. Nettles goes on to support his thesis with 400 pages of historical documentation. In fact, the first Baptist church established in the South was Calvinistic in theology (the First Baptist Church of Charleston, South Carolina). “In 1905 F.H. Kerfoot could still say, ‘Nearly all Baptists believe what are usually termed the doctrines of grace’” (By His Grace, p. 50).
Baptists and Polity (Pt. 2)
Pastor John Piper argues that a reading of the historic Baptist Confessions suggests that elders were assumed in most of the early Baptist churches. He provides evidence to support his thesis from a variety of historical Baptist sources: A Short Confession of Faith in Twenty Articles (1609), Propositions and Conclusions Concerning True Christian Religion (1612-1614), The London Confession (1644), Second London Confession (1677 & 1688), Articles of the Baptist Bible Union of America (1923), and Statement of Faith of the Southern Baptist Convention (1925 & 1963) (Biblical Eldership: Shepherd the Flock of God Among You, pp. 47-49).
At the very least, church history proves that it is not oxymoronic to be both Baptist and governed by a plurality of elders. In the words of John Piper, “It is false to say that the eldership is unbaptistic [emphasis his]. On the contrary, the eldership is more baptistic than its absence, and its disappearance is a modern phenomenon that parallels other developmentss in doctrine that makes its disappearance questionable at best” (Biblical Eldership, p. 49).
The Word of God is, of course, the only infallible rule for faith and practice. The Scriptures provide ample evidence that clearly supports the plural-elder model of leadership. The early church appears to have functioned in this way (Acts 14:23, Acts 15:2, Acts 20:28, Titus 1:5, Hebrews 13:7, James 1:1, 1 Peter 5:1-3). Alexander Strauch’s book, Biblical Eldership, does a fine job of highlighting this point from the witness of the New Testament. Baptist churches that are elder-led reflect the polity of the New Testament church and are consistent with what many Baptists have practiced throughout their history.
At the very least, church history proves that it is not oxymoronic to be both Baptist and governed by a plurality of elders. In the words of John Piper, “It is false to say that the eldership is unbaptistic [emphasis his]. On the contrary, the eldership is more baptistic than its absence, and its disappearance is a modern phenomenon that parallels other developmentss in doctrine that makes its disappearance questionable at best” (Biblical Eldership, p. 49).
The Word of God is, of course, the only infallible rule for faith and practice. The Scriptures provide ample evidence that clearly supports the plural-elder model of leadership. The early church appears to have functioned in this way (Acts 14:23, Acts 15:2, Acts 20:28, Titus 1:5, Hebrews 13:7, James 1:1, 1 Peter 5:1-3). Alexander Strauch’s book, Biblical Eldership, does a fine job of highlighting this point from the witness of the New Testament. Baptist churches that are elder-led reflect the polity of the New Testament church and are consistent with what many Baptists have practiced throughout their history.
Baptists and Church Polity
Church polity was a hotly debated issue in the early Baptist church and it is one that continues to rage to this day. “The early Baptist church emerged in seventeenth-century England as autonomous units. Each church had an ordained leader (minister, pastor, or teacher) and deacons elected by the members. Some churches also had elders while others appointed messengers to organize new churches or minister to those churches lacking a leader” (Baptist Life, p. 47). It is best to admit that there were many different forms of church government within the early Baptist movement. In other words, deacon-led, elder-led, and congregation-led churches probably all existed early in Baptist circles.
It appears that many Baptist churches were in fact governed by elders. Former professor of church history at the Master’s Seminary, James Stitzinger, believes that Baptists had multiple elders in their polity up until Hiscox wrote his New Directory (a church polity manual) in the late 1800s. Pastor Mark Dever notes that, “Throughout seventeenth-century England, Baptists affirmed the office of elder. In 1697, Benjamin Keach wrote of ‘bishops, overseers, or elders,’ clearly implying that these New Testament titles refer to one office” (By Whose Authority? Elders in Baptist Life, p. 18). In 1767, one of the great Baptist theologians, John Gill, wrote the massive systematic theology textbook, Body of Divinity. In his book, this English Baptist leader writes, “These pastors and teachers are the same with bishops, or overseers, whose business it is to feed the flock; they have the episcopacy or oversight of, which is the work pastors are to do; which office of a bishop is a good work, and is the only office in the church distinct from that of deacon.—And these bishops are the same with elders …” Later he adds, “These pastors, teachers, bishops, and elders, are called rulers, guides, and governors. A pastor, or shepherd, is the governor and guide of his flock; a teacher and a ruling elder are the same, 1 Tim. 5:17” (Body of Divinity, Vol. II, p. 575). John Gill clearly taught that there are only two offices in the church: elders and deacons. Elders are responsible for teaching, leading, and shepherding the flock of God, while deacons are more accountable for the physical needs of members within the church.
In his book, By Whose Authority, Mark Dever documents a continuity of belief in elder-governed churches from the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, W.B Johnson, to William Williams (1874), a member of the founding faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to the renowned Charles Spurgeon (By Whose Authority? pp. 19-21). In 1907, A.H. Strong, author of a popular Reformed Baptist Systematic Theology, summarized his position a little differently: “In certain of the N.T. churches there appears to have been a plurality of elders…There is however, no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the churches for which the elders cared. The N.T. example, while it permits the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not require a plural eldership in every case…There are indications, moreover, that, in certain churches, the pastor was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number” (Systematic Theology, p.916). Suffice it to say, many Baptist preachers and theologians understood that the New Testament model was elder-governed churches. Some differences existed among Baptist theologians as to whether this meant a plurality of elders leading the church (e.g., Benjamin Keach and John Gill) or whether it was acceptable in some instances to have just one (e.g., A.H. Strong).
It appears that many Baptist churches were in fact governed by elders. Former professor of church history at the Master’s Seminary, James Stitzinger, believes that Baptists had multiple elders in their polity up until Hiscox wrote his New Directory (a church polity manual) in the late 1800s. Pastor Mark Dever notes that, “Throughout seventeenth-century England, Baptists affirmed the office of elder. In 1697, Benjamin Keach wrote of ‘bishops, overseers, or elders,’ clearly implying that these New Testament titles refer to one office” (By Whose Authority? Elders in Baptist Life, p. 18). In 1767, one of the great Baptist theologians, John Gill, wrote the massive systematic theology textbook, Body of Divinity. In his book, this English Baptist leader writes, “These pastors and teachers are the same with bishops, or overseers, whose business it is to feed the flock; they have the episcopacy or oversight of, which is the work pastors are to do; which office of a bishop is a good work, and is the only office in the church distinct from that of deacon.—And these bishops are the same with elders …” Later he adds, “These pastors, teachers, bishops, and elders, are called rulers, guides, and governors. A pastor, or shepherd, is the governor and guide of his flock; a teacher and a ruling elder are the same, 1 Tim. 5:17” (Body of Divinity, Vol. II, p. 575). John Gill clearly taught that there are only two offices in the church: elders and deacons. Elders are responsible for teaching, leading, and shepherding the flock of God, while deacons are more accountable for the physical needs of members within the church.
In his book, By Whose Authority, Mark Dever documents a continuity of belief in elder-governed churches from the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, W.B Johnson, to William Williams (1874), a member of the founding faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to the renowned Charles Spurgeon (By Whose Authority? pp. 19-21). In 1907, A.H. Strong, author of a popular Reformed Baptist Systematic Theology, summarized his position a little differently: “In certain of the N.T. churches there appears to have been a plurality of elders…There is however, no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the churches for which the elders cared. The N.T. example, while it permits the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not require a plural eldership in every case…There are indications, moreover, that, in certain churches, the pastor was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number” (Systematic Theology, p.916). Suffice it to say, many Baptist preachers and theologians understood that the New Testament model was elder-governed churches. Some differences existed among Baptist theologians as to whether this meant a plurality of elders leading the church (e.g., Benjamin Keach and John Gill) or whether it was acceptable in some instances to have just one (e.g., A.H. Strong).
Baptist History Project
I open this brief essay by concurring with the words of Dr. Thomas Nettles, “It is with difficulty that men strive to define ‘Baptists.’” (By His Grace and for His Glory, p. 13). It is easier to list some of the influential leaders who have been part of the Baptist movement (Smyth, Bunyan, Carey, Gill, Broadus, Spurgeon, Strong, Henry, Nicole, Mohler, Piper) than to define what a “Baptist” is or is not. Any attempted definition must include a discussion of history, church polity, and doctrine. The primary goal of this short work, therefore, is to answer the following questions: When did the Baptist denomination originate? Have Baptists historically supported the concept of a plurality of elders leading and governing the church? For how long have Baptists taught the “Doctrines of Grace,” also called by some, “biblical Calvinism”?
We begin with the origin of the Baptist denomination. Some argue that Baptists reach back to the apostolic era (the Successionist theory and/or Landmarkism). People holding this view typically believe that only Landmark Baptists have followed the New Testament pattern of church life. They would also argue that they have always remained separate from the Catholic Church while tracing their lineage directly back to John the Baptist. This view cannot be substantiated historically (contra J. M. Caroll’s 1930s book, The Trail of Blood).
Others argue that Baptists belong to the Congregational branch of Protestantism from post-Elizabethan England. This theory believes modern Baptists originated with certain English Separatists who left or were simply forced out of the Church of England. This is a plausible explanation with some good historical support (see Joe Flatt’s, What is a Regular Baptist, p. 2). A third view contends that early Baptists were an offshoot of the Anabaptist movement. Proponents of this view reason that contact with Dutch Mennonites in the early seventeenth century led to the Baptist movement. Dr. William Brackney points out that “[d]ocumentation of the Baptist tradition commences when the first ‘baptizing,’ congregations, so-called, began to appear about 1608 [emphasis mine]. Through John Smyth and Thomas Helwys a connection with the heirs of the Radical Reformation can be established” (Baptist Life and Thought: A Source Book, p. 15). It appears that Baptists originated around 1608 or 1609. The first Baptist congregation to organize in America was founded by Roger Williams in Rhode Island in 1638 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists). A common thread running through this movement is the Baptist commitment to orthodox biblical theology, congregational autonomy, and baptism by immersion.
We begin with the origin of the Baptist denomination. Some argue that Baptists reach back to the apostolic era (the Successionist theory and/or Landmarkism). People holding this view typically believe that only Landmark Baptists have followed the New Testament pattern of church life. They would also argue that they have always remained separate from the Catholic Church while tracing their lineage directly back to John the Baptist. This view cannot be substantiated historically (contra J. M. Caroll’s 1930s book, The Trail of Blood).
Others argue that Baptists belong to the Congregational branch of Protestantism from post-Elizabethan England. This theory believes modern Baptists originated with certain English Separatists who left or were simply forced out of the Church of England. This is a plausible explanation with some good historical support (see Joe Flatt’s, What is a Regular Baptist, p. 2). A third view contends that early Baptists were an offshoot of the Anabaptist movement. Proponents of this view reason that contact with Dutch Mennonites in the early seventeenth century led to the Baptist movement. Dr. William Brackney points out that “[d]ocumentation of the Baptist tradition commences when the first ‘baptizing,’ congregations, so-called, began to appear about 1608 [emphasis mine]. Through John Smyth and Thomas Helwys a connection with the heirs of the Radical Reformation can be established” (Baptist Life and Thought: A Source Book, p. 15). It appears that Baptists originated around 1608 or 1609. The first Baptist congregation to organize in America was founded by Roger Williams in Rhode Island in 1638 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists). A common thread running through this movement is the Baptist commitment to orthodox biblical theology, congregational autonomy, and baptism by immersion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)