A Surprising Turn

Pastors have long been aware that people can frequently be unreasonable and irrational. An example of that occurred some years ago when a young man attending our Church told me he was planning to move to another state. I liked him and I thought he liked me. But when I informed him that I would be sorry to see him move to another state and would pray that God worked in his life to keep him here he became very angry and has not spoken to me in the years since that incident occurred.

But a surprising turn has developed over the last two years or so since the arrival of the Wuhan virus and the irresponsible, unconstitutional, and oppressive government measures to impose lockdowns. Pastors across the country have expressed resentment toward me and other pastors for trying to encourage folks to attend church. When did it become wrong for a pastor to encourage someone to attend church?

Do Nigerian Christians become angry at their pastors for inviting them to Church, even though Church attendance in Nigeria exposes Christians to the Islamic terror group vocal how him?

Do Vietnamese Christians become angry at their pastors for inviting them to Church, even though Church attendance in Vietnam exposes Christians to the oppression of the communist government in that country?

Do Indian Christians become angry at their pastors for inviting them to Church, even though Church attendance in India sometimes exposes Christians to the violent persecutions of militant Hindus?

Did Russian Christians become angry at their pastors of unregistered Churches invited them to Church during the era of the USSR, even though Church attendance at unregistered Churches in the USSR exposed Russian Christians to violent persecution from the Soviet KGB?

Do Chinese Christians become angry at their pastors for inviting them to the illegal House Churches in China, even though Church attendance at the House Church worship services in China exposes Chinese Christians to violent persecution from the communist Chinese security services?

Did German Christians become angry at their pastors for inviting them to Church services when the Nazi regime controlled Germany, even though Church attendance under Nazi Germany frequently subjected worshipers to persecution from the Nazis?

Did Huguenot Christians in France become angry at their pastors for inviting them to Church services, even though attendance at Protestant Churches frequently resulted in withering persecution, ultimately resulting in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in France?

Do you suppose the early Christians in Jerusalem who were converted on the Day of Pentecost and in the days following became angry at James and the apostles for encouraging them to gather for worship, even though their participation in Christian worship and fellowship invited terrible persecution from the religious establishment of that day?

I could go on and on, but the easily understood notion requires no explanation, merely a myriad of historical references.

It has always been physically dangerous for Christians to gather for worship, the exceptions throughout the world and throughout history being notable. Yet some American Christian pastors entertain the surprising conviction that a minister of the Gospel, a spiritual leader, one who is authorized to uphold Bible truth and to persuade professing Christians to both learn and abide by what they have been taught from God’s Word, and are getting miffed because fellow pastors are more concerned about the spiritual welfare of congregants than about the relatively minuscule likelihood that most congregants will suffer permanent damage from a strain of coronavirus.

This is not to set aside the priesthood of every believer to make their own decisions related to exposure to the dangers one faces in life. Soul liberty is a Baptist characteristic. However, the believer’s primary concern has never been shown in Scripture to be one’s physical safety but God’s glory. Perhaps more preachers and Church members should read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs to learn what each believer’s primary concerns ought to be.

The coming year will be pivotal as governments worldwide use the latest virus variant to justify onerous regulations and lifestyle mandates, all the while propagandizing pastors and people to believe they should not (in most cases) continue to attend Church faithfully. Don’t be afraid, preacher, because “fear hath torment,” First John 4.18. God prefers that we enjoy peace of mind and heart as we serve God, Philippians 4.7. Go ahead and invite people to Church. How else can you expect to have an audience to minister God’s Word? You and I both know that the Internet is an inferior alternative to the gathered assembly.

Unscriptural Ecclesiasticism

W. R. Downing has written many wonderful books. Among his best is The New Testament Church, revised in 2006 and available from www.sgccsv.org. 

Dr. Downing was a hard hat professional diver who came to Christ, enrolled in Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, and followed his mentor, Dr. Peter Connolly, to the school in Arlington, Texas. 

On page 115 of his book, under the heading the prominent errors and heresies, he offers this paragraph: 

“There were three errors or heresies that developed during this era: first, the error of the ecclesiasticism. The New Testament pattern for the church (noting that the Apostolic office ended with the original Apostles) was contained within the local assembly. Any office beyond the local church was quite unknown. During this period (100–313), a gradual ecclesiastical hierarchy developed in some churches and geographical areas. From local bishops to parochial bishops (i.e., those who trained other ministers or had schools) to monarchial bishops (i.e. ruling bishops who exercised authority over several churches) to the Metropolitan Bishops, the system of unscriptural religious hierarchy grew until it united with the State under Constantine. Because of the unscriptural ecclesiasticism, many churches withdrew fellowship from this apostate system and continue to maintain New Testament church government. There is a marked trend in the division of churches over such issues during this transitory period.” 

Are we seeing such a development among independent fundamental Baptists? I have recently become aware of large independent Baptist Churches that are effectively led, not by the current pastor, but by the former pastor. I am also mindful that many Baptist pastors automatically and thoughtlessly yield to the influence of prominent area big church pastors whose leadership style does not reflect the New Testament pattern. As for yielding to state control? How did they respond to their state governor’s mandate to lockdown and discontinue public services? 

I am afraid the answer to my question is “Yes.” More and more, pastors of churches go along to get along, listen to podcasts rather than studying the Word of God, employ leadership styles they learned in the military and not in the Word of God, and are inclined to make use of the manipulative techniques that produce more immediate but far less lasting results than biblical leadership. 

I welcome your response to my observations.

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Thirty-Nine, Election in Christ.

 

This chapter is divided into five parts. 

“Election was the work of God alone. Neither angels nor men were involved, for they did not even exist yet and were themselves the object of election. God is a Trinity, and whatever He does He does as a Trinity. Each member has a distinctive yet cooperating role in everything, including election.” 

The Trinity and Election. Three paragraphs. Passages that are mentioned are Ephesians 1:3–4; John 15:16; 13:18; 15:19; Matthew 28:19. 

Election in Christ. Ten paragraphs. The three verses that teach that election is “in Christ” are Romans 16:13, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4. “Election is completely Christ related. It is in Christ, through Christ, by Christ, for Christ, to be in Christ. There is no election outside of Christ; all election is in Christ. This has bearing on salvation. There is no salvation except by Christ and through faith in Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). This also relates to union with Christ. The elect were united covenantly with Christ in election and then united experimentally with Christ in conversion, with the result that they are now in Christ.” In the eighth paragraph of this subsection the author asserts a problem exists for dispensationalists. I am unpersuaded by his argument. 

Christ as the Elected One. Seven paragraphs. “Christ is not only the subject of election but in a sense is also the object of election.” A discussion follows, citing Isaiah 42:1, Matthew 12:18, Matthew 3:17, 17:5, Ephesians 1:6, Psalm 89, Luke 23:35, 9:35, 1 Peter 2:4, 6, Psalm 118:22, Isaiah 28:16, Psalm 106:23, Exodus 3, Numbers 16:5, 17:5, Psalm 78:68–72, 1 Samuel 16:7–12. Comments made by Christopher Love, Jonathan Edwards, and John Calvin are cited. 

The Barthian Theory. Three paragraphs criticizing Karl Barth’s position. 

Conclusion. “These are deep waters which we must swim with humility, caution, and wonder. Election is in Christ and related to Christ’s election in a mysterious and glorious way. As God He is co-elector. As man – or better, the God-man – He is chosen to be Savior, Mediator, and Head of His people. In fulfilling His predestined office, Christ receives great glory, which in turn redounds to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5–11). Thus Christ has the preeminence in all things (Colossians 1:18), including election.