"Christianity and Liberalism" by J. Gresham Machen

J. Gresham's "Christianity and Liberalism" addresses the topic of heretical, revisionist teachings and the damaging effect these bring within Christian churches. By 'liberal' Machen isn't referring to political liberalism but rather the introduction of revisionist, distorted views of the Scripture, such as questioning Biblical innerancy and the historicity of the Scripture. What's remarkable is that Machen wrote this back in the 1920's, but all of the liberal heresies that he addresses are just as much alive and well today. It isn't uncommon to find the pastor at a supposedly "Christian" church that denies important Biblical truths such as the virgin birth or even the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I'm reminded of a message I heard recently from pastor Phil Johnson, in which he rightly observed that the greatest threat to Christianity today isn't the raving atheist on the street, but rather the internal corruption of liberal teachers from within the church itself (the quote comes from Johnson message on the topic of pastoral shepherding, that's available here)

Machen draws the clear distinction between "Christianity" and "liberalism", identifying there is no such thing as liberal Christianity, but rather there is orthodox, confessionally-centered Biblical Christianity, at the core of which is gospel-centered faith in repentance and belief in the resurrected savior Christ Jesus, and any supposedly “christian” religious approach that detracts from that, or throws doubts into the historical claims of the Bible, particularly those that undermine the fundamental, historical tenants of Christianity, Machen rightly distinguishes as something other than Christianity, as another religion.

Machen addresses numerous liberal arguments made about the historicity of Scripture, miracles, teachings such as of the "universal fatherhood of God", attacks on the Pauline epistles, the work and person of Christ, the importance of doctrinal standards in the church, etc. It's a fascinating and relevant read for laypeople. Consider Machen's closing remarks, "There are congregations, even in the present age of conflict, that are really gathered around the table of the crucified Lord; there are pastors that are pastors indeed. But such congregations, in many cities, are difficult to find. Weary with the conflicts of the world, one goes into the Church to seek refreshment for the soul. And what does one find? Alas, too often, one finds only the turmoil of the world. The preacher comes forward, not out of a secret place of meditation and power, not with the authority of God's Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problem of sin. Such is the sermon... Thus the warfare of the world has entered even into the house of God, And sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace." (p. 179-180)

Reading Machen should spawn good questions for all Christians, and one should not be afraid to bring these up with your pastor. Ask the pastor/elders if the church is confessionally-centered, if it adheres to the historical creeds (such as the Apostles creed/Nicean creed) and the truths defined therein. Ask the pastor if the church adheres to the inerrant authority of the word of God. Ask if the church believes in and teaches the miracles of Christ, and especially the resurrection. If you don't get clear answers on any of these, then give careful consideration if you're actually a part of a Christian church, or instead within a liberal false-church that actually has no part of the true body of Christ.

"Christianity and Liberalism" is available at most online bookstores, but since it's in the public domain its also freely available electronically at sites like this.

You can also hear a free MP3 recording of the book here: http://reformedaudio.org/machen.html

For another example of the detrimental damages done by liberalism in the Christian church, also check out the recent testimony of a German Christian named Anita Kupferman and her exposure to “higher critical methodology” in some of German “theological” schools (her testimony can be read in HeartCry magazine, available for free here)

Paedocommunion

At "Theological word of the day" (one of my favorite sites) the word of the day is paedocommunion, which "describes the practice of allowing infants or small children to the Lord’s communion table."  As someone who personally sees infant baptism as something NOT in Scripture, I've long wondered why Presbyterians and Methodists don't also practice paedocommunion as well, or feeding the elements to babies as well.  It wouldn't be any different than infant sprinkling: the baby has no idea what's going on, has no understanding of the nature of sin, and basically an ordinance is incorrectly applied to someone who doesn't understand what's going on.  So why don't ALL churches that sprinkle babies also feed the communion bread to those "covenant babies" as well?  There's a pretty substantial inconsistency going on there.  As a reformed baptist, I believe that the table, and baptism, are ordinances that should NOT be observed by someone until they are at an age of maturity to understand the true meaning of what Christ established in these ordinances.  Anything else would be heretical.

I've wondered:  If a church practices paedocommunion, what happens with a parent that is exclusive breast-feeding a child?  Would they introduce foods like this when the child is only consuming the mother's milk?  Would they be forced to observe this as part of the "sacrament" of the church?

1Timothy 3:6 and Non-seminary Trained Lay Elders

A couple thoughts of mine on the topic of lay-elders. Just sort of hammering out some thoughts here, as it's a topic I'm still digging through Scripture to resolve. I grew up Presbyterian, where the church organization would feature a senior "teaching elder" accompanied by a number of lay elders, who were generally NOT seminary-educated but were simply full-time doctors or plumbers or whatever and who served as elders once a week, basically. Over the last few years I've really started to question this practice, because it seems to me that this invariably leads to a system of unqualified men serving in leadership roles in the church, and I wonder if this goes against a part of what the Apostle Paul described to Timothy as requirements for what the elder role should be, namely this particular passage:

1 Timothy 3:6: "He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil."

That term "new convert" in the ESV is νεόφυτος (neophytos) in Greek, meaning one who has recently become a Christian, but I think that the KJV rendering of this term is interesting, and telling, in that it uses "novice." And while I'm sure there are lay officers installed that have a solid Christian walk (and perhaps some Seminary education) it makes me wonder what the danger is in trusting the leadership of the church to men who haven't really been thoroughly tested in the faith through the rigors of seminary dedication (particularly in the Presbyterian situation where, as I recall, lay elders would teach/lead worship). I don't believe that seminary is mandatory, but it definitely plays a big part in training up men who have solid, comprehensive understanding of not just exegeting scripture, but church history, systematic theology, hermeneutics, counseling, teaching, etc.

Oak Ridge Reformed Baptist, where is attend now, is led by a plurality of two extremely-gifted teaching elders, one fully-seminary educated and the other very close. This model of multiple teaching elders seems like the right direction for a number of reasons: first, because, as I understand it, the term for overseer, ἐπισκοπή, is generally used in the plural in Paul's epistle to Timothy. I think there are other spots in the New Testament that talk about multiple men leading specific churches. But the second reason is that it appears that there's something of a blessing in relaxing the practice of only one guy being the "ringleader" of the church, and instead dividing up the teaching and leadership responsibilities between two or more men. Speaking as laity, I can see how that should mean less burden exclusively placed on one man, but rather one or more men work together, support each other, share teaching responsibilities together, handle issues of the church together, etc. Having become part of a model of elder plurality, I can't see ever going back to the singular model again.

That being said, I'm reminded of the last church we attended. Good ministry with solid teaching by two very talented seminary-educated men. But one of the things they did, which I found a little questionable, was the planting of an off-shoot church work led by two men who were NOT seminary educated, and who were instead privately educated by the church leadership prior to being installed at the church plant. I had some trouble with this, in that I think this goes against I Tim. 3:6 cited above: again, this seems to speak of installing "novices" in place of men who have undergone 2-3 years of dedicated, focused seminary training. The heavy-duty reading, the rigorous exegesis, the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, the living-breathing God's word. A man who dedicates those years of time to seminary reminds me of how the prophet Elijah had to spend 3 years living in the wilderness, waiting and trusting in God, or how the Apostle Paul spent 14 years in the desert drawing close to God before his ministry work began. There's something there about the importance of dedication, training, preparedness, that you don't pick up studying theology in someone's home. I could be wrong, but I'll say this much: when Pastor Justin comes back to visit from Southern to teach, it's such a blessing to be able to glean from the knowledge and understanding that God is cultivating in him during his seminary studies. Seminary education is so foundation to what the elder role needs to be.

Paul's warning in I Tim. 3:6 speaks of someone who is newly-planted that, in their immaturaity, risks being puffed up with pride. But more than that, I would be concerned that an inexperienced elder is just not tested, and would not be prepared for every situation to be expected as an elder, be it experience in teaching adn answering difficult questions, being able to provide deep, sound expositions of text, or even the ability to faithfully and Biblically offer council. I just can't see that being cultivated out of a dedicated seminary experience.

It's like the situation of needing heart surgery: I could go with the man who's studied the body in school for several years and has gained extensive, valuable experience, or the nurse who has watched, been involved, and participated in, heart surgery, but never went to school for it. Or even the intern - with some school but not the full training and degree. If I needed the surgery, I would INSIST on the doctor, not the nurse or the intern.

Hope Presybterian Church in Grayslake, IL

I was recently at the OPC church directory and was interested to see a link for Hope Presbyterian in Grayslake, IL. Although I'm no longer Presbyterian (largely over baptism, but other issues as well), I remember this Orthodox Presbyterian Church well and it was a blessing to be a part of this fellowship years ago. Pastor Dennis Disselkoen was one of the first pastors I'm familiar with who taught in a very straight-forward exegetical teaching style - even on holidays, if he was working through a particular book, he'd keep going through that book in lieu of a Christmas-themed sermon.  I liked that.

We attended Hope back in the early 00's, as it was the first church we attended when we moved to the north Chicago suburbs. My Dad was formerly with the OPC, so it was a denomination I was very familiar with, including it's fondness for the Trinity hymnal and the Westminster standards. The church was small at that time, and meeting in a high school (shortly after that in a store front location, if I recall.) The attendance was small but the teaching was solid, and I'm glad to see that Pastor Disselkoen has some MP3 audio sermons linked on the church site.  A note, though, is that the page is currently setup so that if you go to the audio page, it starts to load up each message into the cache, so if you have a brutally old computer like I do, this slows things down.  So I suggest going to the page, use DownThemAll! and download the MP3s, then route back to a different page of the site while it runs.

Anyhow, Hope OPC was a very good mission work and the teaching was solid.  Of course, they subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, of which I have a few issues here and there (baptism and other things.)  I've actually been working through G. I. Williamson's study guide to the Confession recently, and while I think he does a good job elaborating on what the Confessions talk about, just like with the Presbyterian views I just have a hard time making some of the doctrine jive with scripture.  Probably more on that in a later post.

Dr. Thomas Schreiner on Credobaptism

Here is an excellent mp3 message by Dr. Thomas Schreiner in defense of Credo baptism. Worth checking out, as it's an excellent defense packaged into a 30 minute time frame. Some notes I took from this message:

In the baptist view, believers are clothed with Christ at baptism. Peter's message at Pentecost was "Repent and be baptised". Numerous NT scripture references all cite baptism following belief. In the Presbyterian paedobaptist model, the baptism provides no benefit unless it's followed by later faith. Faith MAY occur later in life, or may never occur at all.

I Cor. 12:13 - All believers are baptised in the body of Christ in one spirit..." All believers drink of the spirit and are equal members at baptism. Have infants received the spirit at baptism? (baptismal regeneration).

Baptism is also described scriptually as a "washing". I Cor. 6:11 - makes it clear that washing of sin and justification take place at the same time, yet justification involves faith. Justification is for those who believe.

"Household baptisms" of scripture (Acts 16) does not support the notion that this included infants. The household is contextually limited to those who could understand and believe. Evidence for this is that the household is described as "rejoicing". This joy implies understanding the significance of what had happened. Those who had rejoiced were those who believed - no compelling evidence that this included infants.

Acts 18 - Belief of the household meaning mental understanding. Maybe children included. Acts 2:39 - Often used in defense of infant baptism. Peter states "The promise is for you and for your children..." A careful reading of this does not include infants. The groups are Peter's listeners, the children, and those far off (the gentiles). It's not all those listeners, but only for those from every group who believe in the Gospel. This is justified by the last clause in the verse, "that is everyone that the Lord has called to himself." How would baptized infants who turn from faith later in life apply to this group?

Baptism as covenental sign (col. 2:12) continuing circumcision. "In him you were circumcised..." The parallel, however, doesn't work for a number of reasons: it lumps the plans of God together. There is one plan of God from scripture, but there is no evidence from scripture that we have one covenant of grace. The Abrahamic covenant is clearly distinguished from the Mosaic covenant. It is also clear that the new covenant and the Abrahamic covenant are not the same. There are elements unique to the Abrahamic covenant. For instance, Ishmael receives the covenental sign of circumcision. There is a genealogical principle to the Abrahamic covenant that does not continue in the new covenant. There is continuity and discontinuity in both covenants. The old covenant was a nation and a church. This is no longer true in the new covenant - the new covenant is composed only of those who believe in Jesus Christ. There is no special chosen nation. Heb. 8-10 make it clear that all members of the new covenant are forgiven of their sin and filled with the Holy Spirit. People from every people group.

The new testament supports a credobaptist position.