Article by Gary Parrett and J. I. Packer – source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/packer-why-your-church-family-needs-catechesis/
Historically, the church’s ministry of grounding new believers in the rudiments of Christianity has been known as catechesis. It is a ministry that has waxed and waned through the centuries. It flourished between the second and fifth centuries in the ancient church. Those who became Christians often moved into the faith from radically different backgrounds and worldviews. The churches rightly took such conversions seriously and sought to ensure that these life-revolutions were processed carefully, prayerfully, and intentionally, with thorough understanding at each stage.
With the tightening of the alignment between church and state in the West, combined with the effect of the Dark Ages, the ministry of catechesis floundered in large measure for much of the next millennium. The line between natural and spiritual birth virtually disappeared. According to the centuries-old practice, infants baptized into the church were, in theory, to be catechized later in the faith. But too often nothing of the sort occurred. As a consequence of such neglect, great numbers of persons who claimed to belong to Christ had little idea of what that might even mean.
The Reformers, led by heavyweights Martin Luther and John Calvin, sought with great resolve to reverse matters. Luther restored the office of catechist to the churches. And seizing on the providential invention of the printing press just decades before their time, Luther, Calvin, and others made every effort to print and distribute catechisms—small handbooks to instruct children and “the simple” in the essentials of Christian belief, prayer, worship, and behavior. Catechisms of greater depth were produced for Christian adults and leaders. Further, entire congregations were instructed through unapologetically catechetical preaching, regular catechizing of children in Sunday worship, and, in many cases, the renewed practice of congregational singing of psalms and hymns.
The conviction of the Reformers that such catechetical work must be primary is unmistakable. Writing in 1548 to the Lord Protector of England, Calvin declared: “Believe me, Monseigneur, the church of God will never be preserved without catechesis.” The church of Rome, responding to the growing influence of the Protestant catechisms, soon began to produce its own. The rigorous work of nurturing believers and converts in the faith once for all delivered to the saints—a didactic discipline largely lost for most of the previous millennium—had become normative again for both Catholics and Protestants.
It could well be argued that the spirit and power of healthy catechesis was hampered by the hostile tone that entered the picture as Protestants and Catholics began increasingly using their catechisms to hurl attacks at one another. Nevertheless, this rebirth of serious catechetical discipling was a momentous step forward for all concerned.
The critical role of catechesis in sustaining the church continued to be apparent to subsequent evangelical trailblazers of the English-speaking world. Richard Baxter, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, and countless other pastors and leaders saw catechesis as one of their most obvious and basic pastoral duties. If they could not wholeheartedly embrace and use an existing catechism for such instruction, they would adapt or edit one or would simply write their own. A pastor’s chief task, it was widely understood, was to be the teacher of the flock.
Recent Abandonment
Today, however, things are quite different, for a host of reasons. The church in the West has largely abandoned serious catechesis as a normative practice. Among the more surprising factors that have contributed to this decline are the unintended consequences of the great Sunday school movement. This lay-driven phenomenon swept across North America in the 1800s and came to dominate educational efforts in most evangelical churches through the 20th century. It effectively replaced pastor-catechists with relatively untrained lay workers, and substituted an instilling of familiarity (or shall we say, perhaps, overfamiliarity) with Bible stories for any form of grounding in the basic beliefs, practices, and ethics of the faith.
Thus for most contemporary evangelicals, the entire idea of catechesis is largely an alien concept. The very word itself—catechesis, or any of its associated terms, including catechism—is greeted with suspicion by most evangelicals today. (“Wait, isn’t that a Roman Catholic thing?”) Ironically, as noted above, it was the Reformers who impelled the church of Rome to once again take catechesis seriously. In recent decades, while the Catholic Church has renewed its catechetical labors with vigor, most evangelicals have not likewise returned to their own catechetical roots.
We hope to contribute to a much-needed evangelical course correction in these matters. We are persuaded that Calvin had it right and that we are already seeing the sad, even tragic, consequences of allowing the church to continue uncatechized in any significant sense. We are persuaded, further, that something can and must be done to help Protestant churches steer a wiser course.
What we are after is to encourage our fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the wisdom of building believers the old-fashioned way—by taking up the practice of catechesis.
Article by Tom Ascol – original source: https://founders.org/2014/09/16/does-church-membership-matter/
One of the most frequent questions that I get from professing Christians is, “Why do I have to be a member of a church?” Over the course of the years the character of that question has increasingly shifted from honest inquiry to incredulous accusation. In fact I am no longer surprised when believers get angry at me for insisting that sincere discipleship requires church membership. Low and erroneous views of the church are so rampant even among conservative, Bible believing Christians that any congregation that does not exercise extreme care in receiving members is sure to find itself a large percentage of mere “paper members” whose names appear on the roll but whose bodies are largely absent from most gatherings and fellowship and ministry initiatives.
Baptists in former days saw the issue quite differently. Membership mattered to the early Baptist churches in England and America in the 17th and 18th centuries. In fact, it would have been inconceivable for those early Baptists to regard membership in a local congregation as optional or incidental.
Imagine if the following convictions about the church were commonplace today among professing Christians:
In exercising the authority entrusted to him, the Lord Jesus, through the ministry of his Word, by his Spirit, calls to himself out of the world those who are given to him by his Father. They are called so that they will live before him in all the ways of obedience that he prescribes for them in his Word. Those who are called he commands to live together in local societies, or churches, for their mutual edification and the fitting conduct of public worship that he requires of them while they are in the world.
The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly displaying and demonstrating in and by their profession and life their obedience to the call of Christ. They willingly agree to live together according to Christ’s instructions, giving themselves to the Lord and to one another by the will of God, with the stated purpose of following the ordinances of the Gospel.
What would a congregation be like if all the members believed this and all the leaders helped the membership live according to these convictions? It would be a beautiful thing. It would be a community of believers whose lives together demonstrate the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their living would commend their preaching.
That was at the heart of the original vision of church life among early Baptists. The paragraphs quoted above come from chapter 26 of a modern version of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Because it summarizes biblical teachings on key issues a good confession of faith is an excellent teaching tool for a church. Prospective members can be asked to read it, or at least to read key sections of it, so that they will understand how the church they want to join view issues like polity, membership, worship, evangelism, marriage, scriptural authority, etc. Those who do join a church that has a confession of faith can refer back to it to be encouraged to think biblically about such issues as questions arise.
I am convinced that church life would be significantly upgraded in spiritual vitality if confessions of faith were once again properly regarded and widely used to commend and proclaim basic commitments to biblical teachings.
Article: 3 Ways to Explain the Incarnation to Muslim Peoples by Greg Handley, his wife Rachel, and their four children have lived among the Muslim peoples of Central Asia for the past five years. They meet weekly with local believers who will be celebrating the true meaning of the incarnation this Christmas, by God’s grace. (original source – https://www.imb.org/2016/12/16/how-to-explain-the-incarnation-to-muslims/ )
The first “Christmas” evoked polarizing responses: magi from the East came to worship the Messiah while Herod trembled at the thought of his kingdom falling. Mary treasured the whole experience while Joseph wrestled through the shameful implications of marrying a miraculously pregnant woman. Angels declared good news of the promised Savior while this same news unsettled others. A treasure to some, a threat to others—this event, so great and world-shaking, allowed for no middle ground.
This polarization continues in our day, particularly among religions that give an account of Jesus. Islam suppresses the incarnation by teaching against it. According to Islam, God could never become man. An average Muslim has heard so many false ideas concerning what Christians believe about Jesus’s birth that the incarnation’s true implications aren’t discernible to them.
As you discuss the gospel with Muslims, it’s good to understand the threat the incarnation poses for them. To even consider whether God became a man would bring Muslims shame due to their “betrayal” of their religious community and cause them to fear the implications of differing from that community. The character of Allah, the teachings of the Qur’an, and their religious moorings are rendered suspect if God really did dwell among us in the person of Jesus.
Some well-meaning Christians attempt to soften this blow by minimizing the doctrine of the incarnation, but this is neither loving nor right. Faithfulness to God and being good friends to Muslims requires us to keep the edges of this truth while patiently remaining alongside questioners as they wrestle with the massive implications of the manger. During these discussions, your Muslim friends will need to have three facets of the incarnation clarified.
Muslims are taught that Christians believe God had some type of physical relationship with Mary to have a son. After all, isn’t that the normal way sons enter the world? But Christians don’t believe this, as that would negate the virgin birth and impugn the very character of God. I’ve found that if you ask a Muslim how he believes Mary began carrying the baby Jesus, surprisingly you arrive on some common ground. We both can agree that the process transcended physical norms and was, therefore, miraculous. We may differ on the details, but we can build upon the commonality of the miraculous origin of Jesus’s birth.
God can’t have a son in an Islamic worldview. He is too distant, too holy. It’s physically impossible and theologically inconceivable. Some Christians also struggle with what exactly we mean when we say Jesus is God’s Son. After all, the Bible uses the “son” language in a variety of ways. Sometimes it’s functional: a son does the deeds or has the role of his father (Matt. 5:9). Sometimes the son language designates a special representative of God or unique relationship with God (Ex. 4:22).
But it’s also used in a greater way, designating the very person of God himself. Muslims think Christians believe Jesus became the Son at his birth. But Christians believe the Son existed before the world and stepped into the world, receiving the name Jesus while on earth. Christians believe the Son is coexistent with the Father. If a selfie existed of the unchanging God, he would be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This one-in-three-persons being is who God is. God didn’t have a son two thousand years ago. The Son is God and has been with God since before the world came into being (John 1:1–3, 14).
Muslims believe Jesus is a prophet who spoke truthfully, so opening the Bible and reading Jesus’s words together is the best thing to do to bring clarity here. “Have you read what Jesus said about himself?” is a good question to ask to transition into Scripture. Jesus claimed to exist before Abraham (John 8:53–59), and for this, the Jewish leaders wanted to stone him. When one of Jesus’s disciples requested that Jesus show them God the Father, Jesus’s answer was clear: he himself is the physical embodiment of the Father on earth. There was no need for more revelation or another prophet to come after Jesus for us to know the Father (John 14:8–11, 8:19). Jesus even claimed to have the same authority as God to give life and to judge (John 5:19–23). Jesus didn’t teach people as the former prophets had by saying “God says this or that.” He began his statements with “I say,” assuming the very authority of God himself.
In light of these claims, we’re faced with a choice: submit to his claims as a true prophet or pick up stones to suppress his claims. This will inevitably lead to the discussion of whether the Bible has been changed. I’ve found the best proof for the Bible’s unchanging nature is the book itself. If you can open the Bible with Muslims, then you are exposing them to Scripture with self-authenticating power.
The manger brings joy to a Christian’s heart because it speaks of a God willing to embrace sacrifice in order to save sinners. This is good news, but this doesn’t line up with the god of the Qur’an. At its core Islam rejects the God who became man, thus denying he died on the cross and was raised to new life. In the absence of a Savior, we are left to save ourselves, which is just what Muslims believe. This isn’t liberating good news. We must connect the dots between Jesus’s coming, his suffering, and his victory over death. This is the news that must be heard in order to be saved (Rom. 10:9–13).
As we bring clarity to their misconceptions, Muslims need to see us embodying the way of Jesus if they are going to forsake their whole identity for a new path. We can’t change hearts, but we can show them the evidence of our changed hearts. Seeing God’s love in Scripture alongside Christians whose lives embody its power has the potential to make this news, once a threat, their greatest treasure.
Genesis 15:17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram…
The following is a transcript from a teaching entitled “Narrative Preaching” by Dr. R.C. Sproul at the 2004 Ligonier Pastors’ Conference:
I’ve always said, if I was in jail, solitary confinement, and could only have one book, the book I would want would be the Bible. If I could have only one book of the Bible with me in prison, the book I would choose is Hebrews. People are usually surprised to hear me say that. They assume I am going to say ‘Romans,’ but I say ‘I already got that. I don’t need to have a copy of it.’ But there’s so much in Hebrews that develops both the Old and the New Testament and brings it together that that’s what I would like to have in my cell.
But if I could only have one verse, I would have the verse – the smoking torch and burning furnace moving through the pieces. Why? Because in this drama, the ultimate theophany of God as He manifests Himself is fire, the pillar of smoke, the burning bush, the consuming flame, this is God moving through the pieces… this is God entering into a covenant with His creature, and as the author of Hebrews said, ‘Because God could swear by nothing higher, He swore by Himself’ because graphically, dramatically, symbolically, what God is doing for Abraham when Abraham says ‘how can I know for sure You’re going to do it?’ God runs the gauntlet. God goes between these pieces and He’s saying to Abraham, ‘Abraham, if I ever break My word to you, may I be torn asunder, just as you have torn asunder the parts of these animals. May the immortal become mortal, the immutable have a mutation, may the eternal stop living! Abraham, I can’t swear on my mother’s grave, I can’t swear by the stars or the moons.. these are all part of the created order. The highest promise I can give to you is ‘I swear by Myself, by My own deity, by My very Being… that before I would lie to you, I would give up My own Divine essence.’
You wonder why I would have that (verse)… is that relevant today? Does that have 21st century application? It does to me. Because every time I worry and I am doubting and struggling because people break promises, I break promises, and I live in a world filled with covenant breakers… that I am brought back to the God who swore by Himself, who has never broken His word.
Article by Eric Raymond – original source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/erik-raymond/jesus-die-everyone/
The atonement is central to Christian understanding and experience. We are the benefactors when we pore over the Word to better grasp Christ’s work. When doing so, we often encounter questions. One common question that comes up when thinking about the atonement is this: Did Jesus die for everyone or only the elect?
My answer to this question is this: I believe Jesus died on the cross for the elect. He did exactly what he intended to do and accomplished redemption for all who would believe, and not every person who ever lived.
One might answer back, But when you read John 3:16 we see that God “loved the world” and then in Hebrews 2:9 “Jesus taste death for everyone,” and finally in 1 John the Bible says that Jesus was the propitiation “for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). In light of this, how can anyone say that Jesus did not die for everyone?
These are important verses and questions. In this post I want to think this through biblically, theologically, and logically.
First, let me start by saying that everyone limits the atonement. Everyone, that is, except for the heterodox theology of the universalist (the view that all will be saved). The Arminian limits the power of the atonement, saying that the cross did not definitively save anyone but made salvation possible for all. The Calvinist, on the other hand, limits the extent of the atonement, that it does not save every person, but only the elect.
As a Calvinist, I limit the extent of the atonement. But by doing so, I am not limiting the value of the atonement; it is infinite. There is no way to improve upon the work of Christ—it is infinite and perfect. To be clear, when Calvinists speak of limited atonement, we are not speaking in terms of its value but rather the extent of it.
When we are thinking about this limiting, we have a choice. As B. B. Warfield says, “The things we have to choose between are an atonement of high value or an atonement of wide extension. The two cannot go together.”
Jesus Christ either died for everyone, nobody, or the elect.
The Old Covenant sacrifices anticipate the death of Christ through types and shadows. They were patterned after their substance, the supreme sacrifice, the Lamb of God (Heb. 9:11-14; 13:10-13). When we read a passage like Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement, we find innocent animals beating the sin and guilt of the people. The priest was transferring the guilt of the people to the chosen animal by imputation. The sacrifice is then made with the offering of the animal in the place of the people. The Day of Atonement dealt with the sins of the people (even if only for a year). But the point is clear; they are not offering the animals as a potential redemption for every person who is alive that year. Instead, it is an accomplished atonement for the people of Israel.
Further, Jesus death was substitutionary. He offered himself in our place. He suffered and died vicariously in place of sinners.
He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21)
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13)
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Pet. 3:18)
John Murray in his book Redemption Accomplished and Applied writes:
If we concentrate on the thought of redemption, we shall be able perhaps to sense more readily the impossibility of universalizing the atonement. What does redemption mean? It does not mean redeemability, that we are placed in a redeemable position. It means that Christ purchased and procured redemption. This is the triumphant note of the New Testament whenever it plays on the redemptive chord. Christ redeemed us to God by his blood (Rev. 5:9). He obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12). “He gave himself for us in order that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify to himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:14). It is to beggar the concept of redemption as an effective securement of release by price and by power to construe it as anything less than the effectual accomplishment which secures the salvation of those who are its objects. Christ did not come to put men in a redeemable position but to redeem to himself a people.”
The real question comes down to this: did he or didn’t he?
Did Jesus Christ satisfy divine wrath upon that cross or didn’t he? If he didn’t, then who will? And when? But if he did, then for whom?
It would be unbiblical to conclude that Jesus satisfied the wrath of God and bore the sins for those already suffering in hell. If he did pay their penalty, why is God punishing them a second time?
What was the intent of the atonement? I like how Steve Lawson answers the question,:“The intent of the atonement is the extent of the atonement.”
What was Jesus’s intention? What was his plan for the atonement? He tells us that he would lay his life down for his sheep—and his sheep alone.
I am the good shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:14-15)
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. (John 10:16)
Do you sense his design and resolve here? “I must bring them . . . they will hear my voice” Or if we may shorten it: “I must . . . and they will.” Jesus Christ is going to the cross with the certainty of what he will do and how his sheep will respond.
As he talks about the intent of his death, Jesus is interacting with some of the Jewish leaders. Amid their questions, Jesus tells them that the atonement is not for them. He limits the extent of his sacrifice.
But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. (John 10:26)
Remember, Jesus has already told us that he is dying for his sheep (John 10:15). But right here he tells them that they cannot hear his words (they do not believe) because they are not of his sheep. The Lord is saying that his death is for those who are his sheep, and they will hear his voice. In other words, Jesus’s death is for the elect and not for those who will not believe.
He applies a similar limit in his High Priestly prayer the night before his death:
I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. (John 17.9-10)
Jesus prays for those who are his. That is, he prays for his sheep, those who will believe upon his word.
I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, (John 17.20)
Christ’s atonement has a vicarious, substitutionary nature. Jesus lived, died, and was raised for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3-5). This happened at a point of time that will never to be repeated again (Heb. 10:10). Therefore, Jesus accomplished the necessary redemption for all of his sheep. He fully satisfied and removed divine wrath while earning divine favor for his people. When we speak of limited atonement, we are referring to a limited scope, not a limited value or power. This is why many theologians prefer the language of particular redemption or definite atonement.
But we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9)
Context is important. Who is the everyone? Verse 10 tells us that he brings “many sons to glory,” verse 11 calls them “brethren,” verse 14 calls these people “the children,” v.16 says that they are the descendants of Abraham, v.17 says that they are “his brethren,” and again “the people.” I do not believe that everyone here refers to everyone who ever lived, but rather to this particular group of people already mentioned: the many sons, the children, the descendants of Abraham, his brethren, and the people. In other words, it is referring to his sheep or all who would believe.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
This verse clearly says that God loves the world. But while the Son came into the world, the verse doesn’t say that the entire world will be saved. It limits the scope of salvation to those who would believe, “that whoever believes in him shall not perish.”
God loved the world in this particular way, that those who believe (the participle is in the present tense), who keep believing (i.e., the believers) will have eternal life. We could put it is a bit more literally, “God loves the world in this particular way, that he gave his only Son that the believing ones will not perish but have eternal life.” The verse says that those who believe will be saved. Loving and saving are united by believing. John is not talking about the extent of the atonement but the motive behind (love) and the means of accessing it (faith). We sometimes think of “whosoever” as exceedingly broad (arms open wide) instead of the particularity with which John seems to point here (to believers).
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2.2)
I think there is a good reason for the debate about this passage. It’s this last phrase that’s caused people fits when understanding what John is talking about. The question is simply this: in what sense is Jesus the propitiation for the sins of the whole world?
We have three main questions to answer:
Sometimes it refers to all of creation, and sometimes it can refer to a broader group of people than initially focused upon.
If propitiation is accomplished and not every person who ever lived will be saved, then how can we understand John’s use of this word? Again, I think this is a harder passage. A rule of interpretation is to allow the more clear passages to shed light on those that we find to be less clear. Therefore, I’m okay with marshaling in many other passages that speak to the nature and extent of the atonement to help me understand this verse.
At the same time, I think there is a possible answer in John’s other writings. In the first-century Jewish world, you have the Jews and then the world—everyone else. John is a Jew and enjoyed a ministry primarily to Jews (Gal. 2). There was anticipation throughout the Old Testament that the Messiah would save not only the Jews but also the whole world, that is Gentiles (Gen. 12:1-3; Is. 56:8; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24; Luke 2:22-38).
We see this conclusion somewhat surprisingly articulated by Caiaphas in John’s Gospel:
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death. (John 11:49-53)
This sounds like Jesus in John 10:16, “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
When I read 1 John 2:2 I think of what the word propitiation means, what Jesus did, and what else John teaches us about the nature and intent of the atonement, particularly with respect to non-Jews, it causes me to conclude that just as Jesus is the advocate for his people he is also the propitiation for the sins of his people. This includes all types of people, not just Jews, but people from every tribe and tongue (Rev. 5). I think by using the word “world” here, John is referring to a group of people from the nations, not just the nation of Israel.
I remember wrestling through this doctrine and trying to think through a number of biblical texts. As I was studying, I came across John Owen’s concise puzzle.
The Father imposed his wrath upon the Son, and the Son was punished for:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men.
3. Some of the sins of some men.
In which case, it may be said:
a. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none is saved.
b. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
c. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it is, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or he did not. If he did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not, he did not die for all their sins!
I started by saying that we are the benefactors when we pore over the Word to better grasp the work of Christ. As we do this to help ourselves and others learn, it must be done with a sense of humility. One should only have to think for a moment about how insensitive it is to find personal pride when arguing about atonement for our sins!
A conversation like this should be characterized by the gentleness, patience, and precision it demands.
A pastoral calling is not as simple as having the right gifts, sufficient education, and an internal conviction. From a “Ask Ligonier” live event, Burk Parsons counsels young men not to enter the ministry without an external call from the elders of a local church.
Transcript:
It’s not simply a matter of gifting. It’s not simply a matter of an internal feeling of that call. And it’s not simply a matter of having the right education.
A lot of times people feel called, and maybe that’s attested to by the demonstration and use of their gifts in the local church. Then they go to Bible college, or seminary, or both, and they say: “Well, now I’ve done it. I’ve spent all these years in Bible college and seminary. I’ve done all that I need to do—I’ve done an internship, I’ve come under care of a church, and so I must be called.” As we know, that’s really insufficient.
There needs to be an external call. That external call can only come from experienced elders who are active shepherds for a significant length of time. It can’t come from a mom or a dad saying, “You’d be a good pastor.” It can’t come from a sweet person in the church who says, “You’d make a good pastor someday because you’re really kind.”
Only become a pastor if you are as certain as you can possibly be that God is calling you to it, has entrusted you with the gifts for it, and if every wise, experienced elder or pastor that you know in your orbit who is aged in ministry has said, “You must do this.” And if they are not saying, “You must do this because this is what God has called you do,” then in many ways be thankful to God and go do something else.
The reason we are pastors is not because we wanted to be. It’s because we felt and believed that we couldn’t do something else, and that was attested to time and time again. That doesn’t mean we weren’t able to do something else; it means that we had to do this.
Any pastor who has been in pastoral ministry for any length of time will say that, if he could, he would not be a pastor. It’s not a self-pitying thing. We’re not saying that we don’t like being pastors or that we’re upset with God.
No, what we’re saying is that it is a hard calling. It’s not simple, it’s not easy, and it will bruise you and burden you every hour of every day of your life.
Only do it if you must, and be willing to give a great deal away.
The following is a short summary of the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses: source – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/the-11-beliefs-you-should-know-about-jehovahs-witnesses-when-they-knock-at-the-door/
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God’s one true name—the name by which he must be identified—is Jehovah.
Biblically, however, God is identified by many names, including:
In NT times, Jesus referred to God as “Father” (Gk. Patēr; Matt. 6:9), as did the apostles (1 Cor. 1:3).
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Trinity is unbiblical because the word is not in the Bible and because the Bible emphasizes that there is one God.
Biblically, while it is true that there is only one God (Isa. 44:6; 45:18; 46:9; John 5:44; 1 Cor. 8:4; James 2:19), it is also true that three persons are called God in Scripture:
Each of these three possesses the attributes of deity—including
Still further, each of the three is involved in doing the works of deity—such as creating the universe:
The Bible indicates that there is three-in-oneness in the godhead (Matt. 28:19; cf. 2 Cor. 13:14).
Thus doctrinal support for the Trinity is compellingly strong.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was created by Jehovah as the archangel Michael before the physical world existed, and is a lesser, though mighty, god.
Biblically, however, Jesus is eternally God (John 1:1; 8:58; cf. Ex. 3:14) and has the exact same divine nature as the Father (John 5:18; 10:30; Heb. 1:3).
Indeed, a comparison of the OT and NT equates Jesus with Jehovah (compare Isa. 43:11 with Titus 2:13; Isa. 44:24 with Col. 1:16; Isa. 6:1-5 with John 12:41).
Jesus himself created the angels (Col. 1:16; cf. John 1:3; Heb. 1:2, 10) and is worshiped by them (Heb. 1:6).
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that when Jesus was born on earth, he was a mere human and not God in human flesh.
This violates the biblical teaching that in the incarnate Jesus, “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9; cf. Phil. 2:6-7).
The word for “fullness” (Gk. plērōma) carries the idea of the sum total. “Deity” (Gk. theotēs) refers to the nature, being, and attributes of God.
Therefore, the incarnate Jesus was the sum total of the nature, being, and attributes of God in bodily form.
Indeed, Jesus was Immanuel, or “God with us” (Matt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 7:14; John 1:1, 14, 18; 10:30; 14:9-10).
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was resurrected spiritually from the dead, but not physically.
Biblically, however, the resurrected Jesus asserted that he was not merely a spirit but had a flesh-and-bone body (Luke 24:39; cf. John 2:19-21).
He ate food on several occasions, thereby proving that he had a genuine physical body after the resurrection (Luke 24:30, 42-43; John 21:12-13).
This was confirmed by his followers who physically touched him (Matt. 28:9; John 20:17).
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the second coming was an invisible, spiritual event that occurred in the year 1914.
Biblically, however, the yet-future second coming will be physical, visible (Acts 1:9-11; cf. Titus 2:13), and will be accompanied by visible cosmic disturbances (Matt. 24:29-30). Every eye will see him (Rev. 1:7).
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force of God and not a distinct person.
Biblically, however, the Holy Spirit has the three primary attributes of personality:
Moreover, personal pronouns are used of him (Acts 13:2). Also, he does things that only a person can do, including:
The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity (Matt. 28:19).
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that salvation requires faith in Christ, association with God’s organization (i.e., their religion), and obedience to its rules.
Biblically, however, viewing obedience to rules as a requirement for salvation nullifies the gospel (Gal. 2:16-21; Col. 2:20-23). Salvation is based wholly on God’s unmerited favor (grace), not on the believer’s performance.
Good works are the fruit or result, not the basis, of salvation (Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:4-8).
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe there are two peoples of God: (1) the Anointed Class (144,000) will live in heaven and rule with Christ; and (2) the “other sheep” (all other believers) will live forever on a paradise earth.
Biblically, however, a heavenly destiny awaits all who believe in Christ (John 14:1-3; 17:24; 2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:20; Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 4:17; Heb. 3:1), and these same people will also dwell on the new earth (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1-4).
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that humans have an immaterial nature. The “soul” is simply the life-force within a person. At death, that life-force leaves the body.
Biblically, however, the word “soul” is multifaceted. One key meaning of the term is man’s immaterial self that consciously survives death (Gen. 35:18; Rev. 6:9-10). Unbelievers are in conscious woe (Matt. 13:42; 25:41, 46; Luke 16:22-24; Rev. 14:11) while believers are in conscious bliss in heaven (1 Cor. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:21-23; Rev. 7:17; 21:4).
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe hell is not a place of eternal suffering but is rather the common grave of humankind. The wicked are annihilated—snuffed out of conscious existence forever.
Biblically, however, hell is a real place of conscious, eternal suffering (Matt. 5:22; 25:41, 46; Jude 7; Rev. 14:11; 20:10, 14).
Article by Jonathan Leeman – original source – https://www.crossway.org/articles/an-elevator-pitch-for-church-membership/
The Elevator Answer
Is church membership actually in the Bible?
How many times have you heard someone ask that? Maybe you’re asking it yourself.
If I have fifteen seconds to answer that question—maybe I’m on an elevator with you—I would tell you to look at the church discipline passages in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. Jesus and Paul talk about “removing” someone from the body. What is a person being removed from if it’s not what we today call membership. Yes, it’s an implication, but it’s a very clear implication.
Or I might point you to passages like Acts 2:41, where it says three thousand people were “added to their number” (NIV); or Acts 6:2, which says the apostles called together “the full number of disciples”; or Acts 12:1, which says Herod attacked those “who belonged to the church.” They knew who belonged. They could name the disciples. Did they keep all those names on an Excel spreadsheet? I don’t know, but they knew who they were.
Are You Looking for the Right Thing?
If I have more than fifteen seconds when someone asks that question, I might say, “Membership is not in the Bible. At least not the kind of membership you’re looking for.” If I had to guess, you’ve known churches that treat church membership like club membership. You come. You pay your dues. You get the membership packet, maybe even an all-access pass to the pastor or other benefits.
And that isn’t in the Bible. Instead, the Bible presents a picture of the church as unlike any other organization or society of people in the world.
By some estimates, there are over ninety different metaphors in the Bible for describing what the church is: a flock, a temple, a people, a vine, a pillar and buttress of truth, a Lady and her children. Truly the church is unlike any other society or organization in the world. It’s no club. Apparently, the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture thought you need all those metaphors to describe what this new-creation, blood-bought, Spirit-filled society is. And what is a local church but a self-identified gathering of such people?
So, where is membership in the Bible? Well, first of all, search for any discussion of those metaphors. That should change what you’re searching for.
But admittedly, we’re all a bit anti-institutional these days. People like to say, Can’t I be a part of the family of God and the body of Christ and all that without binding myself to one particular local church?
Well, the short answer to that is no. Let me give you two reasons, one from the individual’s perspective and one from the church’s perspective.
First, from the individual Christian’s perspective, I don’t know how you can do what the Bible calls you to do apart from a self-conscious commitment to a local church. Hebrews 13:17 tells you to submit to your leaders. Which leaders are those? All Christians leaders everywhere? Or even just the leaders in your city? No, it’s the leaders of the church to whom you have committed, and who have committed to you.
Ephesians 4 says we’re to build one another up by speaking the truth in love. And Ephesians 5, in the context of addressing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, says we do this as we submit to one another. Which Christians are we to both build up and submit to with our words? All the Christians in a city? No, the Christians who have committed to regularly gathering together in one place—a local church.
We could go through command after command and metaphor after metaphor in the New Testament about the corporate life of the church, and I will say the same thing every time: I don’t know how you do that apart from a local church.
Second, from the church’s perspective, the Bible actually gives local churches authority to bring members in, and to see them out. It exercises that authority by bringing people into membership through baptism, by seeing them out through excommunication when necessary, and by affirming them as a believers on an ongoing basis through the Lord’s Supper.
When we baptize, we baptize someone into the name of Father, Son, and Spirit. We give them the “Jesus nametag.” “He’s with Jesus!” we say. And in so doing, we make their profession and discipleship public.
The Lord’s Supper, also, isn’t an individual act, an opportunity to shut everyone out and have a turbo-charged quiet time with you and Jesus. No, it’s a church-revealing and church-affirming act.
Listen to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:17 about the Lord’s Supper: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” That simple verse is packed with meaning. The main clause is, “We who are many are one body.” How do we know we are one body? We know that, “because there is one bread.” In fact, the verse says the same thing twice. We know we are one body “because there is one bread” and “for we all partake of the one bread.” Partaking of the one bread affirms and reveals that we are one body.
What is the authority of the local church? It’s the authority to say who the Christians on planet earth are, which we do through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is the front door. The Lord’s Supper is the family dinner table. Both of these are the signs of church membership. More than that, they’re how a church corporately affirms someone’s profession of faith! They’re how a church on earth goes public.
Think back to the verses in Acts about being “added to their number” and “the full number of disciples” and “those who belonged.” They knew who they were through the ordinances.
So why can’t you just be the body of Christ or the family of God apart from a self-conscious commitment to a local church that we call “membership”? One, because it’s the only way you can fulfill all the Bible’s commands about our life together. Two, because it’s the local church whom the Bible authorizes to publicly recognize and affirm the church on planet earth.
Let me offer two final thoughts. The first will help you understand membership in the context of the Bible as a whole. The second will help you understand it in the context of faith and obedience.
Following Israel’s failure to keep the old covenant, the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel promised a new covenant, whereby God would place his law on his people’s hearts and forgive their sins. And this is what we think of as conversion, which happens through the preaching of the Word and the work of the Spirit. Conversion makes someone a Christian, a member of the new covenant, as well as a member of Christ’s universal church.
But here’s a question that Jeremiah and Ezekiel didn’t answer: How do we know who the new covenant people are? After all, the Spirit does his work invisibly. How then do we know who the “we” of the new covenant are? We knew who belonged to Israel because they had circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, even a land. But how do you know who the citizens of a nation are when there are no borders, flags, or passports?
Apparently, a second step is necessary for the invisible new covenant community of the church to become visible. The gospel faith must show up in a gospel order. It’s for this reason Jesus gave the apostles and local churches the keys of the kingdom for binding and loosing, which they exercise through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. There’s your flag and passport.
In other words, the universal shows up—becomes visible, palpable, and real—in the local church. We prove and practice our membership in Christ’s body and family and kingdom locally.
Now think about all this in the context of the gospel. The gospel makes members of the universal church. It unites us to Christ and to Christ’s people (e.g. Ephesians 2:11–22; 1 Peter 2:10). Yet we demonstrate or prove that universal membership through actual, local, “here’s a list of names” membership.
It’s precisely the same relationship we see between what theologians call our positional righteousness in Christ and our existential righteousness or between the indicative or the imperative. We’re declared righteous because of what Christ did, but then we’re commanded to “put on” that righteousness. Living it out proves or demonstrates what God has done. And if you don’t live it out, people will rightly wonder if you truly possess the righteousness of Christ (e.g., see Rom. 6:1–3).
In the same way, don’t tell me you belong to the “family of God” of all Christians everywhere unless you actually show up at the family dinner table with a bunch of real people. And don’t tell me you’re a part of the body of Christ unless you can point to an actual body of people on whom you’re making yourself dependent.
That why in 1 John 4, John says, Don’t say you love God whom you can’t see if you don’t love your brother, whom you can see.
Is church membership in the Bible? Show me a Christian in the Bible (other than the Ethiopian eunuch, who is in the middle of a desert) who is not committed to a local church. Throughout the entire New Testament, believers unite their professions and their lives together.
Jonathan Leeman is the author of Church Membership: How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus.