Q7: How doth God execute His decrees?
A: God executeth His decrees in the work of watching us exercise our free will.
As a Baptist I don't often get the opportunity to participate in more formal kinds of worship services. By that, I mean those services which serve the Lord's supper on a weekly basis. The most familiar of these formats of service to me are Catholic and Anglican. I've always just accepted my church's tradition of approximately every six weeks for this most solemn service as perfectly acceptable since the Bible is not specific concerning how often we should participate.
Lately however, I've been wondering if a more frequent serving of the Lord's Supper might be a means of strengthening the unity of our congregation. Following is a quote from an article that I found most interesting. Perhaps this is something those of who infrequently follow our Lord's command to "do this in remembrance" of Him might want to rethink.
[...]The apostle Paul [...] tells us that the Lord’s Supper signifies the oneness of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:17). According to Paul, “We, being many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” When Christians gather to partake of the same bread and wine, there is no Jew or Gentile, there is no rich or poor, there is no male or female. All are one because all partake of the one body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. If the faithful teaching of this truth accompanies the frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper, it inhibits division because it repeatedly and forcefully emphasizes the sinfulness of worshipping with an unforgiving heart (cf. Matt. 5:23-24). In fact, it is not beyond possibility that the infrequent observance and corresponding devaluing of this sacrament has contributed to the ongoing division and strife in the modern church. Again, we have to ask why any Christian would not want such a sign of Christian unity to be a part of the regular worship of the church.
Jesus Christ commands that the Lord’s Supper be observed in remembrance of him (Luke 22:19; cf 1 Cor. 11:24). This does not mean that the Lord’s Supper is merely a time for subjective mental recollection. It is a memorial of the saving acts of Jesus Christ by which he inaugurated the new covenant. In the Lord’s Supper, we do not merely recollect these great acts of redemption. We unite ourselves with the new covenant community for which they were accomplished. If the Lord’s Supper is truly to be observed in remembrance of Christ’s mighty saving acts, why would any Christian not want this remembrance to be a part of every Christian worship service?[...]
The entire article can be found here.
Sunday our Pastor mentioned in his morning sermon that our church subscribes to a statement of faith generally accepted by most Baptist churches in America. That statement is the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Statement of Faith.
I have issues with what we actually teach and do and what we say we believe as codified in this statement. I won't get these issues resolved any time soon because there are many among us who say they believe one thing but their actions don't align with what they say.
For instance: This Statement of Faith says, in part, (the full section quote is below) "...the new creation is brought about in a manner above our comprehension, not by culture, not by character, nor by the will of man, but wholly and solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in connection with divine truth...." [emphasis mine]. To my mind that seems plain, clear and simple enough for a literate person to understand. The Holy Spirit changes a person internally - the person is unable to comprehend what happened - but he knows he is different. He has been "born again." Yet, we insist that a person must "choose" of his own "free will" to "accept" Jesus as his savior. My question is this, if the new creation is brought about in a manner above our comprehension how is it that the sinner can be expected to comprehend he must "choose" to "accept" Jesus as "his personal savior" solely on the basis of his "free will?" He has been born again - past tense - there is nothing for him to "choose." (Jhn 15:16)
If that is the actual situation, we are saved by means beyond our comprehension, why do we waste so much time trying to ramp-up emotional responses with the "altar call?" Perhaps we really don't believe what we say we believe.
(I) OF GRACE IN THE NEW CREATION. We believe that in order to be saved, sinners must be born again; that the new birth is a new creation in Christ Jesus; that it is instantaneous and not a process; that in the new birth the one dead in trespasses and in sins is made a partaker of the divine nature and receives eternal life, the free gift of God; that the new creation is brought about in a manner above our comprehension, not by culture, not by character, nor by the will of man, but wholly and solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance and faith and newness of life. (John 1:12-13, 3:3, 3:6-7; II Corinthians 5:17 & 5:19; Luke 5:27; I John 5:1; Acts 2:41; II Peter 1:4; Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:1 & 5:9; Colossians 2:13; Galatians 5:22)
I visited Australia a couple of years ago. Other than the obvious difference in landscape one of the major differences I noticed was the apparent lack of churches. I didn't survey for numbers, but here in the states we seem to have as many churches as we do gas stations. It feels like there is one on every corner, not so in Australia. In fact, I noticed the difference in church numbers more readily there because there appeared to be so few in comparison.
Pastor, teacher, Rowland Croucher who is Australian, has written a good article (here) about the apparent demise of churches in Australia by beginning with some statistics from the states.
According to the latest set of figures for Baptists in the Garden State, not everything is rosy:
* Two thirds of our churches are plateaued
* Just nineteen churches accounted for more than half the baptisms last year “Six churches accounted for just on one third of the total baptisms
* More than 40% of our churches baptised no one
* We are more adept at roll revisions than roll additions
My own church seems to be in a unique situation considering the numbers above. We baptize new believers regularly, but our actual growth seems to be stagnating. For each new believer we loose one or two for various reasons. Part of this is due to economic conditions as folks must move for employment reasons, but I sense a larger part of the stagnation is due to "church-hopping." I know of several young families who have moved to nearby churches for no other reason than someone hurt their feelings. When that happens I wonder why it is we seem unable to bring these folks to Christian maturity. Life happens, people are people, feelings get hurt - get over it.
I'm beginning to wonder if there are not a lot more "goats" among the "sheep" than we care to admit. We don't like to think along these lines because we have so much invested in convincing new converts and older members as well, that all they have to do is believe without teaching them that that belief carries with it certain obligations to the One we believe in.
Croucher's article does not have the sense I have just given but I think in the back of his mind he might agree. He goes on to say;
What is even more concerning is the growing trend reported in many churches: as much as one third of the regulars will be absent on any given Sunday making communication difficult and continuity in preaching and teaching almost impossible. The point is that the local congregation is not seen as the place to be. Worship simply does not belong as a priority activity.
If "worship is not a priority" among a given congregation there is obviously something drastically wrong with our labeling as saved those who are really just looking for temporary relief from some immediate personal problem.
Perhaps we need to seriously consider actually reading what Scripture says about salvation and forget all the gimmicks that have been passed down to us the way "to win the lost."
The answer to the question of why Jesus underwent John’s baptism is not to deny the fact that it was a baptism of repentance; the answer is to embrace the awesome reality that Jesus’ baptism was precisely a baptism of repentance, as an integral aspect of his fulfilling all righteousness. Here, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, we see that from first to last ”the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28). Christ’s life no less than his death was to serve, in that ‘form of a servant’ in which he performed for our sakes and on our behalf the perfect obedience of the law, even unto death on the cross (Phil 2:5-11). Jesus’ righteousness doesn’t just cover our sins — it covers our repentance, too. [emphasis mine]
When was the last time you thought about Jesus being Baptized as a covering for our repentance? We hear about Christ's death on the Cross and the atonement provided by HIs shed blood, but we don't hear much about our inability to repent as we should thus the need for Him to be Baptized for us as well
You can read this excellent post here.
“… our audience in corporate worship is not people. Corporate worship is not about pleasing people, whether ourselves, the congregation, or unbelieving seekers. . Worship in the corporate gathering is about renewing our covenant with God by meeting with Him and relating to Him in ways that He has prescribed. We do this specifically by hearing and heeding His Word, confessing our own sinfulness and our dependence on Him, thanking Him for his goodness to us, bringing our requests before Him, confessing His truth, and lifting our voices and instruments to Him in response to and in accord with the way that He has revealed Himself in His Word.” ~ Mark Dever, The Deliberate Church (HT Gairney Bridge)
When I play one or the other of the keyboard instruments at church, I always try to take a few minutes as people are filling the sanctuary to Worship with music that I think God would like to hear. I play in the "classical" style, which to the untrained is usually more solemn and slow, with a steady pace, or perhaps with a minimum of my own interpretation of tempo and tone. Most people call my playing old-fashioned and too solemn. Some, however, are thankful to be able to sit quietly, prayerfully, thinking about the God who made us and the Grace bestowed on us by His Son.
Music "ministers" or Pastors sometimes tell me to play more upbeat and "happy" kinds of things so that the people will be in a more "happy" mood for "worship." That says it all: We have gotten in the habit of structuring our services for the entertainment value of the congregation and not to pay homage to our loving Creator whose death and resurrection paid for our sin.
I wonder how it is we have allowed ourselves to drift into the idea that our worship audience is people and not God? Shouldn't our worship model be more along the lines of the Cherubim who surround God's Throne crying Holy, Holy, Holy?
I'm just sayin'....!
"[...]There is a wide-spread desire to appear charitable and liberal-minded: many seem half ashamed of saying that anybody can be in the wrong. There is a quantity of half-truth
taught by the modern false teachers: they are incessantly using Scriptural terms and phrases in an unscriptural sense.[...]"
"[...]True faith is not a mere “mental assent” to certain theological propositions—but a living, burning, active principle—which works by love, purifies the heart, overcomes the world, and brings forth much fruit of holiness and good works. Let us live as if we really believed every jot and tittle of Scripture—and as if a dying, risen, interceding, and coming Christ, were continually before our eyes![...]"
- J.C. Ryle
1816 – 1900 [These quotes were taken from Defending Contending.]
Although these words were written over 100 years ago they sound as though they could have been written yesterday. So much of what we hear and say in church and out, seems to be specifically chosen to somehow resonate with the lost from a human perspective. I don't believe this is intentional all the time, I just believe it is a result of folks repeating what they think sounds religious and profound.
The older I get the more I believe our words to the unsaved (and saved as well) should be either God's Words quoted or at least we should give them the contextual sense of His meaning. As fallen creatures we are capable of so little understanding about our Triune God and His Truth we place ourselves on dangerous ground when we attempt to interpret what we think He meant from our own limited understanding. "Half-truths," are not helpful.
Somewhere this morning I read a church sign which quotes Luke 4:7 as though these words were a positive benefit for mankind. The sign reads: (Luke 4:7) "If thou wilt therefore worship me, all shall be thine."
The problem of course, is that the quote is Satan tempting Christ in the wilderness. Christ answered with a rebuke in the form of "It is written...." I believe that should be the model for all Christians: But then to respond as Jesus did we have to actually read our Bibles and I'm sure, as the church sign quote makes clear, even some of our teachers are lacking in that department.
Ryle's statement still rings true today. "[...]There is a quantity of half-truth taught by the modern false teachers: they are incessantly using Scriptural terms and phrases in an unscriptural sense."
The challenge for the Christian is to know his Bible so that when the "half-truths" are taught those that teach them can be made aware of their error. I wonder what the American Church would be like today if Christians had been doing that all along?
"[T]he Bible is primarily about God, not you. The essential subject matter is the triune Redeemer Lord, culminating in Jesus Christ. When Jesus “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45), he showed how everything written—creation, promises, commands, history, sacrificial system, psalms, proverbs—reveals him. We are reading someone else’s biography. Yet that very story demonstrates how he includes us within his story. Jesus is the Word of God applied, all-wisdom embodied. As his disciples, we learn to similarly apply the Bible, growing up into his image. Application today experiences how the Spirit “rescripts” our lives by teaching us who God is and what he is doing."
I came across the above while reading the blog Creed or Chaos. A chord was struck with me as I read because of certain conversations and events in my life recently. Just this morning I responded to a letter from a friend in which I commented that I am slowly learning (Yes! I still am capable of learning.) to simply tell others what God has said and then just sit back and enjoy watching His Spirit do what He is going to do.
However, that's hard for me to do. My pride wants to have me stick my nose in whatever is going on and "make things happen." But, then I guess that's the American way isn't it? We plan, set agendas, think up programs, set goals, achieve, seek success in everything we do. Then what? As near as I can tell the only way to convince ourselves or anyone else that we have achieved any of this is by doing what Americans do: Consume. We buy new cars, second homes, boats, stuff and things. When we have purchased all our credit cards or cash will allow we begin telling ourselves and others how God has blessed us, that is until reality or bankruptcy sets in.
God's biography, which as stated in the quote above does include you and I personally, but in a much different way than Americanized Christianity has taught so many of us. Little by little I'm learning to accept the Holy Spirits' rescripting of my life. I ain't easy, and often it ain't fun. But, I've never been more at ease or at home in my Christianity than I am when I simply accept the fact that He is the Potter and I am the clay.
The one thing Charles Finney thought he knew was the majesty of God. After all, Finney's god was "the moral governor," a severe adherent of absolute standards who demanded absolute obedience of all his creatures. This, to Finney's unconverted eyes, was the majesty of the creator.
The Christian ought to know better.[emphasis mine] The glorious majesty of God is seen most plainly in His remarkable grace. He is a Judge - and a perfectly righteous Judge whose standards are unimaginably pure. Nevertheless, He is no distant tyrant sending random thunderbolts upon the earth. He is rather a true King, One who rules over and defends His people. That defense of His people extended to their salvation, even when that salvation meant the painful and shameful death of His own Son.
Nowhere in all creation is the true majesty of God more in evidence than in His superintendence of the great plan of salvation! Christian people ought to stand in awe of the gospel as the highest revelation of the greatness of God.[emphasis mine]."The Christian ought to know better," is such a striking statement coming from a Pastor it should give pause to everyone of us to reflect on what we are doing in the name of God. Chantry goes on:
First, he devised all of his cunning methodology in order to produce the "decision" which earlier evangelists had attributed to the moving of God's Spirit. Then, whenever he saw that his hearers had made such decisions, he shamelessly took credit for them. He published statistics of how many had been saved through his ministry and he wrote his Lectures on Revival as a way of telling others how they could save as many people as he had. In other words, the part which the Spirit had played in the ministries of both Wesley and Whitefield was a part which Finney endeavored to fill!
The nefarious effect of this crass substitution of the evangelist for the Spirit has all but killed Christian witness in our day. Whereas Christians once proclaimed a Triune, saving God, today's evangelicals become confused as to why the Trinity matters. Once Christians understood that salvation is all about the Father who ordains redemption, the Son who accomplishes it, and the Spirit who applies. Today we say instead that Jesus saves, so long as the preacher can talk you (or trick you) into letting Him do it. If therefore we would have revival, we must have preachers who, like Finney, can produce extraordinary conversion counts.
We no longer evaluate preachers upon how clearly they express the gospel of Christ and how urgently they call on men to turn to Him. Instead we look at the numbers. If an evangelist can get a good percentage of any congregation to come forward, he is a good evangelist. If a preacher can grow a church (something no preacher should imagine himself doing!) then he is a successful preacher. Of course if a seminary president can double the enrollment of his school, then he is an extraordinary president. What other criteria could possibly matter?
And if his methods are not biblical? If, in fact, he must sin in order to produce such extraordinary results? Who dares condemn him! He is (quite literally) doing the work of God. Paul once said he could wish himself accursed in order to save his countrymen, but he understood that he could save no one. Should we be surprised that when evangelists think they can bring about salvation they do not quibble at a little deceit?
What the church so desperately needs is to remember who God is and who preachers are. God saves; we only glorify Him for His salvation.There is so much more that I can only hope that everyone who reads this blog will read Pastor Chantry's article. When I read it I thought "my God what have we done?"
