Monthly Archives: April 2020

What is a Reformed Baptist Church? (2)

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Traever Guingrich, pastor of Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church, Argo, AL (original source – https://www.gracechapelrbc.com/about_whatisareformedbaptistchurch)

“Reformed Baptist” is a term not particularly well-known in evangelical circles. The name indicates both historical roots and distinct theological characteristics.

Historically, a Reformed Baptist identifies with a tradition that emerged directly from the Reformed Protestant movement. During the Reformation in 16th -17th century England there was a group of churchmen called the Puritans. The Puritans were believers who desired to see the church fully reform beyond any vestiges of Roman Catholicism or any other false teaching. There were three primary groups that made up the Puritans: Presbyterians, Independents, and Particular Baptists, which today are referred to as “Reformed Baptists.” They all shared common beliefs in the gospel and reformational doctrines, but the Baptists were set apart by a few beliefs. They believed in a church independent from state control that was governed congregationally and overseen in each local congregation by a group of elders. Also, they rejected the doctrine of paedobaptism (infant baptism). The summation of their beliefs were written down in the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689. Adhering to this historic reformed confession of faith is the primary distinctive of a Reformed Baptist. It shares themes and most of its language with the confessions of the other Puritans—the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians and the Savoy Declaration of the Independents, yet it seeks to correct the theological errors that persisted in each.

Theologically, there are several key characteristics that accompanying being a Reformed Baptist. Most simply, it means we are both Reformed and Baptist. We believe in the 5 Solas of the Reformation that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone to the glory of God alone. And that Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority for the faith and practice of the church.

Additionally, being Reformed means…

1. We are Calvinistic. We believe in the doctrines of grace.

Total Depravity (Man is spiritually dead and thus unable to turn to God in faith and repentance prior to being born again. Each man is a free agent but does not possess free will, because it is not within his nature to trust in Christ.)

Unconditional Election (God chose to save us of His own free will and not based on our foreseen faith or good works.)

Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption (Christ’s work to atone for our sins was effectual and objective and therefore was only accomplished for the elect, though all mankind benefits in some manner from His redemptive work for His church. He atoned for the sins of all men without distinction, but not all men without exception. He saved the whole world from their sins in that His elect come from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.)

Irresistible Grace (God regenerates us in order to make us willing followers of Christ and not vice versa. Grace will always be resisted until God choses to cause us to be born again, after which we joyfully comply with grace. In other words, regeneration precedes faith. The grace of regeneration does not require our acceptance, but rather creates it.)

Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints (All those whom God elects and regenerates are also caused to persevere in the faith by the work of the Holy Spirit. Though there are those that once proclaimed the faith but now reject it, they are understood to never have been born again (1 John 2:19). Jesus does not lose any of His sheep.)

2. We are confessional.

As a statement of faith and rule of practice we hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. We believe it to be subservient to Scripture. It is neither infallible nor inerrant like Scripture is. Yet, we believe it to be a healthy and accurate summation of the true Christian faith. Please see our preface to the confession here.

3. We are Covenantal or hold to Covenant Theology.

We believe the covenants in Scripture are the framework in which redemptive history transpired. We believe that before creation God made a Covenant of Redemption among the persons of the Trinity that formalized the work and role of each person in God’s decree to allow sin and to redeem a people for Himself. We believe Adam was under a Covenant of Works in the garden to obey and live. We believe the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants are not salvific in and of themselves, but provided the context and groundwork for Christ to enter into creation and merit salvation for fallen men. We believe the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace which is made with the true church in the New Testament. It is unbreakable and retroactive to Old Testament saints who received New Covenant benefits via the Old Covenant economy (the summation of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants). We believe the church is a reconstituted Israel with no racial or ethnic boundaries. All those with true saving faith have been saved by the work accomplished by Christ in the New Covenant. Though the promise of salvation by the Messiah was prevalent and progressively revealed in greater detail in the Old Covenant, no one has ever been saved by their obedience to the command “do this and live” that was operative in the Old Covenant context.

4. We practice the Regulative Principle of Worship.

We only implement into formal public worship the elements of worship which are explicitly prescribed in God’s Word. We do not believe that whatever is not explicitly condemned is allowable (i.e., the Normative Principle). Therefore, the church is limited to practicing only the elements of worship given to us— the public reading and preaching of Scripture, prayer, singing, and the two ordinances or sacraments of the New Covenant (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). We further believe that the Regulative Principle of Worship restricts baptism and the Lord’s Supper to professing believers that have given evidence of true conversion.

5. We believe in the Moral Law of God.

The Moral Law of God is based in God’s character and is therefore always true and applicable. In the context of God’s covenants there is additional Positive Law for each covenant that likewise must be obeyed at the time that each covenant is in place. The positive law for Adam in the Covenant of Works was to not eat of the fruit of a certain tree and to work and keep the garden. In the Abrahamic Covenant the positive law of circumcision was implemented. In the Mosaic covenant there were extensive ceremonial and civil positive laws added. In the Davidic Covenant there were positive laws for the kings and his subjects to adhere to. However, all those positive laws are abrogated in the New Covenant in which we are given new positive laws such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, evangelism, etc. Nevertheless, from the beginning of creation into eternity the Moral Law of God has been in place. It is known to all men by virtue of being made in the image and likeness of God (though men do indeed seek to suppress it). It is summarized in the Ten Commandments which are therefore still applicable for believers today. And it was further summarized by Jesus when He said the greatest commandments was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And the 2nd greatest commandment is the love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two commands.

Additionally, being Baptist means…

1. We practice credobaptism (the baptism of professing believers alone).

We only baptize those that give a credible profession faith and evidence that accompanies their sincerity. We also only baptize by the method of immersion to accurately capture the symbolism of putting the old man to death and rising again in Christ.

We do not practice infant baptism. We believe infant baptism is a distortion of biblical teaching that only began in isolated areas in the mid-3rd century. In addition to the historical data, credobaptism by immersion is confirmed by a correct reading of Scripture, a correct application of the Regulative Principle of Worship, a complete application of Reformed hermeneutics, and by correct Covenant Theology. Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper are fenced (restricted) by the same principle— to be given to professing believers only. Likewise membership in the church is only available to baptized professing believers. We recognize we differ from the majority of the Reformed tradition in this regard, but biblical doctrine has never been a matter of democracy or counting noses.

2. We are congregational.

There is no authoritative structure above the local church. Each local church is governed by a plurality of elders and deacons. However, it is the gathered assembly that elects its own elders and deacons and voices its decision on matters of worship, doctrine, and discipline. This means we are not part of any denomination.

While each congregation/local church is independent and autonomous, Reformed Baptists do associate with like-minded churches. Independency has never meant isolation. We work together with other Reformed Baptist churches by way of both formal and informal Associations. These associations do not exercise control or authority over individual churches, nor do they interfere with the affairs of their member churches. The local church is independent of external control and cannot and must not be subordinate to a higher central government.

While modern day Baptists are genealogically descended from the Particular Baptists, it would be inaccurate to refer to most of them as “Reformed Baptists.” They have largely lost their theological and confessional identities. Most Baptists today have drifted far afield from the faith and practice of their theological forefathers. In fact, they are for the most part unidentifiable with our Puritan roots. Reformed Baptists on the other hand seek to preserve the orthodoxy fought for and practiced by those that have gone before us in the Reformed, Puritan, Particular Baptist tradition.

What is a Reformed Baptist?

Posted on by
1

Article by Tom Hicks, Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.

(original source – https://founders.org/2017/03/30/what-is-a-reformed-baptist/)

What is it that makes a “Reformed Baptist” distinct from other kinds of Baptists and Reformed folks? Reformed Baptists grew out of the English Reformation, emerging from Independent paedobaptist churches in the 1640’s for some very specific theological reasons, and they held to a particular kind of theology. Here are some of the theological identity markers of Reformed Baptist churches.

1. The Regulative Principle of Worship. This distinctive is put first because it is one of the main reasons Calvinistic Baptists separated from the Independent paedobaptists. The Particular (or Reformed) Baptists come from Puritanism, which sought to reform the English church according to God’s Word, especially its worship. When that became impossible due to Laud’s authoritative opposition, the Puritans separated (or were removed) from the English church. Within the Independent wing of Puritan separation, some of them saw a need to apply the regulative principle of worship to infant baptism as well, considering this to be the consistent outworking of the common Puritan mindset. The earliest Baptists believed that the elements of public worship are limited to what Scripture commands. John 4:23 says, “True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (see also Matt 15:9). The revealed “truth” of Scripture limits the worship of God to what is prescribed in Scripture. The Second London Baptist Confession 22.1 says:

The acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

Because the Bible does not command infant baptism, early Baptists believed that infant baptism is forbidden in public worship, and the baptism of believers alone is to be practiced in worship. This regulative principle of worship limits the elements of public worship to the Word preached and read, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, prayer, the singing of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and whatever else the Scripture commands.

Many Baptists today have completely abandoned the regulative principle of worship in favor of entertainment-oriented worship, consumerism, individual preferences, emotionalism, and pragmatism. Such Baptists have abandoned the very principle that led to their initial emergence from paedobaptism. One wonders whether a church can depart from a doctrine necessary to the emergence of Baptists in their English context and still rightly identify as a “Baptist” church.

2. Covenant Theology. While Reformed paedobaptist churches sometimes insist that they alone are the heirs of true covenant theology, historic Reformed Baptists claimed to abandon the practice of infant baptism precisely because of the Bible’s covenant theology.

Reformed Baptists agree with Reformed paedobaptists that God made a covenant of works with Adam, which he broke and so brought condemnation on the whole human race (Rom 5:18). They also say that God mercifully made a covenant of grace with His elect people in Christ (Rom 5:18), which is progressively revealed in the Old Testament and formally established in the new covenant at the death of Christ (Heb 9:15-16). The only way anyone was saved under the old covenant was by virtue of this covenant of grace in Christ, such that there is only one gospel, or one saving promise, running through the Scriptures.

Baptist covenant theologians, however, believe they are more consistent than their paedobaptist brothers with respect to covenant theology’s own hermeneutic of New Testament priority. According to the New Testament, the Old Testament promise to “you and your seed” was ultimately made to Christ, the true seed (Gal 3:16). Abraham’s physical children were a type of Christ, but Christ Himself is the reality. The physical descendants were included in the old covenant, not because they are all children of the promise, but because God was preserving the line of promise, until Christ, the true seed, came. Now that Christ has come, there is no longer any reason to preserve a physical line. Rather, only those who believe in Jesus are sons of Abraham, true Israelites, members of the new covenant, and the church of the Lord Jesus (Gal 3:7). In both the Old and New Testaments, the “new covenant” is revealed to be a covenant of believers only, who are forgiven of their sins, and have God’s law written on their hearts (Heb 8:10-12).

Baptists today who adhere to dispensationalism believe that the physical offspring of Abraham are the rightful recipients of the promises of God to Abraham’s seed. But they have departed from their historic Baptist roots and from the hermeneutical vision of the organic unity of the Bible cast by their forefathers. Baptist theologian James Leo Garrett correctly notes that dispensationalism is an “incursion” into Baptist theology, which only emerged in the last one hundred fifty years or so. See James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon, GA: Mercer, 2009), 560-570.

3. Calvinism. Because Reformed Baptists held to the covenant theology (federalism) of the 17th century, they were all Calvinists. The theological covenants of the old federal theology undergirded the early Baptist expressions of their Calvinistic soteriology. When Adam broke the covenant of works, God cursed all human beings with totally depraved natures (Isa 24:5-6), making them unable and unwilling to come to Christ for salvation.

But God didn’t leave the human race to die in sin; rather, in eternity past, God unconditionally chose a definite number of people for salvation and formed a covenant of redemption with Christ about their salvation (Isa 53; 54:10; Lk 22:29). At the appointed time, Christ came into the world and obeyed the covenant of redemption, fulfilling the terms of the covenant of works that Adam broke. In the covenant of redemption, Jesus kept God’s law perfectly, died on the cross, atoned for the sins of His chosen people, and rose from the dead, having effectually secured salvation for them (Heb 9:12).

God made the covenant of grace with His elect people (Gen 3:15; Heb 9:15-16) in which He applies all the blessings of life merited by Christ in the covenant of redemption. The Holy Spirit mercifully unites God’s chosen people to Christ in the covenant of grace, giving them blessings of life purchased by Christ’s life and death. God irresistibly draws them to Himself in their effectual calling (Jn 6:37), gives them a living heart (Ezek 36:26), a living faith and repentance (Eph 2:8-9; Acts 11:18), a living verdict of justification (Rom 3:28), and a living and abiding holiness (1 Cor 1:30), causing them to persevere to the end (1 Cor 1:8). All of these life-blessings are the merits of Jesus Christ, purchased in the covenant of redemption, applied in the covenant of grace.

The doctrine of the covenants is the theological soil in which Calvinism grew among early Baptists. Calvinistic Baptists today need to recover the rich federal theology of their forefathers so that the doctrines of grace they’ve rediscovered will be preserved for future generations.

4. The Law of God. Reformed Baptists believe the 10 commandments are the summary of God’s moral law (Exod 20; Matt 5; Rom 2:14-22). They believe that unless we rightly understand the law, we cannot understand the gospel. The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ kept the law for our justification by living in perfect obedience to earn the law’s blessing of life and by dying a substitutionary death to pay the law’s penalty. But the gospel isn’t only a promise of justification. It’s also the good news that Christ promises graciously to give the Holy Spirit to His people to kill their lawlessness and to make them more and more lawful. Titus 2:14 says that Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, who are zealous for good works.”

The Second London Baptist Confession, 19.5 says:

The moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,(10) and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;(11) neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.(12)

10. Rom 13:8-10; Jas 2:8,10-12
11. Jas 2:10,11
12. Matt 5:17-19; Rom 3:31

Therefore, while justified believers are free from the law as a covenant of works to earn justification and eternal life (Rom 7:1-6), God gives them His law as a standard of conduct or rule of life in their sanctification (Rom 8:4, 7). God’s moral law, summarized in the 10 commandments (Rom 2:14-24; 13:8-10; Jas 2:8-11), including the Sabbath commandment (Mk 2:27; Heb 4:9-10), is an instrument of sanctification in the life of the believer. Believers rest in Christ for their total salvation. Christ takes their burdens of guilt and shame, and His people take upon themselves the yoke of His law, and they learn obedience from a humble and gentle Teacher. 1 John 5:3 says, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.”

Baptists who hold to new covenant theology, or progressive covenantalism, do not have the same view of the law as the dominant stream of their Baptist forebears.

5. Confessional. Most of the early Baptists, both in England and in America, held to the Second London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689. While certainly not all Calvinistic Baptists subscribed to this confession, it was the main influence among Baptists in England and America after its publication. This confession, based on the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) and the Savoy Declaration (Independent), was originally edited and published in 1677, but formally adopted by Baptist churches in 1689 after English persecution lifted.

Historic Reformed Baptists were thoroughgoing confessionalists. They were not bare “biblicists.” Biblicists deny words and doctrines not explicitly stated in Scripture, and they deny that the church’s historic teaching about the Bible has any secondary authority in biblical interpretation. The early Baptists, however, did not believe that individual church members or individual pastors should interpret the Bible divorced from the historic teaching of the church (Heb 13:7). They believed that the Bible alone is sufficient for doctrine and practice, but they also believed the Bible must be explained and read in light of the church’s interpretive tradition (1 Tim 3:15), which uses words other than the Bible (Acts 2:31 is one refutation of biblicism, since it explains Psalm 16 in words not used in that Psalm). Reformed Baptists believed that their theology was anchored in the church’s rich theological heritage and that it was a natural development of the doctrine of the church in light of the central insights of the Reformation (sola Scriptura: no baptizing infants; sola fide: only converts are God’s people).

Under the guise of upholding Sola Scriptura, many Christians today seek to read the Bible independently and come to their own private conclusions about what it means without consulting the church’s authorized teachers or the orthodox confessions of faith. But that’s not what Sola Scriptura historically meant. Scripture teaches that the church is the “pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). The church as a whole is charged with interpreting the Bible, and God has authorized teachers in the church throughout history. Therefore, while every individual Christian is responsible to understand Scripture for himself, no Christian should study the Bible without any consideration of what the great teachers of the past have taught about the Bible.

The majority of historic Reformed Baptists held to the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 because they believed it is a compendium of theology that best summarizes the teaching of Scripture in small compass.

Why Sin is Such an Issue

Posted on by
Reply

If I take a key out of my pocket and use it to scratch a rock found by the roadside, I have broken no law and I will not face any consequences.

If I go to an abandoned car dump site and take my key and scratch a trashed car there, people might say “hey, what are you doing?” but that’s about it…

If I go to a used car lot and use the key to scratch a used car, now I am guilty of a criminal offense.

But if I go to a Ferrari car lot and take the same key and scratch a brand new Ferrari, my punishment will now be WAY bigger – my guilt is intensified – and so is the punishment I will face.

Why?

Because of the value of the thing I sinned against… the value of the thing I scratched.

God is infinitely holy, infinitely valuable

There is no way to convey in human language the worth and value of this infinite God

Therefore any sin against an infinite God carries with it, infinite punishment.

And this is why, the value of Christ’s atonement for sinners on the cross is infinite.

  • Adapted from an illustration from the movie documentary “American Gospel – Christ Crucified”

Half of Pastors “Believe Jesus will Return in their Lifetime.”

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Gary DeMar: Original source: https://americanvision.org/22701/50-percent-of-pastors-believe-jesus-will-return-in-their-lifetime/

When will Christians learn? It’s no surprise that less than 25 percent of Christians have a biblical worldview. On Bible prophecy, it’s around five percent. That’s my estimation.

A new study has determined by a new LifeWay Research survey that a “majority of pastors say specific current events are a sign of the End Times and Jesus’ return.”

Of the poll of 1,000 evangelical pastors, 50 percent “believe Jesus will return in their lifetime.”

Pastors were asked if they “consider any of the following types of current events to be the ‘birth pains’ that Jesus was referring to when he was asked by his disciples when he would return,” a reference to Jesus’ prophecy found in Matthew 24 and the parallel accounts in Matthew 13 and Luke 21.

Just so you know, the Olivet Discourse is not describing events that will take place to some future generation. Jesus was describing what was going to happen to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. It was their generation that would not pass away until all the things He described took place.

Let’s state the obvious. There is nothing new about Christians believing they are living in what Hal Lindsey said was the “terminal generation,” the generation that was supposed to pass away before 1988 because of the same signs that are being touted today as proof that we are living in the final generation before one of the five rapture views takes place. When was Lindsey’s book published? In 1977, more than 40 years ago, seven years after The Late Great Planet Earth.

Here’s the breakdown of the signs and the percent of pastors who believe they are signs of Jesus’ near return:

  1. 83 percent, the “rise of false prophets and false teachings.”

There have always been false prophets and false teachings. John said so:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world (1 John 4:1–4).

There were false prophets in John’s day. There were antichrist’s in John’s day, evidence that it was the “last hour” (1 John 2:18).

There was false teaching during the time leading up to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Peter wrote the following:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep” (2 Peter 2:2–3).

Pastors need to read the Bible rather than the latest headlines, Facebook posts, and podcasts. A little exegesis goes a long way.

  • 81 percent, the “love of many believers growing cold” (Matt. 24:12).

Again, such a description is not unique to our day. Jesus is answering a question about when the temple would be destroyed (Matt. 24:1–3), an event that took place before their generation passed away (24:34). The word “believers” is not in the text, only the word “many.” Lawlessness (a word found in the passage) and love growing cold are related: There were problems with homosexuality (Rom. 1:26–31), incest (1 Cor. 5:1), prostitution (1 Cor. 6:15–16), and fornication (1 Cor. 5:1, 11; Rev. 2:20), and general unrighteousness (1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). Paul had warned the Ephesian elders that wolves would enter the church (Acts 20:29). He described to Timothy what was taking place in his day, the “last days” (Heb. 1:1–2) of the Old Covenant (2 Tim. 3:1–7) that was near to passing away (Heb. 8:13).

  • 79 percent, “traditional morals becoming less accepted.”

As mentioned in No. 2, lawlessness was a first-century problem. For example, homosexuality was an issue (Rom. 1:26–31). Paul describes the rejection of biblical morality that was prevalent:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9–11).

You can find something similar in 1 Timothy 1:6–11. Paul was not describing some end-time decline in morality. He was illustrating what was taking place in his day.

  • 78 percent, “wars and national conflicts.”

There have always been wars. Actually, there are fewer wars today than there were in the 20th century. “In Rome itself, four emperors came to a violent death in the short space of eighteen months. Were one to give account of all the disturbances that actually occurred within the Empire after Jesus’ death, he would be constrained to write a separate book.”

Darrell L. Bock writes, “Matthew 24:6 appears to suggest that these calamities are in the near future by noting that the disciples ‘are about’ μελλήσετε (mellēsete) to hear of wars and rumors of wars.” [1]

The Annals of Tacitus, covering the historical period from AD 14 to the death of Nero in AD 68, describes the time with phrases such as “disturbances in Germany,” “commotions in Africa,” “commotions in Thrace,” “insurrections in Gaul,” “intrigues among the Parthians,” “the war in Britain,” and “the war in Armenia.” Wars were fought from one end of the Roman Empire to the other in the days of the apostles.

  • 76 percent, “earthquakes and other natural disasters.”

There have always been earthquakes and natural disasters. There were earthquakes in Jesus’ day and the days of the early church. A great earthquake occurred at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion (Matt. 27:54) and another one at His resurrection (28:2). The Bible records “a great earthquake” that shook “the foundations of the prison house” that resulted in the release of Paul and Silas and the other prisoners (Acts 16:26). According to historical accounts, earthquakes were common for that time period, as they are for our time and all time. There were earthquakes in Crete, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colossae, Campania, Rome, and Judea. The cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum were almost destroyed by an earthquake in AD 62, seventeen years before the cities were wiped off the face of the earth by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius.

  • 75 percent, the “number of people abandoning their Christian faith.”

John writes, “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:18–19). Paul notes that “all” had deserted him (2 Tim. 4:16).

Consider how bankrupt Christianity was in the 16th century and earlier. It was transformed by the Reformation.

  • 70 percent, famines.

There have always been famines, like there have always been wars, earthquakes, false teachers, false prophets, tribulation, and lawlessness. Jesus is describing events leading up to His judgment coming against Jerusalem that would take place before their generation passed away. This included famines: “Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. [2] And this took place in the reign of Claudius” (Acts 11:27–28).

Christians have been applying the same prophetic passages to current events for nearly 2000 years with the same results. Instead of being preoccupied and seduced with claims of some near apocalyptic event, Christians should be about kingdom work. It’s what Paul was doing in the last years of his life:

And he stayed two full years in his own rented quarters and was welcoming all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered (Acts 20:30–31).

Go and do likewise.

  1. Darrell L. Bock, Luke: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 2:1666.) “Are about to hear” is not an indicator of events in the distant future.[↩]
  2. The Greek word is oikoumenē and refers to the political boundaries of the Roman Empire at that time. See Matthew 24:14, Luke 2:1, and Acts 17:6 where the same word is used.[↩]

Counterfeit Communion

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Jeffrey Johnson (source – https://founders.org/2020/04/07/counterfeit-communion/)

Some Christians believe the sacraments function like magic wands that automatically bring about (ex opere operato) the things that they signify. For these Christians, salvation is bestowed and maintained by the sacraments. Others practically believe that the sacraments are meaningless rituals. If these Christians happen to miss the church’s yearly business meeting and the Lord’s Supper that follows, no problem. They will hopefully be at the next year’s business meeting to receive the Lord’s Supper.

Not Ex Opere Operato

Moses and Paul made it clear that circumcision of the Old Covenant did not bring about that which it signified by the act performed (ex opere operato). Moses made a distinction between those who were only circumcised in the flesh and those circumcised in the heart by the Spirit (see Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16, 30:6). The prophet Jeremiah likewise made this distinction (see Jer. 4:4). The apostle Paul explained it this way: “A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God.” (Rom. 2:28-29).

Circumcision represented inward purification and union with God’s holy people. But, just because someone was circumcised in the flesh did not mean they were circumcised in their hearts. Just because the physical children of Abraham received the outward rite does not mean they enjoyed the inward reality. Physical circumcision did not produce spiritual circumcision. Heart circumcision only takes place by the operation of the Holy Spirit: “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3). In the same way, being baptized and observing the Lord’s Supper do not automatically bestow saving grace on unbelievers. Many professing Christians will find out on the Day of Judgment that they never were a part of God’s people even though they regularly partook of the ordinances of the church (Matt. 7:23).

Moreover, the power of salvation is the gospel (Rom. 1:16). It is the Word of God that is sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). It is the Word of God that brings conviction, regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23) and sanctification (John 17:17; 2 Thess. 2:13). Without the truth of God’s Word, there is no salvation. Without the truth, there is no saving grace. Yet, no one believes that the truth automatically saves everyone who hears it (2 Cor. 4:3). The word of God is only effectual unto salvation when the Holy Spirit chooses to use it to illuminate one’s mind and heart (John 1:12). For flesh and blood cannot open anyone’s eyes to the truth (Matt. 16:17). It doesn’t take a good salesman, but the Holy Spirit to impart saving faith. And if the Bible (which is the power of God unto salvation) does not impart saving faith automatically, why would we expect the sacraments to do so?

Not Merely a Sign

This doesn’t mean, however, that the Spirit doesn’t utilize means. The Spirit operates in, by, and through the Word of God. The Spirit never functions independently of the Word of God. The Spirit inspired the written Word of God, and the Spirit illuminates the written Word of God. For faith does not come through osmosis but through hearing of the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Because no aspect of the Christian life operates without faith, no aspect of the Christian life operates without the spiritual illumination of the Word of God.

And since the Spirit does not directly communicate the written Word to His people, earthy (earthly?) means are needed to communicate the Word of God. The invisible Spirit has chosen to use visible means as instruments to carry out His work. The Spirit used holy men to pen the Word; and the Spirit continues to use ambassadors to preach the Word. He has chosen earthen and broken vessels to reveal the glory of God (2 Cor. 4:7). Rather than directly coming to people through some ineffable and mystical experience, the Spirit has chosen to use the foolishness of preaching to save and sanctify His people (1 Cor. 1:21).

Yet preaching is not the only means that God uses to communicate the Word of God. According to the Spirit-inspired Scripture, there are five ordinary means of grace that God has given to the church to transmit the truth of Scripture: (1.) preaching/teaching, (2.) congregational singing, (3.) public reading of the Word, (4.)  spiritual fellowship, and (5.) the sacraments. These five ordinary things function as channels of grace because they are God’s prescribed method of communicating the written Word of God to people. We preach the Word; we sing the Word; we read the Word; we fellowship around the Word; and, we see the Word in the ordinances. These are the means of grace because they are the prescribed method God has given the church to proclaim His Word.

Because no aspect of the Christian life operates without faith, no aspect of the Christian life operates without the spiritual illumination of the Word of God.

With this in mind, the sacraments, as physical signs of spiritual realities, are more than empty signs. They are means of grace that communicate divine truth. Though they don’t function ex opere operato, they are part of God’s ordained method in which faith and grace come. By seeing truth illustrated in the ordinances, the saints are inwardly encouraged and strengthen by divine grace. And though they don’t operate ex opere operato, they are designed to physically carryout the spiritually realities which they signify. For instance, though water baptism does not save, water baptism does function as one’s official profession of faith. And though the Lord’s Supper does not (in-and-of-itself) create fellowship with Christ and the saints, there is real spiritual fellowship with Christ and the saints when the church observes the Lord’s Supper together. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t just represent communion, it displays and facilitates communion. In this way, the sacraments are not empty or bare signs.

The Efficacy of the Sacraments Is Tied to Their Meaning  

The sacraments, unlike the other ordinary means of graces, uniquely function as visible illustrations. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words, but only if the meaning of the picture is understood by those who see it. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pointless if their significance and meaning are unclear. Without truth, symbols are meaningless and empty. Yet, when symbolscommunicate truth, they become effective. In the same way, when the symbols/elements of the sacraments are understood, they became effective means of divine communication and grace. Consequently, the truths signified in the sacraments are paramount to their efficacy. Because there is no grace without truth, the sacraments are only as effective as they properly illustrate the truth.

A Physical Sign that Communicates More Than Just Spiritual Realities

It is easy to see how the sacraments communicate spiritual realities. The Lord’s supper, for instance, communicates the Lord’s death, the Lord’s return, and the saint’s collective communion with Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 11:17-26). These are spiritual blessings are only received and enjoyed by faith. For this reason, the signs are not the same thing as that which are signified by the signs.

Yet, spiritual realities were never meant to be divorced from physical realities. For instance, Christ physically died. Christ will physically return. We will physically eat food and have face-to-face communion with Christ in heaven at the great wedding supper (what a day that will be!). One day, our physical bodies will be resurrected and glorified; and one day the earth will be made new (2 Pet. 3:13). Then, when the heavens and the earth are made one, the physical and spiritual realities will be perfectly united (Eph. 1:10).

And because the resurrected Christ has redeemed both our souls and our bodies, the ordinances of the church are designed to speak of both physical and spiritual realities obtained by Christ. These physical signs (baptism and the Lord’s supper), along with their physical elements (water, wine, and bread), signify that our salvation is more than just something spiritual. The sacraments (with their physical elements) communicate not only our spiritual inheritance (such as regeneration and spiritual fellowship), they communicate our physical inheritance (such as the future resurrection of our bodies and our local fellowship with the saints). Thus, we don’t need to overly emphasize the spiritual realities of the Lord’s Supper to the point that we overshadow the physical realities of the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper speaks of our present (physical and spiritual) blessings and our future (physical and spiritual) blessings (the already, but not yet) that we have inherited in death of Jesus Christ.

The Lord’s Supper Represents Spiritual and Physical Communion

Consequently, the Lord’s supper, in particular, represents both our spiritual communion in Christ Jesus and our physical communion with the local church. It is hard for me to grasp Martin Luther’s insistence that the bread of the Lord’s super is the physical body of Jesus Christ (hoc est corpus meum). Not only does that cause the humanity and the material body of Christ to take on divine attributes (which is wrong), it implies that physical union with Christ is the cause of our spiritual union with Christ (which is also wrong). We are not united to the invisible Christ through joining a local church. We are not united to the invisible Christ by eating and drinking the physical body and blood of Jesus. It is not through flesh and blood that we enter into the kingdom of God. Rather, it is by faith alone that we are united to Christ. This union with Christ, moreover, is spiritual and invisible. Therefore, it’s not necessary that the elements of the Lord’s Supper be the actual blood and body of Christ. We don’t have to see or touch or taste the physical body of Christ to have spiritual union Christ in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6).

Yet, our spiritual union with Christ in heaven does produce a physical union with the body of Christ on earth. In that, our spiritual union with Christ is not separated from our physical union with the church. The evidence of being united to Christ is our eager desire to be united to a local church through water baptism (Acts. 2:41-42). This is why, local churches are the visible manifestation on earth of the invisible and universal church in heaven.

The Lord’s supper represents both our spiritual communion in Christ Jesus and our physical communion with the local church.

And thus, the ordinances of the church that depict spiritual truth rightly include physical and tangible elements that can be discerned with the empirical senses. These physical elements (water, bread, and wine) symbolize not only the physical and visible nature of the eternal state of glory, but also the physical and visible nature of the local church. The local church is not a mystical gathering. Its fellowship is not merely spiritual. The local church gathers together in a physical location and has personal and face-to-face communion together. A common meal eaten together by the church signifies not only the church’s spiritual communion with Christ, it signifies its physical communion with one another.

The Lord’s Supper Is Meaningless Outside the Gathered Assembly

Because the Lord’s Supper is a physical sign that includes physical elements (bread and wine) that represents spiritual and physical realities, it matters how the ordinances are physically observed by the church. That is, the church is not free to change the meaning of the Lord’s supper. The church is not free to say the bread and wine represents something else than the body and blood of Christ. The church is not free to do away with the bread and wine. And the church is not free to observe the Lord’s Supper outside of their assembled gatherings—and this for three reasons:

  1. The Lord’s Supper Was Given to the Church to Carry Out in Their Gathered Assemblies

The Lord’s Supper is not a personal or private ordinance. It doesn’t signify a Christian’s personal communion with God. Communion ceases to have meaning when it’s done in isolation. Christians partaking of the ordinance by themselves (or a family partaking of communion at home) is a gross misrepresentation of its meaning. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t just symbolize Christ’s death and anticipates His return, it symbolizes the church’s communion together in Christ. It was for this reason that Paul instructed the church of Corinth to wait until the whole assembly is gathered together before they observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). Eating the Lord’s Supper as a common meal together as a church body was Paul’s instruction. Paul explains the importance of observing the Lord’s Supper as a common meal: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17). The importance of the Lord’s Supper being a common meal is the symbolism behind it. Just as the bread represents Christ’s body and the wine represents Christ’s blood, the common meal (one bread and one cup) represents the oneness and mutual fellowship of the body of Christ. Individuals and families partaking of the Lord’s Supper at home, therefore, are misrepresenting the meaning of the Lord’s supper.

  1. Unassembled Partaking of the Lord’s Supper Is Not Discerning the Lord’s Body

The Lord’s Supper is holy. It is a serious thing to mishandle it. Many of the Corinthians had fallen ill and died because of their misuse of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:29-30). Why were their actions worthy of death? They simply observed the Lord’s Supper without discerning the Lord’s body? That is, they were partaking of the Lord’s Supper in small groups while being unconcerned with the rest of the assembly. They were fragmenting the assembly by gathering into small clusters. They were eating and drinking while other church members were doing without (1 Cor. 11:18-22). They failed to see that the Lord’s Supper was a common meal for everyone in the church. The Lord’s Supper is designed to symbolize and facilitate communion among the saints. Yet, the Corinthians were misrepresenting its significance by eating private meals in fragmented groups. And this was worthy of death because it turned the Lord’s Supper into a lie.

If we want to eat a meal together as a family or to invite a few Christians over for dinner that’s fine. But don’t call such a dinner the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:22). Paul says we have homes to enjoy dinner parties, but the Lord’s Supper is reserved for “when we come together as a church” (1 Cor. 1:18). “So then,” as Paul says, “my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33-34). We are to wait until the whole church is assembled before partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In other words, we are to discern the Lord’s body. By discerning the Lord’s body, we are to examine ourselves. We are to not only make sure our hearts are right with God; we are to make sure our hearts are right with the saints. If a husband can’t pray without being right with his wife (1 Pet. 3:7), and if believers can’t worship God without being in good standing his neighbor (Matt. 5:24), then individual church members cannot worship and properly partake of the Lord’s Supper without being in good fellowship with the saints. And like the Corinthians, if we partake of the Lord’s Supper without being in good standing with Christ and His church, we turn the truth of the ordinance into a falsehood. And when the church partakes of the Lord’s Supper as a unified body it demonstrates its collective unity in Christ Jesus.

In short, discerning the Lord’s body means that we are not free to partake of the Lord’s Supper outside of physical fellowship and communion of our local church. The church breaking into smaller groups and partaking of the Lord’s supper, or families taking the Lord’s Supper at home, is a misrepresentation of the meaning of the Lord’s supper.

  1. Without the Gathered Assembly, the Lord’s Supper Becomes a Meaningless Sign

Again, the sacraments represent both spiritual and physical realities. The Lord’s supper, for instance, doesn’t just signify the physical feast that God’s people will one day enjoy together with Christ in heaven, it also signifies (and facilities) the present communion that church members already enjoy with one another in Christ Jesus. And if this is a vital part of the significance, purpose, and efficacy of the Lord’s supper, then the church is not free to alter its meaning and purpose by observing it outside of its gather assemblies. Lies, for instance, are never (directly) used by the Spirit to bestow faith and grace. Lies and error are the instruments of Satan. If the Lord’s Supper is going to function as a means of grace, its symbolism must be demonstrated by the manner its carried out. The truths that the Lord’s Supper is designed to display must be communicated in both the elements and mode of its administration. What does the body represent? What does the wine represent? What does the one bread and one cup represent? It is only when we know the answers to these questions will the Lord’s Supper be an effectual means of grace. And if we add additional elements to the Lord’s Supper other than bread and wine, then we are adding to the Word of God. And if we alter how we observed the Lord’s supper, we are altering its meaning. And, consequently, if we alter its meaning, we are undermining its efficacy. For example, as a Baptist, I don’t see how sprinkling infants properly signifies a believer’s death and resurrection in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:3-4). How does sprinkling communicate being buried (immersed) into Christ? And likewise, I don’t see how the Lord’s Supper can properly signify the church’s spiritual and physical communion together if it is observed outside of the assembly of the saints. In short, once we alter the elements or mode of the Lord’s supper, we are altering its meaning and efficacy.

When the church partakes of the Lord’s Supper as a unified body it demonstrates its collective unity in Christ Jesus.

Conclusion

The Lord’s Supper is not designed to be a virtual meal that assimilates actual communion and fellowship with the body of Christ. Fellowship and communion with the saints requires the local church assembling together. Anything less than a common meal partaken together in the spiritual presence of Christ and the physical presence of the saints is not the real thing. Being away from our gathered assemblies and away from Lord’s Supper should be difficult. During this time, we should grow in our appreciation of our gathered worship services and long to observe the Lord’s Supper with the assembled church. Let’s not seek to minimize our exile from one another by creating a cheap and meaningless and ineffectual substitute.