On the Right Hand and the Left!

In recent posts and comments on this blog, it is evident that many Reformed Baptists are seeing the need to look for what is best in our brethren who differ from us on certain secondary issues.   In our attempts to avoid an unkind judgmental attitude and an ecclesiastical pride, we must nonetheless hold fast to truth and judge righteous judgment.   I would argue that the fundamental issue of being truly faithful is not the doctrines of grace, and that the primary token of God’s favor and blessing is not outward success. 

There are a growing number of men who embrace the doctrines of grace and who are successful (in terms of growing churches and indeed conversions) who nonetheless convey these precious truths in ways that are disturbing in their content and tone.  When these preachers and teachers invoke sexually crude and worldly humor into their sermons, we cannot bring ourselves to be horrified, because after all, they preach the doctrines of  grace and have a lot of people going to their churches (more than you do, pal!).   I have heard this type of ministry defended by using the analogy of Martin Luther hammering the 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg.  Luther, it is said, held the theses with his left hand and hammered with his right-we ought to be more concerned with the left hand of truth, than with the right hand which drives it.

My question for us to ponder, my friends, is this: Is the right hand which drives truth truly a matter of indifference or at least of lesser importance than the truth which is declared?   A careful study of the ministry of the Apostle Paul will show that it was his manner of  life and his manner of  delivering truth, as much as the truth itself that was of great importance.  He writes to the Thessalonians, 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6    ”For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.  And you became followers of us and of the Lord…”

He could say to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:10   ”But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance.”  In urging Titus to have a faithful ministry in regard to content, he also exhorted him to back it up with his manner of  life,  Titus 2:7-8 ,   “In all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility,   sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you.”

Brothers, let us rejoice when Christ is preached, when sinners are converted, and when truth is propagated, but let us also drive in that truth with reverent hands and the hammer of a life integrity!

Jim Savastio

I AM IRON MAN

Every age has its mythological heroes.  Beings with extraordinary abilities and powers that enable them to live a life that is larger than the life of us mere mortals who have to struggle simply to have bread on the table at the end of the day.  Their tales, crafted by mostly unknown authors, serve to inspire, encourage, and at times, hold us in suspense wondering what their outcome will be.

The heroes of my youth have been showing up on the big screen in the past few years with larger than life productions and stories. With every new movie, memories of the short days of my childhood return like a bright summer Saturday afternoon that sadly ends too soon.

I still have heroes that strengthen my heart and help me make sense of a world filled with a fierce struggle between good and evil.  Now however, it is not the two dimensional fictional characters in the pages of comic books, but real men and women throughout time.

In the Third century, the darkness of the Gnostics and their perversion of the gospel were gaining ground.  A teenage boy who had the faith and the conviction of the message of Christ crucified, encouraged his beloved father to remain faithful in the face of persecution. So great was this young man’s faith, his mother had to hide his clothes to prevent him from following his father into a premature martyrdom!

As he grew into manhood, his robust faith did not wane but grew strong even as he began his studies of the Greek philosophers.  With his mind honed and disciplined by his studies, he began to write and teach whoever desired to learn the Christian message contained in Holy Writ.  Some think that it was at this time this man of heroic faith made a decision that he would later regret.  In the light of recent scandals involving pastors who are whoremongers and priests who molest children, a thoughtful mind could easily admire this man’s legendary preemptive self-mutilation.

Those familiar with the history of the Christian church know that I am speaking of the Eastern Church father from the Third century: Origen.  He was a man of great character and gift.

Origen’s thought and work would contribute to later Nicene Orthodoxy.  He would give to the Church the first systematic theology.  We also find him developing an idea that is not far from the Reformed hermeneutic principle call the analogia fidei (see 2LBC 1.9).  The most outstanding aspect of Origen’s work however, is that it is saturated with Scripture.

Though all these are admirable traits of a Christian intellectual, it is Origen’s commitment to Christ and His people, even in the face of persecution, that inspires me.  It is reported that as many of his students were led away to face execution for their faith, he would follow along and encourage them to remain faithful to the Lord Jesus.  He himself would be attacked by soldiers and angry mobs and needed to be hidden for his own safety!

One writer reports that when Origen was an old man, “he was arrested, incarcerated and cruelly tortured in an effort to force a recantation.  But a lifetime of ascetic training supported his faith, and neither stretching on the rack nor threats of fire could induce Origen to renounce it.”[1]

In his days, he was called by the nickname Adamantius, translated this means unbreakable or as we would say it, he was an Iron Man!

Even now, there are men and women throughout the world who I esteem as my heroes.  They have no body armor or super powers to protect and give them aid.  They are usually poor and plain people of the earth.  Their bodies are often beaten, bruised, and burned for their convictions. Yet they are unbending and unyielding in their faith in the One who, although He was God incarnate, was broken for us, even Jesus our Savior.

David Charles

Providence Reformed Baptist Church

Toledo, Ohio

 

---

 

 [1] The History of Christian thought. Jonathan Hill pg. 48

Jesus Christ the Lone Refuge

In Noah’s day, the fountains of the earth burst open, and the windows of heaven poured down rain so that the water level on the earth rose higher and higher.  Desperate people may have climbed and huddled together on certain mountain plateaus in hopes of finding a safe refuge, but were eventually drowned, as even the highest peaks “under the heavens” were submerged under water (Genesis 8:19-20).  The earth was a ball of water.  The lone place of refuge was the ark built by Noah.

Noah’s ark is a forerunner type or shadowy preview of God’s only son, Jesus Christ, whose Person and cross-work provide the lone place of refuge for sinners in the coming flood of God’s wrath against sin on judgment day (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Peter told the Sanhedrin, the leaders of the first century Jews, that their rejection of Jesus as Messiah would result in the eternal punishment of their souls.  Regarding Jesus Christ the Nazarene, Peter said, “There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).  Jesus Himself taught the same: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).  Paul wrote, “There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

The Bible is clear.  There is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ.  Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all non-Christian religions deceitfully send poor souls up to mountain plateaus that are doomed to drown under the judgment day wrath of God.  This is why we must lovingly warn people of the danger of false religions, and kindly tell people of the wonderful gospel of salvation in Christ alone.

However, this clear teaching of the bible is not popular in today’s politically correct climate.  Even many professing Christians have conformed to the world’s deception, believing that Christianity is not the only way, that there are other ways to becoming right with God apart from Christ.  A movie entitled “At Play in the Fields of the Lord” depicts a Christian missionary in the Amazon rain forest being confronted by a displaced native Amazonian who says: “If the Lord made Indians the way they are, who are you people to make them different?”  In other words, “Who are you to tell us that your Christian way is the right way and only way?!”

We hear this same complaint at secular universities and even liberal “Christian” colleges.  Professors teach students that attempting to convert people is considered intolerant and arrogant, because it is standing in judgment over their unique experience and culture.  How dare Christians claim that their opinions are universally and objectively true?

Jim Leffel writes in his Christian Witness in a Pluralistic Age: “Christian exclusivism, the position that Christianity is the final word on matters of ultimate truth, is not ‘politically correct.’  Sometimes professing faith in Christ, in higher education, is tantamount to admitting that you’re a racist or a sexist.  Most of the time though it’s met with the mantra-like refrain, ‘I’m glad you’ve found something that works for you, but don’t impose your beliefs on me.’”

Such false teaching, which has crept into many books and churches, is leading people by the millions up non-Christian religious mountains, where they’re doomed to be drowned in God’s judgment day wrath against their sins.  Mercy and forgiveness is found only in Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Mark Chanski

How to Profit from Preaching

1. We must come to the preaching of the Word of God with a heartfelt desire to hear it. There must be urgency and expectancy. When the Psalmist says “How sweet are your words to my taste, yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth” (Ps. 119:103), he expresses the reality that ought to be present in our minds every time we come to hear or read the Word. The saint recognizes the glory and goodness inherent in the Word, and desires it.

2.  We must recognize what a great privilege we have, and take advantage of it. Peter put it this way to all of his readers: “As newborn babies, desire the pure milk of the Word, that you may grow by it, if you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.” Those who know the kindness of the Lord are instructed to be like babies-to long for their nourishment which is found in the Word of God. When a preacher faithfully expounds the text of Scripture, he provides God’s people with the necessary sustenance for their spiritual lives. Oh that our people would learn to cherish the preached word!

3. We must pay close attention to the Word of God. Luke 19:48 is interesting. Luke says of the people who listened to Jesus that they ‘were very attentive to hear Him.’ The Gospel-writer uses a figurative verb. When used literally, it carries the sense ‘to suspend something’. When used metaphorically, it means to pay close attention-to hang onto someone’s words. It’s almost as if he said that the took their ears and hung them on his lips in order to hear what Jesus said! How often do preachers in the Bible call their audiences to ‘Listen!’? He who has an ear to hear, let him hear!!!!!

4. We must keep what we have heard and put it into practice. James 1:22-25 says it all: “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.” (NKJV)

Jim Renihan

More can be found at http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org

 

“Towards a Catholic Christianity” Part 5

Part 5: Some Biblical Guidelines for Expressing Catholicity (cont.)

In our previous post we looked at two guidelines that should facilitate to some degree the cultivation and realization of the visible Christian unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. In this final post, I’ll offer two more guidelines that should promote this goal in a way that does not compromise our commitment to the truth of God’s word.

Overemphasizing Doctrinal Distinctives While Overlooking Doctrinal Agreement

Sometimes it’s good and necessary to emphasize our doctrinal distinctives. For example, when people ask what makes our church unique from other Christian churches or when we’re preparing potential members for membership or when we’re cautioning our present members against doctrinal aberrations, we will have to introduce and explicate our Reformed Baptist distinctives. It’s possible, however, to so emphasize what makes us different from other churches across town that we fail to give proper weight to what makes us like other churches across town. We can appear more zealous to convert other Christians to our distinctives than to convert sinners to Jesus. We can give the impression, perhaps unintentionally, that we’re more concerned to propagate the 1689 than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don’t believe that was the driving concern behind the framers of our Confession. Our Baptist forefathers borrowed most of our Confession from the confessions of other denominations. They simply took the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith and the Congregational Savoy Declaration and made a few modifications. And their purpose was not to emphasize their distinctiveness but rather to highlight their likeness to these other communions. In effect they were saying, “Except for a few distinctives, we are just like you.” That’s the disposition we ought to have towards like-minded churches. 

Brothers, let us have the disposition of the great evangelist George Whitefield. Once, as Whitefield was preaching in Philadelphia, he raised his eyes towards heaven and cried:

 ”Father Abraham, whom do you have in heaven?  Any Episcopalians?”

“No!”

“Any Presbyterians?”

“No!” 

“Have you any Independents or Baptists?”

“No!”

“Have you any Methodists there?”

“No!  No!  No!”

“Then whom have you there?”

“We don’t know those names here. All who are here are Christians-believers in Christ-those who have overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony.”

“O, if this is the case,” said Whitefield, “then God help me, God help us all, to forget party names and to be Christians in deed and truth!” 

We do well to imitate Whitefield in this respect. Let us be evangelical Christians first. Let us be reformed evangelical Christians second. And let us be Reformed Baptist evangelical Christians third. 

Practical Steps to Cultivate and Manifest Christian Unity

It’s not enough to agree in principle. We must endeavor to take some practical steps to implement the truth of Christian unity. Here are some suggestions:

At the very least, acknowledge and pray for all true churches of Christ. We should consider including a category on our Midweek Prayer service outline that reads, “Revival and reformation among all true churches of Christ.” And when we pray that prayer, we shouldn’t just think of Reformed Baptist churches. We should think of evangelical Presbyterian churches, Bible churches, Southern Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, Pentecostal churches, and even Arminian churches.  Wherever the true gospel is still preached-be it ever so faintly-there we have a true church that needs our prayers. This is the least we can do, and for some of these churches, it will probably be all that we can do at this time. But with others, we can do more. 

Encourage appropriate levels of Christian fellowship on a personal and corporate level when appropriate and possible. Ask the pastor of the church across the street or down the block out to lunch. Cultivate a friendship with the Presbyterian or Pentecostal family whose child is on your son’s baseball team. Attend conferences sponsored by other Bible-believing churches when possible. And when appropriate, apprise your people of such opportunities. Perhaps the day will come when you can join with one of these other churches and have a 4^th of July or Labor Day picnic together. Even better than that-perhaps the day will come when your church and one or two other churches in town could have a combined communion service.  Can you imagine two or three or four churches all gathered together on a Lord’s Day demonstrating Christian unity at the Lord’s Table! That time may not be now. But I hope that the future possibility of such a day is appealing to you. (And may I add, I personally don’t believe those churches would have to embrace the 1689 before that could happen.)

Cooperate with other brethren and churches in causes common to both when appropriate and possible. I’m also glad when I occasionally see some non-Reformed Baptist ministers speaking at our Reformed Baptist Family Conferences. I like what R. C. Sproul does in his Ligonier Conferences. He usually picks a theme or topic that’s conservative and relevant to the church but that’s denominationally broad. One year the theme was, “Turning the World Upside Down,” and he invited speakers like John MacArthur (dispensationalist), Sinclair Ferguson (Presbyterian), Albert Martin (Reformed Baptist), and John Piper (non-cessationist). All these men are evangelical and generally reformed in their view of salvation. But they have their own distinctives. Nevertheless, those distinctives did not keep them from working together for the broader cause of the gospel. The “Together for the Gospel” conferences appear to be another laudable effort to promote unity across denominational lines.

I close with the words of that great Anglican bishop and man of God, J. C. Ryle.  Commenting on Christ’s high-priestly prayer for unity among His disciples, Ryle writes:

 ”Let the recollections of this part of Christ’s prayer abide in our minds, and exercise a constant influence on our behavior as Christians. Let no man think lightly, as some men seem to do, of schism, or count it a small thing to multiply sects, parties, and denominations. These very things, we may depend, only help the devil and damage the cause of Christ. ‘If it be possible, as much as lieth in us, let us live peaceably with all men’ (Rom. 12:18). Let us bear much, concede much, and put up with much, before we plunge into secessions and separations. They are movements in which there is often much false fire. Let rabid zealots who delight in sect-making and party-forming, rail at us and denounce us if they please. We need not mind them. So long as we have Christ and a good conscience, let us patiently hold on our way, follow the things that make for peace, and strive to promote unity. It was not for nothing that our Lord prayed so fervently that His people might be ‘one.’” (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, 4:443-44).

Robert Gonzales, Pastor
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church

The Sabbath-Enjoying the Gift of the Lord’s Day

 

 

 

 

 

A wonderful message by Alistair Begg concerning the benefits and joy of the Lord’s Day.

Listen Now

 

Dog Holiness

It is quite popular in many circles to perceive of holiness in outward terms only.  With this view we can tell the worldly person immediately.   If holiness consists in part, in a rejection of worldliness, then true holiness is conveyed through a host of things that we do NOT do.  The holiest people don’t have televisions, never go to movies, don’t listen to modern music, don’t drink, don’t dance, don’t smoke, and don’t chew.   There is a problem with having a view of holiness that merely focuses upon outward elements.  By the typical fundamentalist view of holiness, Amish people and even many Muslims can lay claim to holiness and in fact, have attained a superior holiness.  In point of fact, my dog (a wonderful fellow to be sure) has attained an even great degree of holiness.  He has never smoked, he never watches television, has never darkened the door of a movie theater, he does not walk around with headphones zoning out with an MP3 player.    His traits are such that he is quite often praised.  He hears, “Good boy!” as much as any other phrase.  But is he truly holy?  Is he godly?  Far from it.     My wife told me the other day that she is concerned when she hears phrases like, “Oh this woman is so godly!  She’s modest and she homeschools!”    You see it is possible for a woman to do that and yet be prayerless, loveless, and graceless.

We must have an understanding of the dynamics of true holiness and godliness which go beyond the mere refraining of certain morally objectionable things.  This type of holiness often produces pride, focuses on the flesh, and can fall into mere man-pleasing.  Please, do not get me wrong.  I am not arguing for license.  I am not seeking to soothe the conscience of any worldly professors of faith!   I am instead arguing that holiness is first and foremost a Godward issue.  It flows from a regenerate heart.  It is often seen only by God.   It is seen in things like love to Christ, a love for God’s people, patience, kindness, and mercy.  These are the true fruits of the Spirit!   Though my dog is good, he is not holy!

James Savastio

“Towards a Catholic Christianity” Part 4

Some Biblical Guidelines for Expressing Catholicity

We should strive to walk on the same road with other Christians and churches as far as prudence and conscience will permit. We may not be able to travel far with some. I believe we can go quite a distance on the same road with others. I would suggest the four basic guidelines that should help us express a healthy and God-honoring biblical catholicity that will to some degree advance the realization of Christ’s high-priestly prayer (John 17). We’ll look at the first two this time and the next two in our last installment.

Be Discerning, but Not Cynical.

According to a recent Gallop poll, at least 80% of all Americans consider themselves to be Christians. We intuitively (and justifiable) suspect the correspondence between such statistics and the real spiritual condition of such a large portion of our fellow Americans.  Many of the people we meet seem to be Christian only in name, which fits with what the Bible tells us. In the last days, men will have form of godliness, but they will deny the power of it. Therefore, we must exercise discernment. We cannot simply assume that every man or church that bears the name Christian is truly Christian.

I once received a postcard from the Reverend Ellen Alston, Pastor of Love Chapel United Methodist Church. The card reads, “We may not all believe exactly the same thing, but the people of the United Methodist Church believe in God and each other. If you’re searching for something to believe in, our hearts, our minds and our doors are always open.”  I don’t doubt they are an open group of people. They’re very open-probably too open! In fact, long ago the United Methodist denomination as a whole departed from a commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Now they’re so open, they teach more heresy than gospel. 

So we must be discerning. But we don’t want to become too cynical. We don’t want to assume that everyone who is not a part of our church is not a true believer. Nor should we automatically assume that every Christian outside our church doesn’t care about good doctrine, doesn’t believe in the sovereignty of God, doesn’t honor the Lord’s Day, doesn’t show reverence in worship, etc. There are some people who suspect everyone else to be a communist. The mailman is a communist. The barber is a communist. The next-door neighbor is a communist. And I fear that there may be a few Reformed Baptists who suspect all non-Reformed Baptists of being either unsaved or at the very least unspiritual. 

But we must not view the believers and churches out there with jaundiced eye! Yes, there may be weaknesses. Yes, there may be deficiencies. But until we know for sure what those weaknesses and deficiencies, we should try to think the best. Try to give the professing brother or the church the benefit of the doubt. After all, true love “believes all things and hopes all things” (1Cor 13:7).

Distinguish Between Essential and Non-Essential Doctrines

Some teachings in Scripture are of greater importance than other teachings in Scripture. Some doctrines are clearly essential to our salvation while others are not necessarily so. Perhaps some may view an attempt to distinguish between more important and less important doctrines as “presumptuous arrogance.” After all, who are we to decide what’s more or less important in God’s Word! But our Puritan forefathers made such distinctions:

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, . . .” 

The paragraph implies that there are some truths in Scripture that are “necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation,” and there are some that are not necessary per se. The Scriptures also appear to assign varying levels of importance to distinct teachings within God’s word: “To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord more than sacrifice [emphasis added]” (Prov. 21:3); “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others [emphasis added]” (Matt. 23:23); “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures [emphasis added" (1 Cor. 15:3).

I'm not suggesting that we should treat less important doctrines as irrelevant. To paraphrase Christ, "Do the weighty matters first without neglecting the lighter matters."  I'm simply suggesting that it's biblically appropriate to distinguish levels of importance among the truths of God's Word. For example, there are several doctrines of "first importance" in the Bible: the vicarious death and bodily resurrection of Christ are the very heart of the Christian gospel (1Cor 15:3-4). The future resurrection of all believers is the very hope of the gospel-to deny it is to undermine the very gospel itself (1Cor 15:13-19). The doctrine of justification by faith alone is essential to the Christian gospel-the Apostle Paul anathematizes anyone who preaches differently (Gal 1:8-9). The apostolic authority of the New Testament and the divine authority of all Scripture is another essential doctrine-those who will not acknowledge the Scriptures as the word of God may eventually forfeit the right to be recognized as Christians (Matthew 10:14-15, 40; 2 Thes 3:6, 14-15; 1 John 4:6). These are non-negotiable. I would not advocate unity with professed Christians or churches that willfully deny these truths.

But I don't feel that way about every truth in the Bible. Take, for example, the doctrine of church government. Is it necessary to have a congregational form of government in order to be a true church of Christ? Or is it possible to be a true church of Christ and have a Presbyterian or Episcopal form of church government? As a Reformed Baptists, we may believe that congregationalism or independency is necessary for the bene esse [well-being] of the church, but we do not believe that it’s necessary for the esse [being] of the church.  I’m sure there are many true churches with wrong form of church government. But I don’t think what the Bible has to say about church government is as important or as clear as what it has to say about human depravity or salvation by grace. 

Brothers, can you see why this is important for Christian unity? If you and I do not make these distinctions, then we’re going to respond to a non-Reformed Baptist brother the same way we would respond to a non-evangelical apostate. We’re going to treat a dispensational Bible church the same way we’d treat a liberal Methodist theologian. I believe that such behavior would be contrary to the intent of Christ’s prayer. 

Robert Gonzales, Pastor
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church

“Towards a Catholic Christianity” Part 3

 Some Inadequate Solutions Considered

In two previous blogs, we noted an emphasis in Christ’s high-priestly prayer upon the theme of Christian unity, as well as several factors that have prevented such unity from being fully realized. Disagreements have led to divisions, which in turn have led to the formation of different denominations or sects. Not surprisingly, Christians have not agreed how to solve this dilemma. As a result, there have been different approaches to Jesus’ “unity prayer” in John 17.

Spiritual Unity?

Some interpret the unity for which Christ prays as purely spiritual in nature. The moment you and I believe the gospel, we are spiritually united to Jesus Christ. Being united to Christ, we are also spiritually united to one another, as well as to every believer alive or who has ever lived. There is, as it were, an invisible union between all believers.  Some believe that this is the unity Christ has in mind in his high-priestly prayer. And since the divisions among Christians cannot affect this unity, we don’t have to worry about it. After all, our spiritual unity is invisible. There is an element of truth to this view. We are related to all believers in a spiritual and invisible sense. However, that’s not the only kind of unity Christ is praying for in this text. The purpose clauses in verses 21 and 23 make it clear that the unity Christ has in view must be visible to the world. 

Future Unity?

Some remind us that there won’t be any denominations in heaven. Perhaps, they say, Christ is just praying that his disciples will safely make it to heaven where they will finally be united as one. Once again, there is truth in this view. Certainly, Christian unity will be brought to perfection in glory. But the unity for which Christ prayed actually began on Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 42-46). And if this unity will persuade a lost world that Jesus is the Christ (John 17:21, 23), then it must do so in this age!  

Worldly Compromise?

Some take the ad hominem approach. Rather than seriously wrestling with the problem, they simply label anyone who talks of visible unity among Christians of different denominations as a weak, worldly compromiser. But certainly Christ was not a compromiser. And if He wanted and prayed for unity among all His true disciples, then we cannot write off all attempts at such unity as worldly compromise. 

Practically Unimportant?

I fear this is the approach many people take. In theory, most would agree that Christian unity is a good thing. In practice, however, there’s not much we can do about the problem of divisions. Therefore, let’s just ignore the problem. But if the Bible calls Christians to be united and if Christ prays towards that end, then we can’t just ignore the problem! We must do everything in our power to remove any unnecessary impediments Christ’s prayer. In the next installment, we’ll look at some practical principles and guidelines that we can implement in order to work towards the unity for which Jesus prayed.

Robert Gonzales, Pastor
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church

A Critique of Douglas Wilson’s Interpretation of Titus 1:6

Preface: This was written several years ago. I am way less appreciative of Doug Wilson’s writings today than I was when I wrote this.

A Critique of Douglas Wilson’s Interpretation of Titus 1:6

I am very appreciative of the labors of Douglas Wilson and of the power of the pen he sways but found myself miffed at his treatment of Titus 1:6 in “The Pastor’s Kid.” DW discusses the translational issues-”having faithful children” v. “having children who believe”-and claims that “it doesn’t really change anything.” He asks these pertinent questions: “Faithful to what? Faithful to whom?” He then says, “When the translation “faithful children” is urged, it is generally with the thought that a child could be faithful and obedient in external matters, but still be unregenerate.” Concerning the use of pistos, he claims that “we never see this dichotomy between true heart condition and external conformity introduced …” I offer the following comments, which deal with the issues above in order, as an argument for “the other position.” First, the translation “having children who believe” is misleading for several reasons. It leads the reader to believe that two verbal ideas are contained in the text, when in fact, there is only one. There is one participle-”having”-and two nouns pista and tekna (children). The noun tekna (children) is the direct object of the participle “having.” The noun pista functions as an adjectival modifier of “children.” If pista were in the participial form, we would naturally translate it “believing.” However, it is not in the participial form. There is only one other NT usage of pista in the form used here by Paul (see Acts 13:34 where Luke uses the accusative plural of pistos) and in that case it clearly would make no sense to translate it “believing.”Second, Would DW claim that all elders children must be regenerate children? This seems to be the conclusion to his statement quoted above which reads: “…, but still be unregenerate.” If this be the case, then are we to assume that all fetal children of elders are regenerate or that no man can be an elder until all his children are regenerate? By the way, the text, granting the translation “having children who believe,” would not speak of regeneration by the Spirit, but belief in the gospel.Third, the contrast in Titus 1:6 is between “faithful children” and those “accused of dissipation or insubordination.” Paul’s contrast is not between believing and unbelieving children. DW’s interpretation would read: “having Christian children not accused of being non-Christian children.” Certainly, Paul had many easier ways to communicate that idea if he wanted. Instead, Paul’s contrast is between children who are faithful to their vocation as children of elders and those who are clearly not. DW might respond: “How can a child of an elder be faithful to his father if he does not believe the gospel?” One might reply: “How can a child of an elder be faithful to his father if he sins at all?” His father would surely teach him never to sin. However, the son would sin. Would this constitute dissipation or insubordination? Do dissipation and insubordination refer to minor infractions or a way of life indicative of excess and riot? I think the latter.

In conclusion, the analogy of Scripture seems to preclude DW’s interpretation of this text. The parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3:4 does not demand what DW says Titus 1:6 demands. Assuming DW’s interpretation, we would have one standard in Ephesus and another on Crete. How could this be? Both 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 refer to a man’s ability in his domestic oversight and demand that his children be in submission to his rule as a general pattern of life, and that while under his roof.

Richard Barcellos