London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

How do we address really "bad" churches?  This is a interesting dilemma avoided in evangelical circles today.  Some tout church discipline.  Others say the gospel is all that matters (well at least a Calvinistic version).  There is an ever growing impulse to look past false teaching from the pulpit and disobedience in the pew and what is called a church is actually not.

To many this may sound judgmental (whatever this term means usually only to the one defining it).  But this concept is not new but was actually addressed nearly 400 years ago in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith (one place Presbyterians and Baptist can agree).

LBC (Ch XXVI) reads,
"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

WCF (Ch. XXV) reads,

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

I doesn't take much imagination to see that they are identical.  They both held to such a firm belief that local churches can become so corrupt in the errors that they are not actually functioning churches.  The confessions do not explicitly elaborate on what defines as error but it is clear they both believed you can err enough to no longer be a church.

Here's the sad part of the story.  Today theology has become some marginalized that you can almost believe anything without being accused of false teaching.  Here is one place (among many) where I believe new evangelicalism and their offspring have gone wrong.  Consider the following:

Does orthodoxy still matter?  Who determines what is correct doctrine?  Have problems with orthodoxy church creeds, then write another one?  Make up a new one from scratch to be as broad and inclusive as (presently) deemed necessary.

Does orthopraxy still matter?  Who determines what right Christian living and practice is?  Nearly everyone is ready with a finger to accuse of legalism or antinomianism.  Is your practice too worldly?  That's an easy fix, just redefine what is worldly (so that it doesn't include what you want to do).

Does orthpathy still matter?  Who determines what right emotions, desires, and affections are true and correct?  What forms of media and music are given full permission to affect our minds (and the minds of our children)?  What of literature and entertainment means?

In summation, pointing out and avoiding false teaching is nothing new (think: novel).  Don't think the most recent evangelical authors producing books on church discipline are coming up with some new or more biblical than the past.  Simply not true.

I think if we actually read many of our church's documents from the past, we'll find great deals with which we can agree (and take hardy counsel).  Without feeling the need to rewrite it all over again.

So is your church a real church?  What errors are we tolerating in the pew?  From the pulpit?

The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: The Arguments you Need to Defeat the Loony Left By. Mark W. Smith

The above book cover is from a later addition from 2006.  There was also a subsequent edition in 2008.  My reviews are from an earlier edition in 2004.

I would highly recommend this book to the many "conservative" or not so conservative Christians within the broader American landscape (at least of legal registered voters).

The arguments and comments we have all endured over the past months are nothing new.  In fact many of been held by true red-blood republicans for many years.

This book which will serve as the basis for the following comments was published in 2004.  Many of the arguments and comments employed are just as true as when they were first penned (though now 12 years ago).

I would like to list out the table of contents as the following paragraph points with some follow up comments.  I highly recommend this book for talking with those of liberal politically correct slant on life.  The talking points of each chapter are worth their weight in gold.  However I would like to follow up each discussion with some related Biblical comments.  Although, I'm sure there are many who claim the Christian title who would disagree with nearly every chapter.  So here we go.

Chapter one is entitled, "Find your Vast Right-wing conspiracy rating."  So how would you answer the following (I'll updated some of it to fit our current election candidates field) (pp. 3-5)  His answers are multiple choice I'll just leave a blank.

1. The person best qualified to choose my doctor, my child's teacher, what to eat, and whether I should smoke is _______________.

2. When shopping, I am most likely to make an impulse buy of _______________.

3. Fill in the blank:  The government that governs ________________, governs best.

4. Who was the best president of the last thirty years? _______________.

5. Which nations should have nuclear weapons (nukes)? _______________.

6. Who should own guns in America? _______________.

7. Fill in the blank: Taxes should be __________________________.

8. Before America takes any more military action in the war on terror, we should _______________.

9. The military budget should be _______________.

10. What makes you angry? _______________.

11. Which phrase best describes your beliefs _______________.

12. Who gave you your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? _______________.

Depending on how you answer these questions is a good determinate how much a card carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy you truly are.

Just to see where you are in the mix I would like to give you a small illustration.

A young 19-year old daughter just returned from her freshman year and big secular state university somewhere.  She returned home and commenced to pontificate wildly on the many grand things she learned.  She boasted of here high test scores and stellar GPA.  Her father however noticed her dismay at the hard work she put in and the seemingly care-free mentality of her college friends (who seemed to spend more time partying than studying).

In the course of discussion the daughter began to talk with her dad about her new eye opening view of liberal politics and social concerns.  She commenced to continue in disagreement with her father on nearly every issue of conservative politics ranging from finances, war, immigration, gun control, moral and ethical issues, and even religious freedom.  He responded with an illustration from her first semester of college.  It goes as follows.

Father: "I'm sure you worked hard for your grades and high test scores and I'm sure you made a great many personal sacrifices to achieve these goals on your own."

Daughter: "Yes."

Father: "Are you still somewhat upset with your friends carefree view of their education?"

Daughter: "Yes."

Father: "So here is what we'll do.  Since you are so concerned about your friends and their bad GPA.  We'll take from your hard earned GPA and give it to those who party and won't study.  That way everyone will have access to the same GPA and test scores."

Daughter: "But that's not fair,  I'm the one who worked hard for the GPA and good test scores."

Father: "Welcome to the Republican Party!"

Stay tuned to the next chapter, "No liberal media bias? Let's get real."

Kewsick View of Progressive Sanctification: Spirit-filled or Victorious? (Series on Sanctification Part Six)

Keswick View of Progressive Sanctification: Spirit-Filled or Victorious?  
(Series on Sanctification Part Six)

Series Part One          Series Part Two          Series Part Three      Series Part Four

Evangelical Christianity begins with what the Bible calls salvation.  The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the new position is that of a "saint."  This is how Paul's epistles (letters) address his readers.  Living, breathing, walking people with a new status in God's sight.  How then are they to live?  Do they just sit in this position and do nothing?  Does the scripture actually teach our only role is to keep reminding ourselves of what Christ did for us in the past?  Are we absolved of any personal responsibility to grow?  Do we resort to name calling if others don't share our form or practice we do (think: new evangelical, legalist, antinomian, or fundamentalist)?

Here is where we turn our attention.  How do we live?  There is a vast gap for most of us between when we became a Christian and when we each meet the Lord (either via death or eschatological position).  The previous article focused on the standard Wesleyan view of progressive sanctification.  This article will focus on what is the typical pattern of progressive sanctification found with Keswick theology.

Again a chart may be helpful in providing a picture of what is happening (See previous article for possible diagram sources).

Now to add some words of explanation to the above chart and some texts of scripture used by its advocates to teach this position.  I leave it up to you the reader to determine the merits of this particular system of progressive sanctification.  Please remember this is the general pattern not the catch all to every person holding to this position.

First, if you will note as in the previous article, growth or progressive sanctification begins at the cross (think: temporal moment of salvation, faith and repentance).  The new Christian is described as "non Spirit-filled" and/or "defeated."  So in this system of thinking you can be a Christian but living in a defeated position.  I assume this also is defining a Christian who is not filled with the Spirit.  Carefully pay attention to the fact that this new believer is also identified as a "carnal man."  I also assume that a believer will stay in this status (not sure of what growth can occur here) until the next stage of sanctification: crisis.

Second, see that the status or positional change does not change till this crisis.  This crisis is also defined as a consecration event .  Many also identify this crisis event as surrendering.  Please see the identification that this crisis point is when the carnal/non Spirit-filled and defeated carnal believer actually "lets go."  This implies before this chronological act following salvation a believer is not surrendered to God and is living in a state of defeat and carnality.  Not that once a crisis decision is made there are still arrows going up and down after this act of consecration.  This crisis event can occur in any number of venues: "revival" meetings, summer camps, rallies, etc....

Consider some of the following questions concerning this diagram (and how it reflects Christianity lived).  Whether it fits the best possible exegetical understanding of proof texts is another question.

1)  Is there any evidence in scripture that all believers are filled with the Spirit?  Are there any believers in the NT who are not Spirit-filled?

2)  How can we best explain the descriptions of believers in the book of Acts who are said to be "filled with Spirit"?

3)  How do we describe believers before Pentecost (Acts 2)?

4)  Note the descriptions in 1 Cor 2-3.  Is Paul addressing different types of believers or  believers behaving like unbelievers?  Again, what does it mean to be identified as "carnal" or "fleshly"?  Also taking into account the context of each.

5) Again how does Rom 12 fit into this system?  Rom 7-8 "flesh/law" and "Spirit."  An unbeliever?  A disobedient believer?  A mature believers wrestling with sin?  flesh?

These are only some suggestions in addressing this theological position describing the process of progressive sanctification.  There are other positions yet to come and to be discussed.

Hope this helps some.

Christian Liberty in the London Baptist Confession and The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Key Difference in Ch. XXI.

Christian Liberty in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith: A Key Difference in Chapter XXI

How a Christian treats this issue is actually a bigger picture of a person's heart than you might think (this included motives including pragmatism).  Certain activities claimed to be done in love or in the name of Christian liberty might not be so.

Is it truly loving and charitable to impose one's personal believes on other Christians (and in the name of liberty)?

Is it truly correct to define someone as unteachable and unsubmissive who will not blindly follow current theological fads and methodologies (and this done to in the name of liberty)?


If you've ever read these two historical documents before then you have no doubt noticed the great deal (or overwhelming deal) of verbatim vocabulary, grammar, and theology.  However there are many places where these two documents embrace dramatically different positions in regards to both theology and practice. 

Just a small example would be the fact that in relation to one particular "ordinance" or "sacrament" these two documents embrace different positions on one ordinance: namely baptism.  Hence, one is primarily but not exclusively a "Presbyterian" document and the other is primarily a "Baptist" document.  That being said, this is not the point of difference I wish to draw attention to at this time.

Chapter 21 has another striking difference in relation to church and state and their relation to Christian liberty.  For the sake of argument, perhaps we can at least acknowledge the historical context and each confessions reaction to Roman Catholicim's self-professed authority and doctrinal abuses.  If you commonly read the LBC 1689, as I do then you will notice the following paragraph is missing in you version (it is also absent in meaning American versions of the WCF):

Paragraph IV. (Of Christian Liberty and liberty of conscience)

" And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate."

There are three key areas addressed in the paragraph not to be found in Baptist versions of the confession: church power, government (civil) power, and reactionism (abused liberties).  (Let's at least be fair to acknowledge some American Presbyterian versions have omitted this paragraph also).

Who trumps who?  Or what source of authority trumps what?  Does the state/government have absolute authority?  Does the church have absolute authority?  Or a third option, does the individual practice of personal liberty or conscience trump the above two options?  It should be obvious in common vernacular which side someone is endorsing by the vocabulary they choose to employ.

Consider the following:

1.  The vast array of interpretations concerning church discipline, pastoral or congregational authority, or denomination control.  Who defines error?  Doctrine?  Heresy?  How much power is given to the leadership?  Accountability?

2.  The vast array of interpretations of government or state intervention: education, finance, social issues, setting standards (or even no standards).  Who can punish?  Doctrinal jail time?  Lock you pew?

3.  The vast array of interpretations or liberties of practice which divide individuals and even families--even to the point of corporate division (standards, music, Bible translations, gun control, etc...).  chapter and verse?  Proof texts?  That's your opinion?  

4.  The vast array of publishing houses, competition, blogs, and personalized accounts.  Who will read by book?  What doctrines are added/thrown out to reach an audience?  What is believed verbally but never in print?

Praise the Lord that theology and Biblical interpretation don't have to occur in a near-sighted vacuum.  I think some evangelicals today actually believe these concepts did not already exist in the past.  Radical new ideas of worship, church, evangelism, or anything motivated by pragmatic numbers should cause us to stop and think.  Well you would think it would.

I'm not saying all the covenants in church history are perfect or need to be followed with blind obedience, but they do give as great doctrinal grounds to build upon. 


Comments encouraged.

Book Review and Recommendation: They Like Jesus But Not the Church (Insights from Emerging Generations) By. Dan Kimball

They Like Jesus But Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations. By. Dan Kimball (Zondervan: Grand Rapids), 2007.

Interesting read.  Came across this several years ago.  Take a look at his chapter titles.  It almost looks like it was written down political lines.

Truly if chapters five through ten are true for a majority of new evangelical churches then no wonder some many are confused along political lines.  Churches and pulpits are not doing a good job at all.  Everything is not okay just to say "sovereign grace" here there or anywhere.  Obviously based on the statistics youth are not taught and obviously as a result are not living right either.

This is only inflamed by a new evangelical "christian" culture that simply says what you believe is all that matters.  You can live however you want (think: voting morally and ethically here).

This book could have been easily titled "Reasons why I don't Believe the Bible" or perhaps "My theological gripes for leaving the Church."

I would suggest based on other trends appearing in larger "gospel-based" coalition groups, even they wouldn't adhere to the chapter beliefs.

Table of Contents:

Part One: Why Emerging Generations are Changing

Ch. 1  I probably wouldn't like Christians if I weren't one
Ch. 2  Why I escaped the church office
Ch. 3  Jesus as Son of God and plastic action figure
Ch. 4  Meeting those who like Jesus

Part Two: What Emerging Generations Think about the Church

Ch. 5  The church is an organized religion with a political agenda
Ch. 6  The church is judgmental and negative
Ch. 7  The church is dominated by males and oppresses females.
Ch. 8  The church is homophobic
Ch. 9  The church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong
Ch. 10  The church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally

Part Three: How the Church can Respond

Ch. 11 What they wish Church were like
Ch. 12  Out Two Biggest Barriers
Ch. 13  A Great Hope for the Future

This election year definitely will be a roller coaster of a year.

May God have mercy on our country and on His church.

SBC, NPR and Biblical Authority

SBC, NPR and Biblical Authority

What do these have in common?

Well NPR (National Pagan "Public" Radio) just did a radio spot on a recent Gospel-based event in Louisville, KY.  The main individual quoted was SBC president Al Mohler (just for those who need clarification what this event was).

I feel as though for those who heard or didn't hear this radio spot that a few comments are needed.

First, the SBC does not represent Christianity.  It is one denomination within a broader Christian umbrella.  Do I personally agree with the vast majority of what the SBC teaches doctrinally?  Yes, of course it is traditional historic Christian beliefs.

Second, NPR missed the boat.  If you heard the spot it was basically saying the SBC is outdated Christianity out of touch with the moral changes in unbelieving society (think bathroom issues, gender roles, etc...).  They also referenced another church here in the area that left the SBC some 20-25 years ago (over some of these same issues).

Third, biblical authority has to be emphasized above denominational labels.  This authority determines what we belief and how we live.  As far as what we belief goes, the SBC has a great deal of this right (think: orthodoxy).  I disagree with the Reformed Calvinistic slant a great deal of these new cool kids have embraced (both in book, preaching, and lifestyle).

NPR could have spent the whole article focusing on the selective nature of social issues within "conservative" Christianity or the SBC.  They could have addressed why only some sins are addressed when it comes to voting and supposed "conscience" issues--but that will never happen.
They could have talked about the cool-kid evangelical card carrying label just leave out the debated issues for academic respectability--you know literal creation, charismatic gifts, etc...--but that will never happen.  Only an informed insider will know of the inconsistency of belief and practice even within confessing evangelicalism.

Perhaps we need some articles on the following (to help NPR understand the SBC or even evangelicals in general):

How about the following: (rabbit trail)

Why evangelicals can vote with a clear conscience for Mitt Romney (a Mormon) but can't vote for Trump?

Why evangelicals can vote for John McCain (think policies he held to when running against G.W. Bush), but still can't vote for Trump?

We could add other past (Republicans) who were anything but great choices but were still voted in with clear consciences.

Anyway back from the rabbit trail.  The other "baptist" church sited in opposition to the SBC was basically an egalitarian and not complimentarian church in gender roles.  It also had a more inclusive view of other social issues.  Biblical authority was selectively rejected.  The SBC does the same thing just like many other Christian denominations and local churches.

Not meant to solve the issues.

But at least don't hold up the SBC as though it represents Christianity.

Thoughts and comments encouraged.

Book Review: Side by Side (Walking with Others in Wisdom and Love) By Edward T. Welch

Side by Side (Walking with Others in Wisdom and Love) By Edward T. Welch (Crossway, 2015).

I would like to recommend this book to those looking for ways to get more involved in the person to person ministry of your local church.  He makes some good points that are worthy of noting and being challenged in our ministry to one another in a local church setting.  I included some quotations I thought were personally pertinent and applicable in the my daily life.  Hopefully they will be a blessing to you.  I also enjoyed to discussion and responses which followed each chapter.

Part One: We are Needy

Ch. 1 Life is Hard
"There is never a day when we have immunity from difficult circumstances."

Ch. 2 Our hearts are busy
"Our emotions point out those things that are most important to us."

Ch. 3 Hard circumstances meet busy hearts
Ch. 4 Sins weighs a lot
Ch. 5 Say "Help" to the Lord
Ch. 6 Say "Help" to other people

Part Two: We are Needed

Ch. 7 Remember: We have the Spirit
Ch. 8 Move toward and Greet one another
Ch. 9 Have thoughtful conversations
Ch. 10 See the Good, enjoy one another
Ch. 11 Walk together, tell stories
Ch. 12 Have compassion during Trouble
Ch. 13 Pray during Trouble
Ch. 14 Be alert to Satan's devices
Ch. 15 Prepare to talk about sin
Ch. 16 Help fellow sinners
Ch. 17 Keep the Story in view

Conclusion