Water Baptism Before The Lord’s Supper?

Posted on by
Reply

As we read the book of Acts, chapter 2, a definite sequence can be observed. All who repented and believed the gospel were water baptized and in doing so were recognized as full citizens in God’s kingdom and immediately became active members in the local Church.

“So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” – Acts 2:41,42

Repentance involves a change of mind resulting in a complete change of direction – a 180 degree about-face – turning away from a self-centered life of sin and a turning to God.

Faith means believing the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, confessing Him as personal Lord and Savior, trusting in His complete redemptive work in His perfect life, His atoning death and His physical resurrection – being saved from the wrath we deserve by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Water Baptism refers to full immersion in water. Baptism does not save! This cannot be over-emphasized! We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, plus nothing… minus nothing… However, those who are “saved” are immediately commanded to be water baptized, which involves a personal declaration of full identification and complete union with the Lord Jesus Christ in His death, burial, resurrection and ascension.

Using a sports analogy, water baptism is like putting the team jersey on, which then allows the player to enter the field of play. No one plays on the field without the uniform. So, while you may be a genuine Christian, the Lord Jesus commands you to be water baptized. Baptism is a matter of obedience as a follower of Christ. Acts 2:38 says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you…”

Membership in the Local Church: Believers share a rich spiritual life together as brothers and sisters in the family of God. The Lord has established the local Church as the designated place for each baptized believer to gather together to receive the ‘means of grace’ – where the word (gospel) is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered. It’s the set­ting for each believer to give and to enjoy Christian fellowship and support, all in a protected environment under the watchful care of His under shepherds (elders).

If we were to imagine being present to observe the events of Acts chapter 2, can you imagine someone coming to the Apostles and asking something like, “I am not wishing to be baptized but would like to receive the Lord’s Supper. Is that ok?”

I think the short answer such a person would receive would be, “No, that is not ok!”

Instead questions might be asked of this person such as “Why would you not wish to be identified with the Lord Jesus Christ in baptism? Do you not believe in Him? If you do believe in Him, why would you not obey Him? Are you really a follower of Christ? If you are, why would you not wish to identify with Him in the way He has commanded?”

The Lord’s Supper is not an outreach tool for evangelism but a holy ordinance for the people of God. It is a family meal for those who are identified with Christ in baptism and members of the local Church.

In our day, the Church has adopted many non-biblical ideas and traditions in presenting the gospel. These include raising a hand, walking an aisle, praying “the sinner’s prayer” and signing a card… What do all these have in common? The answer is: None of these are mentioned in Scripture. These are man-made substitutes for the public declaration of our repentance and faith expressed in obeying the command to be baptized in water and then becoming members of a local Church. There is no doubt that today’s widespread non-biblical practices in the Christian community has led to much confusion in the minds of many. Yet the Bible is more than clear on these matters.

In the early Church, there was not such a “thing” as an unbaptized Christian. All who received God’s word (who believed) were baptized; who were then added to the Church as members; and all of these began to participate in the everyday life of the Church; teaching, prayer, fellowship and the Lord’s Supper.

Note once again the sequence found in Acts 2:

“So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” – v. 41,42

No one fell through the cracks. There were no cracks. All who repented and believed were water baptized and added to the church in membership and then participated in the life and benefits of the local Church. I believe this is the Biblical pattern for us today.

Here is a helpful interchange found at the 9Marks website, in the form of a question and answer dialog:

Dear 9Marks,

Question: I’m in agreement with your explanation on child baptism. My children (ages 14 and 12) give strong evidence of saving faith, yet we have decided to wait on baptism for some of the reasons you state. The struggle I have is how this affects the Lord’s Supper. Would you also say that only baptized believers should take part in communion? We began having our children participate in communion when my son turned 12 and my daughter turned 11. If this is improper (due to them not being baptized yet), are we not then withholding the blessing of the Lord’s Supper from our believing children?

—Adam

Dear Adam,

The short answer is, I agree with the fairly traditional line that you will find in most Baptist statements of faith, namely, that baptism “is a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper” (Baptist Faith & Message 2000). Baptism is the front door to the church through which you walk once; the Lord’s Supper is the family meal that you enjoy repeatedly and regularly.

So, no, I would not give the Lord’s Supper to anyone who has not received baptism. And for what it’s worth, that’s not just a Baptist position, but something that every Christian tradition has historically affirmed (Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc.). Baptism, then the Supper.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the two signs given to churches by Christ to mark off those who belong to him. Who are the people of God on earth? Those who are baptized into church membership and then receive the Lord’s Supper. They are public identity markers, and they are meant to go together. They are not just individual acts, but corporate acts. It’s not just the individual saying something in baptism and the Lord’s Supper, it’s the church saying something as well.

In baptism, the church declares that someone is identified with “the name” of Father, Son, and Spirit (Matt. 28:19), such that those individuals can now gather “in the name” of Christ (Matt. 18:20). In the Lord’s Supper, every member of the church declares themselves to be a part of the one body, and the one body declares every member to be a member of that one body.

Paul writes this in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, “The cup of blessing that we give thanks for, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread.”

In light of all this, I have two questions for you: (i) what blessing do you think you are withholding from your children? The unique blessing that the Supper offers is for individual and church to declare together that they are one body. But it seems like you deliberately mean to withhold that blessing by not baptizing your children. (ii) You refer to your “believing children.” If you are willing to confidently affirm them as Christians, why wouldn’t you ask the church to baptize them and affirm them as Christians?

In other words, what I hear you saying is, you’re willing to have the church affirm them as believers through the Supper, but you’re not willing to have the church affirm them as believers in baptism. I’d encourage you to give both of the ordinances to your children, or neither. The ordinances are not meant to be divided, where we give one but not the other. Most Paedobaptists do, I understand (giving baptism but withholding the Supper for a time), but you didn’t pose your question to a Paedobaptist! I hope this is helpful.

What Have You Been Reading? (Spanish version)

Posted on by
Reply

English version: https://effectualgrace.com/2018/11/14/what-have-you-been-reading/

¿Que has estado leyendo?

Autor: John Samson; Traducido por: Karla Martinez

Una vez, un cristiano se acercó a mí para contarme acerca de su vida espiritual y como esta se encontraba tan muerta y tan deslucida que lo había llevado a abandonar todas sus ganas e intentos de lograr estar a solas con Dios, leer la Biblia y orar.

Él dijo, “Siento que estoy caminando solo en un desierto, sin ver el agua. Estoy bastante desesperado.”

Este era un hombre joven que por todas sus apariencias externas parecía tenerlo todo. Fue activo en el ministerio y mostró mucho entusiasmo en las cosas de Dios. Más aun así, yo podía ver en sus ojos que había una seriedad acerca de su verdadera condición espiritual.

Mientras me hablaba, en silencio yo le pedía a Dios sabiduría para saber qué decirle. Después de escucharlo por unos minutos, una pregunta surgió en mi mente.

Le pregunté: “¿Podría saber cuál es el último libro cristiano que ha leído?”

Podía notar que el joven estaba más que un poco sorprendido por mi pregunta. Él respondió que alguna una vez disfruto la lectura, pero ahora no leía mucho material Cristiano del todo.

Lo presione un poco más y él me compartió el último libro Cristiano que había leído. No mencionare el título aquí, porque ese no es realmente el problema. Podría haber sido uno de muchos. Yo estaba familiarizado con el libro que menciono, y después le pregunte:“Si te pido que leas algo, ¿lo harías?”

En desesperación dijo: “Si usted piensa que me ayudaría Pastor, entonces si, por supuesto.”

Luego dije, “Yo tengo un libro” y me acerqué al estante de mi librero y tome uno. Durante el próximo mes, tome unos 10-15 de su día y lea esto”

Tomó el libro y su rostro se torno con una expresión de desconcierto. No era realmente un libro sobre la devoción Cristiana, per se. Tampoco era un libro acerca de cómo salir de una rutina espiritual.

Cuanto más miraba el libro ahora con sus manos, más confundido se encontraba.

Pregunto: “¿Que tiene que ver este libro con mi lucha actual?”

Le dije: “Bueno, directamente no aborda el problema que tiene, pero quiero que confíe en mí. Simplemente comprométase a leerlo durante 10-15 minutos cada día hasta que lo termine.”

Hizo una pausa por un momento antes de decir: “Está bien, pastor, confío en usted, y prometo que lo haré.”

Hablamos un poco más, pero a los pocos minutos salió de mi oficina. Recuerdo orar para que Dios restaurara el fuego y celo de este joven…y ese parecía ser el caso.

En menos de tres semanas después, me encontré con este joven después de un servicio de la Iglesia. Parecía muy feliz y le pregunte: “¿Tienes un minuto?

“Por supuesto”, le dije.

Luego procedió en contarme que su vida espiritual había vuelto a la normalidad y que el mejor momento de su día – el momento que más esperaba – era su tiempo a solas con Dios y su Biblia.

Le pregunte: “¿Que paso?”

Él dijo: “He estado leyendo el libro que me dio. Se han abierto tesoros que nunca antes había visto. Leo algo y luego, durante el resto del día, mi mente está cautivada por lo que leo y me encuentro agradecido con Dios por la comprensión, y…bueno, me siento muy cerca de Dios justo en este momento. Soy un hombre diferente en comparación al que vio en su oficina hace un par de semanas atrás. Pero, Pastor…?”

“Si,” he dicho.

“¿Puede explicarme lo que me ha pasado?”

Le dije, “Pues, Dios ha sido misericordioso para acercarte más a Él mismo.”

“Si, lo sé, pero ¿puedes decirme que me paso?”

Yo dije: “Bueno, eso creo.”

Luego le explique que cuando me contó lo que había estado leyendo anteriormente, yo lo había de clasificar como un libro de comida espiritual sin vitaminas. Era un libro que tenía muy poco contenido – mucha pelusa – y aunque era popular, era simplemente como una charla en lugar de algo de sustancia.

Le dije: “¿Te imaginas a un joven de 21 años llegando a su casa después de un largo día en el trabajo, emocionado por sentarse a ver Plaza Sésamo?”

“No”, dijo.

“Bueno”, dije, “el libro que estabas leyendo (como muchos de ellos antes), era, espiritualmente hablando, como ver Plaza Sésamo. Como en los programas de televisión, es genial para los niños, pero hay algo malo si un adulto encuentra que todo lo que necesita está en ese programa. Llega un tiempo cuando alguien tiene que seguir adelante – un tiempo para disfrutar más de lo que “C es para Galleta.” No me lo tomes a mal, soy un gran fanático del Comegalletas. Creo que todos los niños deberían conocer al Comegalletas, Big Bird, Beto y Enrique y El Conde Contar. Pero llega un tiempo en el que hay que dejar las cosas infantiles atrás y enfocarse en alcanzar las cosas de la edad adulta.”

Continúe: “El libro que te di fue una introducción a una forma adulta del Cristianismo. Al leerlo, sabía que retaría a tu corazón y mente. Sabía que mostraría las cosas como nunca las habías visto antes. Fue fácil de leer, y no tan difícil como hubieras imaginado.”

“Wow, puedo ver eso ahora. Muchas gracias Pastor. ¿Escribiría tal vez 4 o 5 títulos que pueda leer en los próximos meses?

“Me encantaría…Ven a mi oficina y te escribiré algunos títulos.”

Como Cristianos, estamos llamados a amar al Señor con todo nuestro corazón, alma, mente y fuerza. De estos, se presta muy poca atención a la mente. Sin embargo, amamos al Señor con nuestra mente al tener los pensamientos correctos de Él, aprendiendo y descubriendo tesoros en Su palabra, permitiendo que nuestros pensamientos pasen de A,B, C de nuestra infancia, a una la cosas más carnosas y pesadas de las cosas de Dios.

“Cuando yo era niño, hablaba como niño, pensaba como niño, juzgaba como niño; más cuando ya fui hombre, dejé lo que era de niño.”1 Corintios 13:11

The Psalms According to Calvin

Posted on by
Reply

(John Calvin, “The Author’s Preface,” Commentary on the Book of Psalms)

The varied and resplendid riches which are contained it this treasury it is no easy matter to express in words; so much so, that I well know that whatever I shall be able to say will be far from approaching the excellence of the subject. But as it is better to give to my readers some taste, however small, of the wonderful advantages they will derive from the study of this book, than to be entirely silent on the point, I may be permitted briefly to advert to a matter, the greatness of which does not admit of being fully unfolded. I have been accustomed to call this book, I think not inappropriately, “An Anatomy of all the Parts of the Soul;” for there is not an emotion of which any one can be conscious that is not here represented as in a mirror. Or rather, the Holy Spirit has here drawn to the life all the griefs, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares, perplexities, in short, all the distracting emotions with which the minds of men are wont to be agitated. The other parts of Scripture contain the commandments which God enjoined his servants to announce to us. But here the prophets themselves, seeing they are exhibited to us as speaking to God, and laying open all their inmost thoughts and affections, call, or rather draw, each of us to the examination of himself in particulars in order that none of the many infirmities to which we are subject, and of the many vices with which we abound, may remain concealed. It is certainly a rare and singular advantage, when all lurking places are discovered, and the heart is brought into the light, purged from that most baneful infection, hypocrisy. In short, as calling upon God is one of the principal means of securing our safety, and as a better and more unerring rule for guiding us in this exercise cannot be found elsewhere than in The Psalms, it follows, that in proportion to the proficiency which a man shall have attained in understanding them, will be his knowledge of the most important part of celestial doctrine. Genuine and earnest prayer proceeds first from a sense of our need, and next, from faith in the promises of God. It is by perusing these inspired compositions, that men will be most effectually awakened to a sense of their maladies, and, at the same time, instructed in seeking remedies for their cure. In a word, whatever may serve to encourage us when we are about to pray to God, is taught us in this book. And not only are the promises of God presented to us in it, but oftentimes there is exhibited to us one standing, as it were, amidst the invitations of God on the one hand, and the impediments of the flesh on the other, girding and preparing himself for prayer: thus teaching us, if at any time we are agitated with a variety of doubts, to resist and fight against them, until the soul, freed and disentangled from all these impediments, rise up to God; and not only so, but even when in the midst of doubts, fears, and apprehensions, let us put forth our efforts in prayer, until we experience some consolation which may calm and bring contentment to our minds. Although distrust may shut the gate against our prayers, yet we must not allow ourselves to give way, whenever our hearts waver or are agitated with inquietude, but must persevere until faith finally come forth victorious from these conflicts. In many places we may perceive the exercise of the servants of God in prayer so fluctuating, that they are almost overwhelmed by the alternate hope of success and apprehension of failure, and gain the prize only by strenuous exertions. We see on the one hand, the flesh manifesting its infirmity; and on the other, faith putting forth its power; and if it is not so valiant and courageous as might be desired, it is at least prepared to fight until by degrees it acquire perfect strength. But as those things which serve to teach us the true method of praying aright will be found scattered through the whole of this Commentary, I will not now stop to treat of topics which it will be necessary afterwards to repeat, nor detain my readers from proceeding to the work itself. Only it appeared to me to be requisite to show in passing, that this book makes known to us this privilege, which is desirable above all others — that not only is there opened up to us familiar access to God, but also that we have permission and freedom granted us to lay open before him our infirmities which we would be ashamed to confess before men.

Besides there is also here prescribed to us an infallible rule for directing us with respect to the right manner of offering to God the sacrifice of praise, which he declares to be most precious in his sight, and of the sweetest odour. There is no other book in which there is to be found more express and magnificent commendations, both of the unparalleled liberality of God towards his Church, and of all his works; there is no other book in which there is recorded so many deliverances nor one in which the evidences and experiences of the fatherly providence and solicitude which God exercises towards us are celebrated with such splendor of diction, and yet with the strictest adherence to truth, in short, there is no other book in which we are more perfectly taught the right manner of praising God, or in which we are more powerfully stirred up to the performance of this religious exercise. Moreover although The Psalms are replete with all the precepts which serve to frame our life to every part of holiness, piety, and righteousness, yet they will principally teach and train us to bear the cross; and the bearing of the cross is a genuine proof of our obedience, since by doing this, we renounce the guidance of our own affections and submit ourselves entirely to God, leaving him to govern us, and to dispose of our life according to his will, so that the afflictions which are the bitterest and most severe to our nature, become sweet to us, because they proceed from him. In one word, not only will we here find general commendations of the goodness of God, which may teach men to repose themselves in him alone, and to seek all their happiness solely in him; and which are intended to teach true believers with their whole hearts confidently to look to him for help in all their necessities; but we will also find that the free remission of sins, which alone reconciles God towards us and procures for us settled peace with him, is so set forth and magnified, as that here there is nothing wanting which relates to the knowledge of eternal salvation.

Evangelical Evolution?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Dr. Richard D. Phillips, senior minister of Second Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Greenville, SC and the chairman of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology (source: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2019/06/evangelical-evolution.php )

Given what World Magazine once called a “major, well-funded push” to promote the acceptance of evolution among evangelical Christians, the case must be persuasively made against the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. In answer to a pro-evolutionary stance, I am one of those Bible teachers who believe that the implications of evolution involve sweeping changes to the Christian faith and life.  

While I appreciate the moderate spirit of many who want to find a way to accept evolution alongside the Bible, I find that the more radical voices are here more helpful.  For instance, I share the view of Peter Enns in the conclusion to his book The Evolution of Adam, writing that “evolution… cannot simply be grafted onto evangelical Christian faith as an add-on,” but requires a fundamental rethinking of doctrines pertaining to creation, humanity, sin, death, and salvation.  But Christian ethics must also be revised.  Enns writes that under evolution “some characteristics that Christians have thought of as sinful,” including “sexual promiscuity to perpetuate one’s gene pool,” should now be thought of as beneficial.  Even so foundational an issue as the Christian view of death must be remolded by evolution.  An evolution-embracing Christian faith must now see death as an ally: “the means that promotes the continued evolution of life on this planet.” 

I am not a qualified scientist and have virtually nothing to contribute to the science involved in evolution.  As a Bible teacher and theologian, my concern is the necessary beliefs that flow from the Word of God.  For the ultimate issue involved with evolution is biblical authority: must the Bible submit to the superior authority of secularist dogma? Or may the believer still confess together with Paul: “Let God be true though everyone were a liar” (Rom. 3:4).  From this perspective, I plan a short series of articles arguing against the idea that evolution is biblically acceptable.  

Evolution vs. Genesis 1

The first topic to consider is our reading of Genesis 1.  It is frankly admitted by evolution supporters that anything like a literal reading of Genesis 1 rules out evolutionary theory.  As Tim Keller wrote for Biologos: “To account for evolution we must see at least Genesis 1 as non-literal.”  I would alter that somewhat, since the issue really is not the absolute literalness of everything we read in Genesis.  Rather the question is whether or not Genesis 1 is a historical narrative that intends to set forth a sequence of events.  Evolution requires that Genesis 1 is teaching theology but not teaching history.  But is this an acceptable categorization of Genesis 1?

First, though, does an historical Genesis 1 rule out evolution?  The answer is Yes.  Consider Genesis 1:21, which records that God created species by means of direct, special creation: “God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.”  These “kinds” are species, which did not evolve from lower forms but were specially created by God.  This special creation is highlighted in the case of the highest creature, man: “God created man in his own image; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27).  If these verses are presenting a record of history, it is a history radically at odds with the history posed by evolutionary theory.

This raises the question as to the genre of Genesis 1.  Literary scholars teach the widely accepted view that different kinds of literature cue different reading expectations.  So what is the genre of Genesis 1?  According to those who support evolution, Genesis 1 functions as a poetic rather than historical genre.  The argument is that Genesis 1 employs highly stylized language and a repetitive structure.  Keller’s white paper argues that Genesis 1 is like the Song of Miriam in Exodus 15 or the Song of Deborah in Judges 5.  It corresponds to more historical chapters by presenting a poetic rendition that must not be taken as the history itself.  Just as Exodus 14 tells the history of the Red Sea crossing, followed by the Song of Miriam in Exodus 15, so does Genesis 1 relate to the more historically acceptable version of Genesis 2 (a subject that will be treated in a later article).  Given this poetic form, Genesis 1 may be ruled out as teaching historical events.

The problem with this view is this: 1) there is a recognizable form to Old Testament poetry and; 2) Genesis 1 is not written in this form.  You can see this by reading Genesis 1 and then reading the Song of Deborah.  

Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Judges 5:1-3 Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day: “That the leaders took the lead in Israel, that the people offered themselves willingly, bless the Lord!  “Hear, O kings; give ear, O princes; to the Lord I will sing; I will make melody to the Lord, the God of Israel.

These passages are not written in the same genre.  I would point out in passing, however, that while Judges 5 certainly is a poem, the history it presents is nonetheless true.  This observation challenges the idea that to label a chapter as poetry serves immediately to remove its historical value.  Judges 5:26 celebrates Jael slaying Sisera: “she struck Sisera; she crushed his head; she shattered and pierced his temple.”  That is pretty much what Judges 4:21 says happened.

While defending the historical potential of poetry, that subject is not germane to Genesis 1.  The reason for this is that the Bible’s first chapter has a different genre, namely, historical prose narrative.  Old Testament poetry is shaped by parallelism and repetition.  Consider Psalm 27:1: “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?  The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid.”  Hebrew poetic parallelism involves the second line interpreting or expanding the meaning of the first.  This is not what we see in the narrative of Genesis 1.

It takes great effort to deny that Genesis 1 fits the genre of historical narrative.  Here, we see a structure consisting of a series of waw consecutive verbs.  The waw is the Hebrew letter V, which means “and” when attached to the front of a verb.  When attached to a noun it is disjunctive  — it stops the narrative flow.  When it is consecutive, before a verb, the waw advances the narrative flow.  “This happened and then this happened and then this happened.”  This is what we find in Genesis 1: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good.  And God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen. 1:3-4). Given this construction, literary guides to the Bible commonly identify Genesis as “an anthology, or collection, of stories” in which “narrative is the primary form.” Therefore, just like so many other chapters in the Bible which contain divine wonders that the unbeliever will reject, Genesis sets itself forth as recording events from history. Christians are expected to read accounts like this and believe that what is recorded actually happened, however contrary to secularist expectations.

A challenge to this view comes from Jack Collins’ description of Genesis 1 as “exalted prose narrative.”  On the one hand, he admits “that we are dealing with prose narrative… [and] the making of truth claims about the world in which we live.” On the other hand, he says the chapter presents an “exalted” form of writing.  The reason for this is because of “the unique events described and the lack of other actors besides God” and also because of “the highly patterned way of telling it all.” By this latter point he means the structure of successive days and the morning/evening pattern.  Because of these features, Collins assets that “we must not impose a ‘literalistic’ hermeneutic on the text.” By this, he means believing that the events happened as the text says they did.  But why the exalted features overthrow the normal way of reading the text is not made evident.  Might the exalted nature of the narrative be a function of the event itself: God’s unique creation of all things?  Wouldn’t we expect an account of this to be “exalted” simply by virtue of the stupendous events?  And what other actors than God might there be in such an account?  

The reality is that the genre of Genesis 1 is the same as the genre of Genesis 2through 50: historical narrative.  Therefore the arguments used to remove the historicity of Genesis 1 must inevitably apply equally to the whole of Genesis, with all its teaching about God and man that is opposed to secularist dogma, including the Fall of Adam, Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel, and God’s covenant of salvation with Abraham.  All of these narratives are highly stylized accounts involving exalted and unusual themes, at least from our perspective.  

There is a reason, of course, for isolating Genesis 1 from the rest of the book.  Admittedly, it is more “exalted” a narrative than others – it is the creation account!  But Genesis 1 is also the chapter that most stands in the way of the theory of evolution, for which scholars are determined to find room by warning against “highly literalistic” readings – i.e. ones that take the narrative seriously as history.  And when Genesis 1has been neutralized, the same approach can be applied to other pesky narratives like Genesis 3 and the Fall of Adam.  After all, there can be no Adam when evolution has been accommodated accepted by our reading of Genesis 1.  So now the danger of a “highly literalistic” reading has advanced to chapter 3.  But, wait, the flood narrative cannot be taken seriously in light of today’s science and that narrative is highly structured, too.  It will not take too long before the entire book of Genesis is reduced to historical rubbish.

One of the grand motives, I believe, for accommodating evolution in Genesis 1 is so that evangelicals can stop arguing about science and start teaching about Jesus.  But do we fail to note that Jesus’ story begins in Genesis 1?  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…” (Jn. 1:1).  In fact, when the interpretive approach used to neutralize Genesis 1 as history is necessarily extended by evolution, then the reason for Jesus’ coming is lost?  After all, without a biblical Adam as the first man and covenant head of the human race, then what is the problem for which the Son of God came?  Here we see just how right Peter Enns is: evolution is not an add-on to the Bible, it is a replacement.

Joy… For A Time

Posted on by
Reply

This excerpt is adapted from Can I Be Sure I’m Saved? by R.C. Sproul. Download more free ebooks in the Crucial Questions series here.

Jesus addresses the question of who is and is not genuinely saved in His parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1–9). It is important to note the context of this famous parable. Just before it, someone says to Jesus, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You” (Matt. 12:47, NASB). But Jesus answers, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” (v. 48, NASB). Then, indicating His disciples, He says: “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (vv. 49–50, NASB). Jesus says that His true brother is the one who does the will of the Father, not one who simply makes a decision to follow Him.

We should always keep in mind that nobody forced Judas to become a disciple. Judas chose to follow Jesus; he made his own decision to enter the school of Jesus, and he stayed with our Lord during His earthly ministry for three years. Yet we are told that he was a devil (John 6:70). It wasn’t that Judas was genuinely converted and then fell out of grace and was lost; rather, although he was close to Jesus, he was never a converted man. That ought to give us pause as we consider the states of our own souls.

A little later in the book of Matthew, Jesus gives an explanation of His parable of the sower. It is one of the rare times in the Gospel accounts where we are given an explanation of a parable. That explanation is most helpful because this parable differs from normal parabolic instruction. Most parables have just one point. It is generally dangerous, therefore, to turn parables into allegories, which tend to have symbolic meanings sprinkled throughout the story. But the parable of the sower approaches the level of an allegory as Jesus makes several points of application.

Jesus begins His explanation by saying: “Hear then the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path” (Matt. 13:18–19). The first group He is talking about is represented by the seed that fell on the path. In antiquity, at planting time, a farmer sowed his seed first, then plowed the ground. But any seed that fell on a roadway or pathway was not plowed under. Lying on the hardened path, it had no way to take root, and was devoured by birds. Jesus likens the birds to Satan. Many people are like this seed. They hear the preaching of the gospel, but it makes no impact on them. It does not take root in their lives.

Jesus continues, “As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away” (vv. 20–21).

If you go to an evangelistic meeting or watch one on TV, you may see huge crowds thronging to the front of the church in response to the call of the gospel. In fact, I once saw a report about a massive international evangelistic campaign in which millions of people supposedly had made decisions for Christ. When I read that, I wondered how many of those decisions for Christ were true conversions and how many of them were spurious. People like what they hear at these events and can be emotionally moved to make a decision to follow Christ. However, it is an established fact that many of those who come forward at evangelistic meetings soon abandon their commitments altogether. Their spur-of-the-moment responses are often groundless.

I don’t want to be too harsh in my response to reports about the successes of evangelistic events. I recognize that all outreach ministries face the problem of measuring their effectiveness. Churches generally do it by reporting the number of members in their congregations and how much they have grown over a period of time. Evangelistic ministries often do it by reporting the number of people who come to the front, raise a hand, sign a card, or pray a prayer. These ministries want to have some kind of statistic to measure the response people are making.

But how does one measure a spiritual reality? Anyone who has been involved in evangelism knows that we cannot see the heart, so the next best thing is to count the number of decisions that people make. But Jesus warns us about that here in the parable of the sower when He says that many people hear the gospel with joy—but they don’t continue in the faith. This second type of seed falls on stony ground—ground that is so shallow the seed cannot put down roots, and as soon as the sun comes up, the seedlings begin to wither. The result is that they die away and never bear fruit. Jesus tells us that these people fall away because of the tribulations and persecutions that inevitably arise in the way of faith.”

Explaining the third type of seed, Jesus says, “As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful” (Matt. 13:22). This seed represents a category of people who also hear and receive the Word, but who are overwhelmed by the cares of this world. Like thorns, worldly cares “choke the word.

Lastly, Jesus says: “As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit” (Matt. 13:23a).

Clearly, then, there are many who respond to the message of the gospel with joy but ultimately do not continue in the faith. Not everyone who hears the Word of God is saved, and the same is true for many who respond to it initially. Those who are genuinely saved are those who prove themselves to be doers of the Word. When the seed takes root and grows, there is fruit.

John 8:31,32

Posted on by
Reply

As we continue to make our way through the Gospel of John, yesterday’s sermon was the second part of a two part series on the familiar verses of John 8:31,32.

I have to say that it has taken me decades to learn the content I was able to share and I trust they will be a blessing to you. Both sermons are now available to watch/listen to.

God bless,
John

Part 1: A Promise For True Disciples:

Part 2: And The Truth Will Set You Free: