;)
Doctrinal Clarity vs. Brevity
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
During the next series of posts, I am going to wrestle with the principles that denominations (moreover Southern Baptist for this discussion) have set in place to fortify their particular guiding attitude for cooperation or rejection. The primary intent is to explore how simple doctrines, such as the doctrine of the church (ecclesiology), the doctrine of the great confession, the doctrine of baptism, and the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper are judged when brought alongside a consensus proclamation such as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2000).
To be fair, the contents of the BFM2000 deal very briefly with these doctrines while at the same time beg for amplification. I believe it is important and constructive to inquire… has the BFM2000 dealt with the doctrines well enough, or is there important biblical definition absent from the meaning borne out of its concise rendering? I will deal with several sections of the BFM2000; Sections VI. The Church, and VII Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, while briefly touching XI. Evangelism and Missions, as well as IV. Salvation.
The posts will be divided into 4 sections:
- The Flourishing Ecclesia: Born Again, Assembled to Worship, Formed to Edify, and Commissioned
- The Confession of Christ: Is It Important?
- Baptized into Christ: Vertical and/or Horizontal Immersion
- Participating in the Lord’s Supper: A Distraction or A Longing?
The Flourishing Ecclesia: Born Again, Assembled to Worship, Formed to Edify, and Commissioned
To begin, the doctrine of the church is an important doctrine and it is a doctrine that undoubtedly causes severe division or brings about outstanding unity. Because of the doctrine’s simplicity, the ecclesia was never intended to foster mediocrity or luke-warmness. The earliest forming ecclesia experienced both extremes; dynamic unity with those of similar confession, and vitriolic division with long standing family members and tradition livened neighbors resistant to “good news”. To many in and around Jerusalem who were tuned to the context of Mosaic tradition, Christ enters the world and spends years in his short ministry explaining the Kingdom. He was boldly presenting himself as the foundation stone for growth and a stumbling stone for destruction. The Apostles and other disciples were called and welcomed to this early and distinctive time where the “called out ones” in Christ were becoming exposed as the ecclesia of God.
It became clear to this new flourishing ecclesia that the unity of the Spirit is not achieved and maintained by the keeping of traditional Law or trips to the manmade temples. This was a difficult lesson for most to believe as they walked in the light of Christ, and a difficult lesson for us to digest even today. This first advent of Christ focused their hearts and minds to know Him alone. While this burgeoning ecclesia was convinced of the reality of the Kingdom of God, they struggled to shine light into the shadows of past tradition.
They began to understand the “calling out” more clearly by understanding that each individual soul is called out,… one soul at a time to recognize Christ in His Kingdom. They were individually moved by the person paráklētos who draws together the adopted into worship and to edify one another. This is an important characteristic because the call of these souls into the Kingdom of God as a body punctuated a marked difference to the nations, and became a distinctive confession in the midst of the current religious culture of the day. As recorded by Matthew, Christ defined the ecclesia initially as those collective of Kingdom significance built on the foundation of Him alone. The world continues to be amazed and will ultimately kneel at the important implications of Christ’s testimony as the “many” are referred to as the ecclesia He alone is building:
Matthew 16:18-19
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
Christ’s announcement of the ecclesia was no longer couched in terms as merely recognizing a nation, but collectively in terms of all nations, more specifically a people… yet He made his instruction very personal and inured the benefit of mercy to those gathered to worship and fellowship as given by the Father. They disregarded any concept of national origin or even the gatherer’s various locations. The called out ones, as Christ generally speaks of, points to the already anticipated growth of the church throughout Jerusalem, Judea and the entire world. And as another amazing lesson, Christ expected that his “called out ones” would love each other enough to move toward the unity of the Spirit as opposed to the Law (1 Corinthians 15, Romans 7)… as he encouraged his disciples:
Matthew 18:15
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.”
This introduction by Christ, described by the power of the Spirit working in those “called out”, was a unique and universal lesson recognized by the prophetic past… yet to be learned and practiced by all the future disciples. These adopted ones would come to know the power of the Holy Spirit and pursue the already established unity of the Spirit throughout all the churches until the imminent return of Christ at the end of the age.
As we fast forward a bit… it seems that the BFM2000 initiates its definition of the church at a point where Luke reaches the section of his letter known to us as Acts 5:11… It is at this point in the letter that for the first time “eph’ holēn tēn ekklēsian” becomes a more specific use for what is known as this whole group of believers. We see that the ecclesia was gathered to hear the gospel and to participate in the needs of everyone from the proceeds of property sales, but most were certainly not anticipating the reality and consequences of lying to the Holy Spirit of God among His people. I’m sure this startled all in attendence!
Here’s the question though…
Since all the New Testament writers, including Christ in his teaching the disciples, refer to the “called out ones” (the church) as primarily all believers in many contexts throughout the NT and as an organized gathering seen represented in still numerous other contexts, why is it that the BFM2000 seems to begin beyond the obvious language of Christ, the Apostle Paul and others concerning all believers… and initiates a more narrow doctrine of the ecclesia further into the Acts of the Apostles?
What do you think? Does the BFM2000 reflect a similar genesis that Christ and the Apostles brought forth concerning the Holy Spirit’s formation of the ecclesia, where the ecclesia are seen collectively and they eventually flourish into view with multiple qualifying overseers and servants in the local assemblies, where physical locations simply function as a consequence? Or has it been presented differently?
Can the BFM2000 be improved as to the definition of the ecclesia and who she is?
The BFM2000 seems to bring some light to the subject of the ecclesia, but in its brevity it can appear almost partial or incomplete in its definition since it merely tags a universal flavor concerning the church near the end. In other words, the statement makes a bold assertion in the first paragraph; and then almost in an approach of regret recognizes the inclusion of the redeemed of all the ages in its last few lines.
Please feel free to give me your thoughts.
Blessings,
Chris
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
This is funny! An article claiming there is a lack of clarity in the BF&M lacks clarity as to what it thinks is the critical problem, especially when it comes to defining the scriptural doctrine of the church. How are you trying to say the BF&M fails to agree with Scripture? What is your definition of the church if it is not the assembly or gathering of the people of Christ in a particular time or place?
Brother or Sister John 3:16,
It seems that you’ve answered your own question, in that the brevity of the BFM2000 is ok. The question I am posing is,…why does the BFM simply tag those called out through the ages on the end. Is it because of some projection and form of dispensational thought or is it simply focused on what this newly flourishing ecclesia is called and commissioned to obey. The BFM2000 basically gives lip service to those “called out” before Pentecost.
What is said in the BFM2000 is ok with me too (although democratic processes are more Americanized these days than biblically reasoned),…but is it enough. Some may think not.
Blessings,
Chris
FYI, here is a copy of the BF&M article on the church:
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.
Thanks Dave for digging out the BFM2000,
I was hoping most everyone would familiarize themselves with this particular statement once again. John 3:16 above asks the right question about… what’s not clear?….which I am hoping some will begin to think about. Again, some may think the statement is just fine as is….and is as useful as it can get.
Here’s just a few things that come to mind when I read this section of the BFM2000.
1. Even though the statement is clear to state the “NT Church is”….., It can be argued that the statement fails to describe the church in context to all of scripture and is nearsighted to post Pentecost formation alone.
2. The statement places baptism and autonomy ahead of the gospel, faith & confession in its construction.
3. The statement is very Americanized by the use of the words “democratic processes”. ( I would be curious to see FTME’s thoughts on this)
4. The statement does state that each member is accountable and responsible to Christ as Lord, but it does not mention any accountability and responsibility between the members in the life of the church.
5. The statement speaks of officers, where scripture does not. There is a difference in officer, and overseer, and servant.
Just some things to consider,
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
The Bible teaches that the Church, the local assembly, should have Elders, Bishops, Pastors and Deacons. That’s what the Bible teaches. And, these officers are spelled out very clearly in thier qualifications, and in thier responsibilities. In fact, the Apostle Paul would choose Elders for the Churches that he had started. We see the Early Church selecting 7 men to fulfill the role of Deacon.
So, are you saying that the Church should not have officers?
Also, while there is a unviersal aspect to the Church, there’s definitely a visible, local aspect to the Church as well. It’s a both/and thing. The Church at Ephesus. The Church at Jerusalem. The Church at Antioch, etc. And, they had Elders and Deacons. They were told how to run thier Church, and they were told to put out a man who was having sex with his father’s wife at the Church of Corinth.
So, do you believe that the Church is universal only?
David
Brother Volfan007,
I like your use of the theme 007 in your post at SBCtoday btw….good stuff!
You asked…“So, are you saying that the Church should not have officers?”
I think some translators have included the word “officer” while trying to describe what the Greek usage alone attributes to “overseer”. In both instances of Paul’s instruction, it appears his emphasis is on qualification not offices,… but these men that oversee would aspire and/or be appointed by qualification, as well as those that serve as you have already pointed out.
So, yes the church is instructed by the Apostle to appoint a plurality of qualified overseers to lead and nurture the church through Christ. These overseers would be limited to as many men that would qualify in each of the assemblies.
You also asked… “So, do you believe that the Church is universal only?”
Scripture seems to indicate that she exists as universal, and assembles often and consistently in a multitude of places. As she assembles at a local level, the congregation is responsible to know their leaders, serve one another, and exercise the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of the entire congregation. I think your right…it is seen as both.
One additional thought concerning the early church selecting 7 men…..
Acts 6:5 “The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.”
The directive of the overseers found approval with the whole congregation does not mean they held a democratic vote as we tend to think of in our culture today….so if these men received 66% of the vote they are in….In contrast it actually states that the entire congregation was in approval (100%) because they chose men that met the qualification to serve. The selection was based on qualification not votes.
Acts 6:3 “Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.”
Blessings,
Chris
How do we reconcile local church autonomy with Acts 15? The council of Jerusalem, having made a decision about doctrine, sent delegates to other churches to tell them how to conduct themselves. Their letter specifically notes (v24) that previous messengers who said different things were “without mandate.” It sure looks like Jerusalem claimed authority over Antioch and others.
Patrick, the authority of the church in Jerusalem was probably not because it was the first, or preeminent, church, but rather because the apostles were located there. Local churches seem to have been under the spiritual authority of the apostles, who were a group of people raised up directly by the Lord to provide the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). God spoke directly to these apostles, and they delivered the official teaching of the early church (Acts 2:42). The apostles were eyewitnesses to Christ, his ministry, his death and resurrection (Acts 1:15-26; 22:6-21; 26:12-23). They were commissioned by the risen Christ to be witnesses to Christ’s person, what he accomplished on our behalf, and the meaning of his redemption for Christian faith and practice. Thus, what we find in Acts 15 is “apostolic authority,” not “ecclesial authority.”
No modern Christian leader or church may claim such experience or authority. The apostles’ teaching was binding and had an authority that came from God himself. What has happened to “apostolic authority” today? It is given in the Scriptures, specifically the New Testament (2 Pet 1:20-21; 1 John 1:1-4). Their teaching was recorded in written form and was thus is preserved for us today. From the Scriptures we may hear the teaching of the apostles which guide our life, our belief, and our ministry today. Leaders today carry authority only to the extent that they faithfully teach the truths found in the inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:14-4:5).
Thanks Kevin,
Excellent explanation! There are some that think the Apostles are still being born today or have been given the authority …such as the succession of Popery. Kevin has accurately given us the reason we can trust God’s word without reservation.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
You have written a very thoughtful piece.
I think the BF&M does not clearly make the connection between the Kingdom of God and the church. But this connection should be evident from the pre-Pentecost portions of the Bible to which you refer. Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God, not something that was rejected as Dispensationalist believe, but something which has endured on earth as his Kingdom people assemble in his name.
I would not suggest giving up biblical Baptist distinctives, but if we better understood Christ’s local church as assemblies of his kingdom people we might feel less elitist and more connected with the full family of God.
When “church” is used in the universal sense, it is essentially a synonym for the Kingdom of God.
Thanks, Kevin. Something else puzzles me, though. By A.D. 100 or so, all the Apostles had died. But it was not until late in the 4th century that the canon of Scripture was settled.
During this time all kinds of spurious gospels and epistles were floating around. Moreover, there were no printing presses. Few people were literate.
This means that for almost 300 years, Christian churches had neither apostolic authority nor a firm scriptural authority to lean upon. No one had a Bible as we know it today. How did they keep the faith intact during this time? Was there some other kind of ecclessial authority?
Brother Grannemann,
I think you are right about the lack of connection…..which I feel is simply a lack of clarity in these short or concise statements like the BFM2000. I agree that SBC/Baptist distinctives are important and at least for me is probably the reason I remain so attached to the Baptists in my humpteen (technical word for many) years of service in the church. Baptist, by and large are people of the book, …so it seems it wouldn’t hurt to better describe the church in terms of its stay in the Kingdom from Adam until now. The “called out ones” have simply operated and obeyed as God has spoken throughout history.
The day that see the great transaction of the Kingdom we will understand better the reign and realm of our King as He hands over the kingdom to God our Father.
1 Corinthians 15:22-26 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (23) But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, (24) then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. (25) For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. (26) The last enemy that will be abolished is death.”
Blessings,
Chris
Patrick, the matter of canonicity may not have been “settled” until the 4th century AD, but in some ways that was a mere formality. Numerous religious writings were being circulated around in the early centuries AD, and the early Christians knew them and read them. The Council of Carthage in AD 397 confirmed a list of scriptures they considered a canon “for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” For four centuries the church had been determining which books were authoritative and which were not. The three main criteria they used for making this determination were apostolicity (written or influenced by an apostle), orthodoxy (intrinsic biblical soundness in its theology), and catholicity (universal usage among Christians). For instance, around AD 200 “the so-called Gospel of Peter” was rejected by Christians, and the reason stated by Serapion, bishop of Antioch (AD 200) was, “we receive Peter and all the apostles as we receive Christ, but the writings falsely attributed to them we are experienced enough to reject, knowing that nothing of the sort has been handed down to us.” In other words, there was a qualitative difference between the writings later deemed “canonical” and those deemed “non-canonical.”
The Roman Catholic church today claims credit for giving us our Bible. Nothing of the sort. To state that the Council of Carthage “gave” us a Bible is to discount what God had been doing for centuries through Christians with the discernment given by the Holy Spirit. The council merely recognized, or put its stamp of approval, on what Christians had already acknowledged for a long time. It would be like a group of music scholars today sending out a decree that Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony is now acknowledged as “a great piece of music.” Thanks for the affirmation, but millions of music lovers for centuries have already made that determination. The work has stood the test of time and study, and has already been universally recognized.
Any doctrine of inspiration must by necessity include something of “preservation” and “canonization.” What did the early Christians have after the apostles died out? They had the apostolic writings and God’s Holy Spirit to lead them into “all truth” (John 16:12) to determine which indeed were inspired by God and which were not.
When asked by a friend how we can trust the early church’s discernment in these matters, I challenged to questioner to read the non-canonical writings (e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, etc.) and compare them to the canonical ones. As soon as this person read them, they could certainly tell the difference. The Spirit still works today.
The bfm 2000 came about by a consensus of men with differing views. so why ask questions which may cause strife and divisions/ are you yet carnal with the disputings of men/
Stay with the Scripture.
Thanks again, Kevin. I have two quick questions for you.
1) If the canon was long settled by the time of Carthage, there must be earlier historical records of others listing the acceptable scriptures and denying the spurious ones. Can you point me to some examples?
2) The O.T. canon approved at Carthage included Apocryphal works like 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobias, and Judith. Since the council was, according to you, simply affirming a list that had been long accepted throughout the church, do you accept the canonicity of those books? If not, why not?
Jesus did not die for the Kingdom of God. Jesus died for the Church.
The kingdom of God has always been present. God the Father decreed the Church. God the Son established and birthed the Church. God the Spirit empowered the Church. There was perfect unity within the Trinity relating to the decree, the establishment and birth, and the empowerment of the Church. The only governance of The Church is of the Trinity.
The Church is within the Kingdom of God. Jesus is Lord of both.
Thus, there is the Church Universal. (Tim G describes it as the Body of Christ. I like that)
There are Churches Local.
A local church is an identifiable manifestation of the Church Universal. (Body of Christ)
Also, a local church exist only in as much as it adheres to the description of a local church in the New Testament.
People who have been born of God, through the atonement of the Son, and inhabited by the Spirit have been granted the stewardship of governance of churches local.
Chris, as you are out on the limb of the tree we spoke of over at SBC TODAY, you may ponder this along with a new paradigm for “trimming the tree” as it were.
Chris, you are up the tree, out on a limb are you not?
cb
I would like to see an exegetical argument for the concept of “offices” instead of it being merely assumed.
Sure the Bible teaches there were elders and deacons, but there is a difference in merely affirming this and in saying the Bible teaches that there is the “office” of elder and the “office” of deacon.
Interesting article on church covenants here: http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=32
“God the Son established and birthed the Church. God the Spirit empowered the Church.”
Unless the church was born when Christ breathed on the Apostles [Jn. 20:22], then I don’t believe this.
Part of the “identity” of the church is that it is the Temple of God where He dwells in the Spirit.
The Spirit comes on the day of Pentecost [see also John 7:39]. There is no Temple of God if the Spirit is not in the Temple.
Jesus said He would build the church, not was building it.
Benji,
In the atonement Christ birthed the church. He died to free us from our sins individually, He also died for the Church (The Body of Christ). (See: Romans 5:8; Eph. 5:25)
Was there perfect unity of the Trinity in the decree, establishment and birth and the empowerment of The Church?
Is there any governance of The Church beyond that of the Trinity?
Is not Christ head of The Church?
Is this not in accord to the perfect unity of the Trinity?
cb
Also,
Christ did say He would build His Church. You are right. And He “is” building it and will until He returns for it.
To say he “was” building it would be to imply it is finished. It is not. The Church will not be complete in its building until Christ saves the last of its members and returns to present the completed Body (Bride) unto Himself.
cb
CB,
I would say Christ accomplished the salvation of the church at the cross, but it was applied in time later on.
I don’t see how we can call any entity “the church” without the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t understand this question–”Was there perfect unity of the Trinity in the decree, establishment and birth and the empowerment of The Church?” (could you maybe cite what Scripture[s] you are referring to?)
Jesus is the head of the church.
There is perfect unity in the Trinity.
“Christ did say He would build His Church…And He ‘is’ building it and will until He returns for it.”
I agree.
Some local churches are complete. Some are still growing. Some have died.
No part of the Church Universal will ever die. Once an individual member of the Church Universal (Body of Christ) is birthed, life is eternal. The entirety of the Body of Christ is eternal.
cb
CB,
Yes, life is eternal and the Apostles received eternal life.
However, while the Apostles had eternal life, they still had not received the indwelling of the Spirit yet–John 7:39; 14:17.
Benji,
There are many “churches” wherein the Spirit does not dwell.
The Spirit is present in “The Church.” (Body of Christ; Bride of Christ; Church Universal)
Benji, Let me see of I can make myself clear because I know you know you will agree if I can make myself clear. The failure is on my part.
The Trinity if foundational to all Christian doctrine. The Trinity is in perfect unity in all things.
I simply defined various works of the Trinity as to the origin of The Church. The Church did not originate with man. Its origins were before the Trinity took nothing and nothing and decreed, established and birthed and empowered at things into existence.
The Kingdom of God was before the creation of all things. The Church is part of that which was created within the Kingdom.
There is the Kingdom of God-forever existent.
There is the Church-created in time according to the will of God within His Kingdom.
There are local churches-identifiable manifestations of The Church Universal.
I hope this helps.
cb
Benji,
Maybe if I repeat this statement I can explain what I mean.
“In the atonement Christ birthed the church. He died to free us from our sins individually, He also died for the Church (The Body of Christ). (See: Romans 5:8; Eph. 5:25)”
The Apostles were individuals who were saved and baptized with the Spirit in the process of the Trinity’s birthing and empowering of the Church.
When you and I were saved individually we were baptized in the Spirit immediately. We were also immediately added to The Church (Body of Christ; Bride of Christ; Church Universal) immediately.
We at some point later identified with a local church. (An identifiable manifestation of The Church (Body of Christ; Bride of Christ; Church Universal)
Does this help to explain what I mean?
cb
Benji,
That should have been: In the atonement Christ died for “The Church.” not “the church”
and then: He also died for “The Church.”
My inconsistency is probably causing the problem. I apologize.
cb
CB,
I must be dense bro:)
Let me try to interact with some of what you said.
How do you get that there are many [local?] “churches” where the Spirit does not dwell? I’m thinking you might be using loose language here.
Part of the temple of God imagery is that of “living stones” being together–that suggests to me something extremely glorious when there is a local church assembly.
Let’s set aside the relationship between the kingdom and the church. What I am interested in is the topic of when the church came into being.
I see the church as being the fulfillment of what the nation of Israel was a “picture/type” of. Hence, the imagery used in relation of Israel being applied to the church such as circumcision, chosen race, holy nation, etc.
The nation of Israel was saved out of the bondage of Egypt through the blood of a lamb and led into the promised land of Canaan.
The church is saved out of the bondage of sin through the blood of the Lamb and led into the promised land of heaven.
The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in individuals who make up the church is a necessary and extremely important part of what makes the church the church in my view.
After Pentecost you see the book of Acts say church, church, church, church, church…
Jesus Christ died for the church, rose for the church, ascended to the right hand of God and poured out the Holy Spirit and thus the church was birthed.
That’s how I see it at least.
By inconsistency, I mean inconsistency in writing.
I don’t think I am inconsistent in what I am trying to say. I just write it inconsistently.
cb
“When you and I were saved individually we were baptized in the Spirit immediately. We were also immediately added to The Church (Body of Christ; Bride of Christ; Church Universal) immediately.”
I agree. However, we cannot equate or experience [postPentecost] with the experience of the Apostles.
The Apostles were saved while Christ was on earth. The Apostles were baptized in the Spirit after the death and resurrection of Christ.
Eph. 5:25 says that Christ died for the church in order to make her holy, etc. Romans 5:8 speaks of Christ death for sinners. But that is different from saying Christ gave birth to the church at the cross.
Better English:
I agree. However, we cannot equate our experience [postPentecost] with the experience of the Apostles.
Benji,
The weakness of blogging is that we are not face-to-face. That is also the strength of blogging.
In this case the weakness is our problem.
I have no disagreement with what you are say.
(except I believe that Israel and The Church are not the same. Israel was not The Church in the OT. And The Church is not the “New Israel” in the NT. They are not the same. I don’t think that is what you are saying, but I want to be sure. I do think Israel does manifest “types” of The Church. I believe the Book of Hebrews makes that very clear as does much of the NT.)
I think we would be in much agreement at the end of the day were we face-to-face. I was speaking of process of the establishment, birthing, and empowering of The Church as is revealed in the four gospels and Acts.
Birthing and empowering of individuals into The Church occurs at the moment of salvation today.
Are we now closer to agreement?
cb
Benji,
“I agree. However, we cannot equate our experience [postPentecost] with the experience of the Apostles.”
I agree.
They were of a process. We are immediate.
Are we at an understanding?
cb
CB,
“Birthing and empowering of individuals into The Church occurs at the moment of salvation today.”
I agree.
There are basically three options [that I know of] as to the relationship between Israel and the church.
1. Israel is the church in the O.T. [I disagree with this]
2. Israel “and” the church–dispensational view [I disagree with this]
3. Israel was a type of the church [I agree with this]
I believe Israel was, in an overall sense, an unbelieving people the Lord was in an Old Covenant relationship with.
I believe the church is, in an absolute sense, a believing people the Lord is in a New Covenant relationship with.
Israel was, to use Septuagint language, the “sperma” of Abraham.
The church, to use New Testament language, is the “sperma” of Abraham [Gal. 3:29]. Hence, I do take this as evidence that Galatians 6:16 should be translated “‘even’ the Israel of God”.
I think maybe where we disagree is when the church was birthed. I think you see the church being birthed before Christ’s ascension whereas I see the church birthed after Christ’s ascension.
Therefore, this might affect the way we see the giving of the great commission. I think you see the Great Commission as being given to the local church in the form of the Apostles. However, I don’t believe the church existed yet and so I could not say that.
Benji,
I will take it we are in agreement or at least close.
It is the testimony of many bloggers that I am at least 100 years old. Today was long. Therefore I am going to concede to their opinion and go to bed. 4:30 comes early tomorrow.
I would like to say I have enjoyed this little set-to with you. May God bless your ministry and continuing education at the best seminary in the world, SEBTS.
(It is my understanding you are a student there. Correct me if I am wrong and I apologize for the confusion.)
Until another day.
cb
Benji,
I was typing when you posted. Another weakness of blogging and not being face to face.
You say:
” I think you see the Great Commission as being given to the local church in the form of the Apostles.”
That is close. I do see the Great Commission as given to the local church, biut there were more than just the Apostles present.
I see the GC as being given to the Church Universal and the only manifestation of a local church at the same time. There were no other local manifestations of The Church at the time Christ gave the GC.
Other “local churches” came later. They will continue as such until Christ returns to take His Bride (Church Universal). There will be no reason or purpose for local churches at that point.
Thus:
churches local-temporal
Church Universal-eternal
Now I must sleep. But again, let me say thank you. It has been a delight.
cb
CB,
I’ve enjoyed this as well and I appreciate your desire to be in agreement. I have the same desire as well.
I did graduate from SEBTS and yes it is a great school–Hammett/Köstenberger/Asheford, etc.
Grace to you brother,
Benji
Benji,
One thing, you dont believe that the Holy Spirit indwelled OT Believers? And, if you dont, then how in the world were they regenerated, and how could they live for God without the Holy Spirit?
I believe that the Holy Spirit was active in OT times. I believe that He indwelt true Believers in Israel. Now, they didnt know as much as we know about the Spirit, and the ministry of the Father was being emphasized in OT times, but He had to be active back then. After all, how can depraved, unregenerate, sinful men obey God without the enabling of the Spirit? How can a man’s dead spirit be made alive to God without the quickening of the Spirit?
And, what happened in the NT was the empowering of the Holy Spirit upon the Church. That’s what happened at Pentecost. They were filled with the Holy Spirit. They were empowered for service and witness by the Spirit. That’s not when the Holy Spirit came to Earth and starting indwelling men. That’s when he filled them, and He empowered them…all of them…to use thier gifts and preach the Gospel and serve. In OT times, only certain ones ever knew what it was like to be empowered to serve…mostly prophets, priests, and kings. But, in this NT day, all Believers can be empowered to serve the Lord. They are all gifted by the Spirit, and can have the empowering of the Spirit. In this NT day, all Believers can be filled with the Holy Spirit everyday, thruout the day; and we can annointed with power to witness and serve.
So, I really believe that the Spirit was active in OT times. The ministry of the Father was emphasized back then, though. And, while Jesus walked this Earth, His ministry was emphasized. And, in this NT day, the ministry of the Spirit is emphasized. But, of course, in every time period, Jesus is to be exalted.
David
Brother Dr. Foltz,
That is kind of my point for the post. The BFM is lacking in depth and clarity because of men with differing views enjoyed coming to some agreement at a 30,000 foot view so they might be able to cooperate. My question is not of division or strife,…quite the opposite, it is one for clarity. Again, some may think the BFM2000 (outside of scripture of course) is the guiding light, and some may not. I will take the few men that are responding here to indicate that all the others that have heard the questions and that read the BFM2000 are thinking the BFM is precise enough for them….or as I have seen in many cases,…the BFM is remembered for about a week in the summer and never talked about again until another cultural shift occurs. The BFM is more of a tabloid form of beliefs that are changed as needed (latest additions of family, etc.) depending upon the rise of culture.
The reason I bring the subject up…is not for one of division, but for clarity. An example is when I attended the “Baptist Distinctives” conference at SWBTS this last year, …a guest speaker and graduate of the school was instructing several hundred students about the “two” offices in the church. His presentation made it clear that a single Pastor mode was the norm. It may be the norm in the churches today (and now another 200 men have been led to think in that direction),..but it was not the norm in the early churches and it was not the norm that Paul related to Timothy and Titus. No doubt, one overseer / pastor is better than none at all, since leadership in the church is something that God blesses His church with…. But we should be clear that God through the Apostles has called multiple overseers in every congregation. That is the norm for all churches and leaders should trust the same instruction that Paul gave Timothy and Titus.
-Chris
Brothers cb and Benji,
Thank you for interacting here. As I read through the blogs you guys don’t seem to be on different teams. That’s a good thing!
cb,…I like what you said further up, because it does help to focus us on the real story of the sidebar issue you guys were engaged in, when you said…. “Jesus did not die for the Kingdom of God. Jesus died for the Church.” He simply establishes, rules, and reigns His Kingdom, …He demonstrated the power unto salvation in His death and resurrection giving us a very clear picture of what He has done. Two different things all-together.
Did Jesus die for Abraham, David, Job, John the Baptist, Paul, cb, Benji, and Chris? or was the results of his death and resurrection applied some other way? Is there a different way to be saved other than by grace through faith? I would say no. Do we understand it better and see it clearer today? I would say yes. Did God have a plan, and still does, for the Nation of Israel and those of Israel that are Israel? I would say he does.
Your right, in that Israel is not the “called out ones after Christ”….that would be impossible. The remnant Israel was maintained by God before Christ came, but was none-the-less “the called out” of God (at least some were as Paul would say), and God will have more to say on the subject of Israel as a nation (Romans 9-11). So God has always had a people from the start. His called out ones have a mission today and that is a good limb to be on.
So…cb, I take all this to mean that you are ecstatic with the BFM2000 as it does not need any improvements.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Vol,
I was posting at the same time,…with the same thought…. thx for the input.
Blessings,
Chris
As the great Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmeman said, Jesus died “for the life of the world.” Which does not entail universalism. My two cents.
I think it is quite unlikely that the BF&M will be changed in my lifetime. The first time it came out was in 1925. Then it was revised in 1963 and again in 2000. The frequency of its revision has been about every 38 years.
At this rate it might be revised again in 2040. However, I won’t be associated with the SBC any more so I’m not worrying about any potential revision of the BF&M.
Additionally, there was quite a bit of rancor raised regarding several sections in the 2000 BF&M. I personally don’t disagree with the BFM 2000, but I don’t know if a cost/benefit analysis would show that whatever incremental “benefit” happened due to “stricter wording regarding women in ministry” was needed given that changes to the BF&M served as a catylist for quite a bit of disention in the SBC.
I’m very simplistic, to me the BF&M 1925, 1963 and 2000 are the “same”. They only have second-order differences based upon reaction to the current cultural mileau.
Roger Simpson
Chris,
My belief concerning the BF&M of any rendering; It is a sufficient guide for cooperation among those who know and believe the Word of God (Bible) is the only perfect, inerrant and completely authoritative document in all of human existence.
In addition, I believe people who have a high view of Scripture (High view of Scripture-meaning it is the perfect, inerrant, infallible, completely authoritative, Spirit inspired, plenary, Word of God and completely sufficient for all faith and practice of the faith among men in existence ) and actually spend time learning the message of Scripture do not really need any other document to guide them in faith and practice.
Yet, due to the fallen nature of men, we have seen fit to develop guides to direct us toward cooperation in the advancement of the gospel upon earth. One such document is the BF&M. It is a sufficient guide. It is not the perfect Word of God.
Therefore, and again due to man’s fallen nature; Such guides as is the BF&M must be set aside from time-to-time due to the lacking of perfection in their nature and a diligent appeal to God’s perfect Word must occur in order to keep the faith pure and establish harmony in the body and direction for continued cooperation in the advancement of the gospel.
Such action as described above will often “thin the herd” so to speak. Those who have a high view of Scripture as defined above will continue to cooperate. Those who have a lesser view of Scripture will fall away, organize other groups, join other established groups, etc, etc.
Chris, I have made to long and boring statement above to provide foundation for my answer to your question:
“So…cb, I take all this to mean that you are ecstatic with the BFM2000 as it does not need any improvements.”
I am ecstatic with the Word of God in its perfection and authority in all faith and practice. I am satisfied with the sufficiency of the BF&M as a guide in cooperation with those who have a high view of Scripture.
How’s that?
cb
Vol,
Your comment in #38 is excellent.
cb
Volfann,
“One thing, you dont believe that the Holy Spirit indwelled OT Believers?”
No I do not.
“And, if you dont, then how in the world were they regenerated, and how could they live for God without the Holy Spirit?”
Because I do not “equate” regeneration with being indwelt with the Spirit–they are related, but not identical in my view.
There is no way to do justice to John 7:39, 14:17 without saying that something profoundly new has happened in the New Testament era.
The Old Testament reveals a pattern of the Spirit coming “upon” different individuals. The New Testament reveals that the Spirit has now come to “indwell” individuals in fulfillment of Ez. 36:26.
When those Spirit indwelt individuals assemble together, the New Testament reveals that God dwells in that sanctuary in the Spirit.
Powerful stuff my brothers. And new.
I agree with James Renehan on Pg. 773, footnote 21 of Grudem’s systematic theology.
Everyone,
I plan on commenting again on Monday if any are interested. God Bless you all.
CB:
Your statement in #43 hits the ball out of the park in terms of the status of the BF&M relative to the Bible.
If someone was talking about changing the text of the Bible I might get excited.
Roger Simpson
Brother cb,
I think it is ok as well…. but, just a bit too vague in some areas. I completely agree with what you have stated “I am ecstatic with the Word of God in its perfection and authority in all faith and practice”.
That’s solid rock!
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
I do want to make one more comment.
“I am ecstatic with the Word of God in its perfection and authority in all faith and practice. I am satisfied with the sufficiency of the BF&M as a guide in cooperation with those who have a high view of Scripture.”
I understand what you are saying. However, where the “rubber meets the road” is whether or not someone can do missions through the IMB with the BF&M being the acid test.
My opinion is that the SBC establishment mood–among some, not all–is so militant that they want everything black and white. Therefore, I think this is a case of the pastoral being trumped by the militant.
I think the pastoral can handle nuance. I think the militant cannot.
In other words, if someone could not sign the BF&M because they could not agree in good “conscience” that the Holy Spirit baptizes people [instead of Christ baptizing "in" the Spirit] for example, then I think some have the attitude of–these are all non negotiables, there are other organizations you could join if you would like. God Bless.
[I would be happy to be proved wrong here]
However, I would argue that the above example is a legitimate example of violating liberty of conscience–of which some are supposed to follow in accordance with Article XVIII of the Abstract.
NO ONE should feel ANY pressure whatsoever in ANY situation whatsoever to violate their conscience on ANY doctrine that CANNOT be exegeted from Scripture.
There’s my stake in the ground.
And no, I do not think anyone gets around this by calling others skittish or squeamish.
And no, I do not think anyone gets around this by giving an [extreme] example like “open theism” to try and debunk the practicality of liberty of conscience.
And no, I do not think you will see any of the SBC establishment men [who I think are being too militant] give any public defense that gets into the “details” of how the “Holy Spirit baptizing” example above is not a violation of liberty of conscience.
I think they might keep things general [i.e., "no compromise" for example].
I don’t think some are engaged in mere confessionalism. I think some are engaged in confessional “idealism”.
Confessionalism I don’t mind. Confessional idealism seems to ascribe magical qualities to uninspired documents to me.
I would encourage all to consider these words from John Reisinger:
“Let us not make the same mistakes that the Reformers made. They thoroughly reformed the gospel message of justification by faith but failed to reform some other doctrines. They threw out justification by the works of the law, but held on to sanctification by the law. They rejected the Church’s authority over your soul, but hung on to the Church’s authority over your conscience. They discarded priestcraft and substituted clericalism. They rejected the authority of Church tradition (which taught Papal infallibility) but replaced it with man-made creeds that soon became as authoritative as Scripture. In reality they replaced a two-legged Pope with a paper Pope. They cried sola Scriptura while waving a creed in one hand and a sword in the other.”
* From the book “Abraham’s Four Seeds”, Pg. iv. Published by “New Covenant media”.
God bless,
Benji
Vol,
I do believe Benji does have a valid position here. And I actually think you would agree.
The baptism of the Spirit is a New Testament concept. I think three of us have all said basically the same thing and would be in agreement in the give and take of a face-to-face conversation.
You described the immediate situation in your comment.
Benji has described the way the Spirit “came upon” individuals in the OT and how He “indwells” (baptizes) individuals today (post Pentecost). If I am wrong in my assumptions as to your agreement, lease correct me.
cb
Benji and Vol have brought up the crux of the situation …..
The person, the Holy Spirit of God, has always operated in the OT as in the NT scriptures, yet as scripture told us…”the Holy Spirit signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer Tabernacle is still standing”. The “way” is not new, but it simply was not disclosed fully. We should not confuse lack of disclosure with what the Holy Spirit is doing. He (the Holy Spirit) has consistently applied the righteousness of Christ to the OT believers longing for the promises of the new covenant by grace through faith, just as He has applied the righteousness of Christ to the Apostle Paul and us as well. There is no difference. No second class application of the Spirit.
2 Peter 1:17-19 “For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”– (18) and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (19) So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.”
It is because of the word made “more sure” that we obey Christ and identify this presence of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and is eternally interceding for all.
Hebrews 9:8-16 “The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, (9) which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, (10) since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. (11) But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; (12) and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. (13) For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, (14) how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (15) For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (16) For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.”
Hebrews 13:20-21 “Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, (21) equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.”
Christ never left or forsook Abraham and he will never leave or forsake his own today. The person of the Holy Spirit simply applies all that Christ has done on our behalf. The “parakletos” simply abides and cresendo’s His work through the sanctification of the ecclesia, together as a living organism , without the need for a dividing wall of separation. Christ took care of the dividing wall (full disclosure) when he appeared the first time… and will put away death upon his next and final return.
Revelation 21:3-4 “And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, (4) and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”
Blessings,
Chris
Benji,
Would the following statement from my comment #43 above not be somewhat in agreement with your position in comment #48?
“Therefore, and again due to man’s fallen nature; Such guides as is the BF&M must be set aside from time-to-time due to the lacking of perfection in their nature and a diligent appeal to God’s perfect Word must occur in order to keep the faith pure and establish harmony in the body and direction for continued cooperation in the advancement of the gospel.”
cb
CB,
Yes, I think it is.
I’m trying to get away from this stream because I have work to do:)
But here’s one more.
Everyone–which do you think is worse?
Someone who signs a confession without any exceptions BUT HAS REDEFINED WHAT THE WORDS IN THE CONFESSION MEANS TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT HERESY MIGHT EVEN GET IN
Or
Someone who signs a confession and puts on paper whatever different nuances/disagreements he or she has with that confession so that the trustees [or whoever] understand exactly where this person is coming from and thus can guard from heresy
?
Benji,
One thing I must say relating to your use of the IMB to illustrate your point.
For me, personally, the situation at the IMB since 1993 is a very complicated quagmire indeed.
It is of such a nature of complexity that the only hope (as I see it) to solve the problems there will be for some people to come together, with much prayer and soul searching, set the BF&M aside and appeal to the Scripture completely submitted to the Spirit of God to guide them in righting that particular ship.
cb
Like Benji,
I will be back on Monday as well…..
cb, comment #54, very wise IMHO.
Everyone….Have a great Lord’s Day….May we all receive from Christ. Preach with clarity, strength and gentleness!
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
I believe that the Holy Spirit lived inside of OT Believers. I believe that’s the only way they could know God and have any desire whatsoever to live for God. In the flesh, man does not and can not know God, and he has no natural desires to live for God. So, how could an OT Believer walk with God, as did Enoch, if he did not have the Holy Spirit living inside of him?
Benji, also, the Holy Spirit coming upon people in the OT could very well mean coming upon them with power to do the work that God wanted them to do at that time. That’s what I believe.
But, most certainly, I believe that the Spirit regenerated people in the OT. Otherwise, they could not be saved, nor would they have any desire to know God and live for God without the indwelling Holy Spirit.
In the NT, the Holy Spirit baptises us into Christ, and fills every Believer, and gives us all gifts, and gives us all the power to use those gifts and to preach the Gospel. That’s what was new to NT Believers that OT Believers didnt have.
David
Vol,
You said:
“That’s what was new to NT Believers that OT Believers didnt have.”
I think you are right is recognizing a difference. There is a difference in the way the Spirit operated in directing to affairs and blessing the lives and saving people in the OT.
I wonder of it is our lacking of sufficient understanding of how to express the difference is a problem for us.
I believe you are right in saying the Spirit came upon certain individuals to do specific things beyond the ordinary. Yet, there was obviously a new experience for Believers of the NT and beyond that the OT Believers did not experience.
Does that make any sense to you?
cb
I PETER 1;10-11 sata The Spirit of Christ was in the OT Prophets.
Paul Fultz,
Agreed. Yet, the specific operation of the Spirit upon/within the OT prophets would not be the same operation of the Spirit toward NT Believers is it?
cb
Patrick,
1. For examples, see the listings given by Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260-340) (largely indebted to Clement and Origen of Alexandria) and Athanasius of Alexandria. Carson, Moo, and Morris state, “The worldwide church almost universally came to accept the same twenty-seven books. It was not so much that the church selected the canon as that the canon selected itself” (p. 494).
2. The issue for the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397) was that of the NT canon, not the OT. The main authority for the OT canon remains the NT. Quotation patterns of the NT largely line up with the Jewish canon (which placed the apocryphal books in a separate category from canonical ones). Any literature cited in the NT that is not from the OT canon is never referred to as “scripture” or assigned to the Holy Spirit or God as its author. There is no hint that the NT writers wanted to jettison any of the canonical OT. The books you cited from the Apocrypha have no evidence of being accepted by the NT writers as canonical scripture. The NT writers loved the Septuagint, which included much of the Apocrypha, but they never cited it as “scripture.”
I believe this rabbit trail has about run its course. I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you. But I think this is as far as I will pursue it.
Blessings,
Kevin
Kevin, I’m sorry if I struck a nerve or something. That was not my intent. We were talking about leadership in the early church. You said in #8 above that once the Apostles were gone, authority came from Scripture. I just asked what did they regard as Scripture at that time. I think history shows there was a great deal of confusion for centuries before a settled canon was widely known, so it is hard to see how it could serve as their authority for so long.
If, as Carson et al says, the canon basically selected itself, it still seems to have taken a long time. The people you cite are good examples of this. Clement (I assume you mean Clement of Alexandria) included the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Origen left out James, II Peter, and II and III John. Eusebius was doubtful about Hebrews and James. He also didn’t know what to make of Revelation, referring to it as both canonical and spurious in different places.
It wasn’t until the 4th century with Athanasius and, soon after, the 3rd council at Carthage (A.D. 397) that the NT canon as we know it today was settled. You said that 3rd Carthage put a stamp of approval on what was already widely known. Even if that is correct, they also placed a stamp of approval on an OT canon that included several apocryphal works. It makes no sense to say that their NT canon was was widely accepted but their OT canon was not.
An even more basic question is this: if by the time of 3rd Carthage the canon was widely known and accepted, why did the council feel it necessary to make and publicize a list in the first place? This suggests there was still controversy at that time.
For anyone who is interested, here is the B.F. Westcott translation of the 3rd Carthage decree. I am still trying to understand why the Bibles we all have today are different.
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.
Brothers,
I would like to thank everyone for their participation here. As I intimated from the start of the post,…it is always good to ask questions and try to make the “good news” as clear as possible. It seems that most everyone will struggle with a consensus document like the BFM2000 to some degree, yet clarity should be sought in order to mitigate less contention as local churches understand how to cooperate in the body of Christ.
From the tone of the posts so far,…. The BFM2000 seems to carry very little weight in the scheme of things, which may be a very sobering perspective. We will continue to explore other sections as they compare to biblical doctrine….and attempt to do this in the spirit of improvement not dissension.
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
You said “For me, personally, the situation at the IMB since 1993 is a very complicated quagmire indeed.”
You probably know much more about it than I do.
Here is my big picture idea of the state of things:
If you gave me the seminaries of today and the broader tent of our mission agencies of yesterday, then I think I could give you 15,000+ foreign missionaries on the field today.
No, I would not want missionaries on the field who would cause folks to lose confidence in the Scriptures. However, if they are spiritually mature and believe in the “fundamentals”/immersion/congregationalism/eternal security/the exclusivity of the gospel/etc., then I am personally OK with that.
I don’t think the heart of the SB family is the seminaries. I think the heart of the SB family is missions through the mission agencies–whether folk want to do missions themselves or support those who do.
The seminaries are pumping out conservatives. That’s good.
The IMB has eh, 6,000[?] on the field now. Not good [enough].
I know my perspective invites the response of “well, we want quality and not necessarily quantity on the mission field” or “well, we want the missionaries we support to be Southern Baptists [whatever they think that is]“.
However, I think SB missions needs to be big picture oriented and not finery oriented. I think the seminaries can be more finery oriented.
I think the mission field vision needs to be–eternal heaven, eternal hell, eternal God, Lamb of God slain, lots of lost people. THEREFORE, lots of missionaries supported by Southern Baptists.
God Bless,
Benji
Patrick,
No nerves struck, I just have other things that I need to do that would be a better use of my time. If, however, you are having a “crisis of faith” over the matter, please let me know, and I’ll be glad to rearrange my priorities. If your questions stem from mere curiosity into the matter, there are some excellent sources that I would encourage you to read.
Roger Beckwith, “The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church” (Eerdmans, 1985).
F. F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture” (IVP, 1988).
The articles on canon in “Foundations for Biblical Interpretation,” eds. David Dockery, Kenneth Matthews, and Robert Sloan (Broadman & Holman, 1994).
Bruce Metzger, “Introduction to the Apocrypha” in The Oxford Annotated Apocrypa (Oxford Univ. Press, 1966).
Just a few items to reiterate before I have to go:
1. The Jewish canon (i.e. Hebrew OT) was pretty much set by the time of the NT. The NT writers affirmed the Jewish Bible as inspired “scripture” and never recognized the Apocryphal books in the same category. The fact that some early church fathers quoted from the Apocrypha and considered it “scripture” does not mean that the NT writers did. A book can be “useful” even though it is not canonically inspired.
2. Your perception that there was “a great deal of confusion for centuries before a settled canon was widely known” in my opinion is largely misguided — especially in terms of a NT canon. The early Christians did not wait for any “council” to declare to them what books were inspired and which were not. They read them, used them, and independently came to the same conclusion. David Dunbar states, “It is fair to say that wherever Christians in particular localities have been concerned to know the extent of the NT and have searched for this knowledge in a spirit of open communication with the larger church, unanimity of opinion has generally been the result. So it is significant that the reopening of the questions of canon by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation led to a narrowing of the OT canon over against the Roman Catholic usage but affected no similar change in the extent of the NT canon.” (David Dunbar, “Biblical Canon” in Hermeneutic, Authority, and Canon, eds. D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge (Zondervan, 1986), 317-18.
In the early centuries, there was no ecclesiastical machinery like the papacy to enforce decisions, but nevertheless the worldwide church almost universally came to accept the same 27 books, and this result was by no means contrived. “All that the several churches throughout the Empire could do was to witness to their own experience with the documents and share whatever knowledge they might have about their origin and character. When consideration is given to the diversity of cultural backgrounds and in orientation to the essentials of the Christian faith within the churches, their common agreement about which books belonged to the NT serves to suggest that this final decision did not originate solely at the human level.” (Barker/Lane/Michaels as cited in Carson, Moo, and Morris, 494).
3. The fact that it took several centuries for the extent of the NT canon to be officially “recognized” by a church council is not a major issue. God is not reliant upon church councils to authenticate His inspired word. That was already being done in the hearts of Christians for centuries up to that point. We appreciate the affirmation by the church councils, but we are by no means reliant upon them to have our scripture.
As I said earlier, Patrick, if you are indeed having a “crisis of faith” over the matter, I will be glad to rearrange some priorities to continue this conversation. However, if it is merely a curiosity, then I would encourage you to do some more earnest study. If something indeed is the truth, it will withstand the scrutiny.
Hi Kevin – No crisis here, just trying to educate myself.
I’ve read the F.F. Bruce book, but will check out the others you recommend. Thanks and have a nice day.