Benefits of Symbiosis in the SBC (Part 1)

Well, I haven't blogged in quite a while. One reason for this is because not only do I have a full plate with my pastoral duties but I am also working on my M.A. in Christian Studies at the Baptist College of Florida. I just finished a class on Southern Baptist History. In that class I researched the history of both general and particular baptists and how their differences can actually create a mutually beneficial relationship to keep the SBC balanced and focused. So I have decided to publish my research in five parts here for the sake of what I hope to be helpful conservation concerning the current controversy in the SBC in regard to general and particular baptists.

Introduction

            Baptists are a peculiar people. They are diverse in their understanding of the gospel, their soteriology, but are agreed in their understanding of the church, their ecclesiology. In theological and more technical terms, Baptists, especially Southern Baptists as a denomination, are a mixture of people with either Arminian or Calvinist soteriology, and that in varying degrees. Therefore there is no one soteriology that defines what Baptists believe about the gospel. The defining factor for Baptists comes in their practice rather than their soteriology. This does not mean, however, that there is no agreement among both Arminian and Calvinist Baptists concerning the gospel. Nathan Finn has rightly observed:

 As a general rule, Southern Baptist Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree on the basics of the gospel. All parties agree that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God who was incarnate in the Virgin Mary, lived a life of perfect obedience to God’s law, provided a penal substitutionary atonement for sinners on the cross, and was resurrected after three days in the tomb, securing the justification of every person who repents of their sins and trusts Christ as Lord and Savior.[1]

One would think that because of the presence of two major and differing soteriological viewpoints among Baptists that cooperation between the two groups would be if not impossible, at least not desirable. Such a match may not be considered one made in heaven. After all, will there not be internal struggles for ascendency of one group above the other? Will there not be accusations of unbiblical hermeneutics, unbiblical philosophizing, unbiblical evangelism, unbiblical non-evangelism, and even heresy? Will there not be severe clashes that result from being diverse in soteriology that will threaten to dismantle the cooperation of the two? If yes, are there any reasons that Arminian and Calvinist Southern Baptists should remain in cooperation as a denomination?

The history of Baptists in general and Southern Baptists in particular shows that Baptists can accomplish more united than they can divided and that they need each other to counteract unbiblical extremes into which either group is capable of degenerating. The harmful effects of either competition or monopolism should be avoided by Southern Baptists. Instead, Southern Baptists should apply the principle of symbiosis. Christian Schwarz wrote:

Symbiosis, according to Webster, is “the intimate living together of two dissimilar organisms in a mutually beneficial relationship.” Two negative models stand in contrast to this principle: competition and monoculture. Competition assumes “dissimilar organisms,” just like symbiosis does, but these organisms harm rather than help one another. Monoculture, on the other hand (called monopolism in economics and society), has lost the variety of species, and one type of organism dominates. This obviously eliminates destructive competition, but it also takes away the symbiotic interdependence of different species.[2]

Both Arminian and Calvinist Southern Baptists have everything to lose and nothing to gain from dissolution of their symbiotic relationship. Both competition and monopolism in soteriology can be detrimental to the mutually beneficial relationship among Southern Baptists.

Southern Baptists, dissimilar in soteriology, can accomplish more united than they can divided. They need each other to counteract unbiblical extremes into which either group is capable of degenerating. To prove this thesis, first, a sketch of the rise of the two differing groups will be traced. After that, a sketch of the formulation of Baptist confessions of faith and their historical contexts that gave them rise will be outlined. Then, the unbiblical extremes that plagued both groups will be sketched. Next, the catalyst for entering a mutually beneficial relationship of cooperation between the two differing groups will be highlighted. Finally, the benefits of cooperation between General and Particular Baptists in the Southern Baptist Convention will be discussed.

The Rise of Arminian (General) and Calvinist (Particular) Baptists

            Modern Baptists, including Southern Baptists, have as their common source of ancestry, two streams of Baptists that originated in England, General and Particular Baptists. This view, however, is not held by all Baptists. Four basic theories concerning the origins of Baptists have been developed by Baptist historians. These have been identified as (1) the successionist theory that claims Baptist origins to John the Baptist, (2) the continuation of Biblical teachings theory that claims that Baptist-like faith and practice never completely died out from New Testament times to the present, (3) the Anabaptist spiritual kinship theory that claims a spiritual relationship of Baptists to Anabaptist sects, and (4) the English Separatist descent theory that claims Baptists originated from English Separatists and Puritan reform groups of the sixteenth century.[3]

            The best scholarship of Baptist history concludes that the English Separatist descent theory matches the historical evidence that Baptists are thoroughgoing Reformers and Protestants.[4] James Leo Garret, concerning the Baptist church succession theory and its claim of identity with pre-Reformation movements and non-identity with the Magisterial Protestant Reformation, said, “Often the claims of identity between such groups and Baptists of the last four centuries have not matched the historical evidence.”[5] Paige Patterson, although allowing for similarities between Baptists and Anabaptists, concluded:

Those who argue for a foundation in English separatism are demonstrably correct. Those who see a connection to continental Anabaptism have not yet established indisputable evidence of such, but they can still suggest that similarities between the Swiss and South German Biblicists and Baptists are adequate to attract the interest of Baptists and sufficiently compelling to engender not only admiration but also in many cases imitation of their commitments and convictions.[6]

Roger C. Richards, in History of Southern Baptists, stated, “The first Baptists in America originated principally with the emigration of General and Particular Baptists from Great Britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.”[7] W. Wiley Richards wrote, “Baptists originated in England about 1600 as a part of a group of separatists who saw no hope of purifying Anglicanism and had begun private meetings of their own.”[8] Robert Torbet concluded that the English Separatist descent theory was the most plausible. He said:

Such a conclusion is apparently the most plausible one for several reasons: (1) It does not violate principles of historical accuracy, as do those views which assume a definite continuity between earlier sects and modern Baptists. (2) Baptists have not shared with Anabaptists the latter’s aversion to oath-taking and holding public office. Neither have they adopted the Anabaptists’ doctrine of pacifism, or their theological views concerning the incarnation, soul sleeping, and the necessity of observing an apostolic succession in the administration of baptism.[9]

Historical accuracy concerning the origins of the people called Baptists, demands then, a conclusion of descent from the English Separatist movement. However, the question remains, how did the two streams of Baptists, General and Particular, originate in England?

The Rise of General Baptists in England

            The General Baptists, so called because of their belief that the atonement made by Christ was a general or unlimited atonement which was sufficient for the whole world and not just the elect, were the first to emerge on English soil in Baptist history[10]. The historical context of their emergence is that of dissent from Roman Catholic domination and from the Church of England “which was halfway between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.”[11] General Baptists separated from the Church of England and began to hold private meetings of their own because they saw no hope of purifying Anglicanism.[12] These Separatists, as they came to be called, had come to the conviction that the church ought to be free of government connection.[13] They organized covenanted congregations and usually signed written covenants that defined the commitment of their individual members.[14]

            Three men, John Smyth, Thomas Helwys and John Murton, are credited by historians as the first to begin a fellowship of General Baptists.[15] Their group sought refuge in Holland where Smyth came under Mennonite influence, became an Anabaptist, and eventually came to the conclusion that the Amsterdam Mennonites constituted a true church and therefore had a true baptism.[16] Smyth and the majority of the group presented a petition to the Mennonites for membership in the Mennonite church. The remaining eight to ten people that did not apply for membership among the Mennonites parted company with Smyth and followed Helwys. Helwys’ group drew up a confession of faith to present to the Mennonites to distinguish themselves from Smyth’s congregation.[17] Shortly afterwards, Helwys and his group returned to London and formed the first Baptist church on English soil in 1611 or 1612 at Spitalfield for which there is historical proof.[18] Concerning this church, Torbet wrote, “It was Arminian or General Baptist in doctrine and affusionist in mode of baptism.”[19]

            The number of General Baptist churches grew and they eventually formed an association of General Baptists. Roger Richards wrote:

By 1626 there were five General Baptist churches in England with about 150 members. They numbered about forty churches by 1644. In 1654 they formed the General Assembly of General Baptists and in 1678 adopted a strong confession of faith . . . . Many of these General Baptists . . . emigrated to Carolina and Virginia in the colonial period.[20]

Thus the General Baptists arose as one of the two streams of Baptists that originated in England. The question remains, how did the second stream of Baptists, the Particular Baptists, originate in England?

The Rise of Particular Baptists in England

            The Particular Baptists, so called because of their belief that the death of Christ was a particular atonement limited to the elect, emerged about a generation later than the General Baptists.[21] Particular Baptists shared the same historical context of emerging out of reforming Separatism as the General Baptists. However, the Particular Baptists were not as rigid as the General Baptists at first in their stance of separation from the Church of England. The Particular Baptists were semi-Separatists, not in rigid or hostile separation from the Church of England, who only later “assumed a more sectarian stance.”[22]

            Particular Baptists originated in England about 1638.[23] Their roots are traced back to Henry Jacob, an Anglican clergyman who was a moderate Separatist, but never became a Baptist.[24] Jacob was imprisoned for circulating a treatise calling for reform in the Church of England. He was released on his promise not to circulate his treatise and went into exile in Holland.[25] Jacob returned to England in 1616 and gathered a church in the Southwark section of London. “This is often called the JLJ church for its first three pastors, Henry Jacob, John Lathrop, and Henry Jesse.”[26] This church would later give rise to the first Particular Baptist church, probably about 1638.[27] Under the leadership of men like John Spilsbury, Henry Jessey, and William Kiffen, the movement of the Particular Baptists grew and by 1644, the number of Particular Baptist churches increased to seven.[28]

---

[1] Nathan A. Finn, “Southern Baptist Calvinism: Setting the Record Straight,” http://www.edstetzer.com/Building%20Bridges%20Chapter.pdf (accessed September 29, 2012).

[2] Christian A. Schwarz, Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches (St. Charles, IL: ChurchSmart Resources, 2000), 74. Italics in the original.

[3] Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, 3^rd ed. (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1975), 18-22; H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 49-60.

[4] McBeth, Heritage, 61; James Leo Garrett in Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future, “The Roots of Baptist Beliefs,” edited by David S. Dockery (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009), 143. McBeth stated that the most reliable historical evidence confirms that Baptists originated in the early seventeenth century. Garrett cited John Quincy Adams as writing that the Baptists are the truly thoroughgoing Reformers.

[5] Garrett, Identity, 142.

[6] Paige Patterson, Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future, “Learning from the Anabaptists,” edited by David S. Dockery (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009), 124.

[7] Dr. Roger C. Richards, History of Southern Baptists, Kindle Edition, 2012.  location 200 of 9258.

[8] W. Wiley Richards, Winds of Doctrine: The Origin and Development of Southern Baptist Theology (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 1991), 6.

[9] Torbet, History of Baptists, 21.

[10] Richards, Winds, 6; Torbet, History of Baptists, 37,

[11] Richards, Southern Baptists, 200-226 of 9258.

[12] Richards, Winds, 6.

[13] McBeth, Heritage, 25.

[14] A. J. Smith, The Making of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008), 66.

[15] Richards, Southern Baptists, 263 of 9258; Richards, Winds, 6; Torbet, History of Baptists, 37.

[16] Torbet, History of Baptists, 35.

[17] Torbet, History of Baptists, 36.

[18] Richards, Southern Baptists, 263 of 9258; Torbet, History of Baptists, 37.

[19] Torbet, History of Baptists, 37.

[20] Richards, Southern Baptists, 275 of 9258.

[21] McBeth, Heritage, 39.

[22] McBeth, Heritage, 39, 42.

[23] Torbet, History of Baptists, 40.

[24] McBeth, Heritage, 40.

[25] McBeth, Heritage, 41.

[26] McBeth, Heritage, 42.

[27] McBeth, Heritage, 43; Richards, Southern Baptists, 300 of 9258.

[28] Richards, Southern Baptists, 300 of 9258; Torbet, History of Baptists, 43.

Jesus: The Lamb of God and Son of God (John 1:29-34)

The Old Testament sacrificial system served as an illustration of substitutionary atonement. An innocent, spotless, unblemished lamb would be sacrificed as a substitute in the place of sinning Israelites. This served only as an illustration because it was impossible that the execution of an innocent animal could legally and actually be a substitute for guilty capital offenders.  The Bible says, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). We all understand this. We know that it would be wrong to set free a death-row-convict by executing an animal in his place.

No one was ever saved simply because he participated in the Old Testament sacrificial system. Only those that understood and believed that the lamb being sacrificed was an illustration of an innocent, sinless, perfect man who would come and die for their sins were saved. These were saved by grace through faith in the coming Christ. By faith Abel offered a better sacrifice (Hebrews 11:4). What was Abel’s offering? Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock . . . . (Genesis 4:4). Abel understood and believed that the lamb he offered was an illustration of an innocent, sinless, perfect man who would come and crush the devil’s head and whom God had promised to send (Genesis 3:15).

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac . . . He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type” (Hebrews 11:17-19). Abraham understood and believed that the Lamb of God would be an innocent, sinless, perfect man. As Abraham and Isaac were walking to Mount Moriah where Abraham was going to offer Isaac as a burnt offering by God’s command, Isaac asked his father, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering” (Genesis 22:7)? “Abraham said, ‘God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son’” (Genesis 22:8). Abraham was not speaking of the ram caught in the thicket that day (Genesis 22:13) but of the Lamb who some 2000 years later would be an innocent, sinless, perfect man walking up the same spot carrying the wood for the offering on His back (Genesis 22:6; John 19:17). And instead of a ram caught in a thicket by his horns that would be offered up in His place, this Man’s head was caught in a thicket with a cruel crown of thorns pressed around his brows because He was the offering (Genesis 22:13; John 19:2-5).

It was this Man, the innocent, sinless, perfect man, with a crown of thorns on His head and carrying His own cross that Abraham believed in. Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56). Isaac asked, “Where it the lamb?” Abraham said, “God will provide for Himself the Lamb.” Then some 2000 years later, John the Baptist was confronted by a committee from the religious leaders wanting to know if he was the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet (John 1:19-28). He confessed that he was not but that the Christ indeed was among them (John 1:26). And, “The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’” (John 1:29). This Man, Jesus, the innocent, sinless, perfect man – the Son of God (John 1:34), would be the sacrificial Lamb not for believing Israelites alone but also for any non-Israelite who would believe (John 3:16).

How did John the Baptist know that Jesus was the Lamb of God and Son of God? Remember, Jesus and John the Baptist were physical cousins. There was nothing so extraordinary about Jesus at first-glance that would cause anyone to know and understand that He was the Christ. Twice, John the Baptist said that he did not recognize Him (John 1:31, 33). He did not mean that he did not know that Jesus was his cousin and that he did not know him in that manner. What John the Baptist meant was that he did not recognize Jesus as the Christ, the Lamb of God and Son of God, until God revealed it to him (John 1:31-33).

The Man who would be the Lamb of God would have to be innocent, sinless, and perfect. In order for this to be true of Him, He would have to have a sinless nature and be born into the human race without the agency of a human father. The Son of God would have to take on flesh in order to be the Lamb of God (John 1:1-14). Jesus is the Lamb of God and the Son of God (John 1:29, 34).

Isaac asked, “Where is the Lamb?” Abraham answered, “God will provide for Himself the Lamb.” John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb.” Then in Revelation 5:1-14, the apostle John said, “Worthy is the Lamb.” We could summarize the progressive revelation concerning the Lamb of God like this: Where is the Lamb? Wait for the Lamb! Watch the Lamb! Worship the Lamb!

John the Baptist: A Man Sent From God (John 1:19-28)

The prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18) serves as an introduction and outline to the main truths that the apostle John wanted to communicate to his readers. First, the apostle John mentions the deity of Christ (John 1:1-5). He is co-eternal and co-equal with God and He was coming into the dark world of sinful men to be the light of men. Second, the apostle John mentions the witness of John the Baptist (John 1:6-8). John the Baptist was sent from God to testify about Christ so that all might believe through him. Third, the apostle John mentions the incarnation of Christ, different responses to Him, the new birth, and Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament Tabernacle (John 1:9-14). Fourth, the apostle John mentioned the testimony of John the Baptist for a second time (John 1:15). Fifth, the apostle John mentioned the ministry of Christ in explaining God as Father (John 1:16-18).

How does this outline work itself out in the rest of the Gospel of John? First, all through the Gospel of John the deity of Christ is established. I mean He turned water into wine and not over months or years but in an instant (John 2:6-10). He told a Samaritan woman everything she had ever done on His first encounter with her (John 4:29). He healed a royal official’s son from many miles away just by speaking three words, “Your son lives” (John 4:53). He healed an invalid of thirty eight years simply by saying, “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk” (John 5:8). He fed five thousand people with five barley loaves and two fish (John 6:9-13). He walked on water during a storm to rescue His disciples (John 6:15-21). He healed a man born blind (John 9:1-11). He raised a man from the dead that had been dead and buried for four days (John 11:39-44), just to name a few. Second, John the Baptist witnesses about Christ (John 1:19-34) as a parallel to John 1:6-8. Third, the different responses to Christ begin to be revealed. Christ’s first converts are mentioned (John 1:35-51). Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament Tabernacle is mentioned (John 1:29, 36), along with many other references to His fulfilling all the other elements of the Tabernacle. Jesus discussed with Nicodemus the necessity of the new birth and how it happens (John 3:1-15). Fourth, John the Baptist testified about Jesus again (John 3:22-36). Fifth, Christ revealed God as Father, willing to forgive, over and over through John’s Gospel.

Here (John 1:19-28) we have come to the portion of the Gospel of John that begins the first testimony of John the Baptist. This is very important for several reasons. First, the Bible makes it plain that every fact was to be confirmed by the testimony of at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6; John 8:17). John the Baptist was a witness to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light (John 1:7-8). God saw to it that Jesus was not alone in testifying about Himself (John 5:31). So, to confirm the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, John the Baptist testified to the truth that Jesus is the Christ; the works of Jesus testified to the truth that He is the Christ; the Father testified to the truth that Jesus is the Christ; and the Scriptures testified to the truth that Jesus is the Christ (John 5:33-47).

A second reason the testimony of John the Baptist is very important is because it reveals the characteristics of true witnesses about Christ.

I.                   True witnesses do not seek their own glory (John 1:19-23).

A.    He is not the Light –  (John 1:19-21)

1.      The Jews expected the coming of Christ (1:19-20; Malachi 3:1)

2.      The Jews expected Elijah to precede the Christ (1:21; Malachi 4:5-6)

3.      The Jews thought John the Baptist was surely the Christ (1:21). Asking the Baptist if he was the Prophet meant that this delegation sent from the Pharisees (1:24) thought for sure he was the Christ because that is what the Pharisees at the time speculated. If he was the Christ, the Pharisees were sure that he would need them to put their stamp of approval on his ministry and through that get his stamp of approval on theirs.

B.     He is only a lamp – (John 1:22-23) see also John 5:35

1.      The committee had been sent by the Pharisees, who speculated that the Baptist might be the Christ, to verify their speculation and get his stamp of approval on their importance (1:22). Having thoroughly deflected the accolades the religious establishment was willing to lay at his feet, the committee insisted upon an answer from the Baptist– “What do you say about yourself?”

2.      His answer was that he was not the Light but a lamp. He was not the Word but a voice. He was not the Prophet but a preacher. John would not receive their glory nor would he give them any glory. The Jews were willing to rejoice for a while in his light thinking that he would give them glory (John 5:33-35). The temptation to receive glory from the religious establishment and stay in good standing with it by giving it glory is more than many supposed witnesses can resist. True witnesses do not seek their own glory.

II.                True witnesses do not reverence men they reverence God (John 1:24-28).

A.    They do not bow before the authority of the religious establishment (John 1:24-25)

1.      This welcoming committee was backed with the authority of the most dedicated and most powerful in the religious establishment – the Pharisees (1:24). This was a powerful committee.

2.      The welcoming committee quickly became the cold-water committee questioning the Baptist’s authority (1:25)

B.     They bow before the authority of God (John 1:26-28).

1.      The Baptist told them that they do not KNOW the Christ and therefore they would be unable to accept the origin of his authority (1:26). He did not need their approval to be a minister of God (see Luke 20:1-8).

2.      The Christ is the one to whom the Baptist bows (1:27)

3.      This was happening on the doorsteps of the religious establishment. Bethany was located on the eastern slope of the Mt. of Olives about two miles southeast of Jerusalem – about a 55 minute walk.

Explaining God - as Father

If the human race is going to gain any knowledge about who God is and what He wants us to do, it must come from God Himself. Left to themselves, people produce concepts of God based on themselves. Their gods are images of themselves.

John 1:14 – Trinity and Incarnation belong together. The doctrine of the Trinity declares that the man Jesus is truly divine; that of the Incarnation declares that the divine Jesus is truly human. Together they proclaim the full reality of the Savior whom the New Testament sets forth, the Son who came from the Father’s side at the Father’s will to become the sinner’s substitute on the cross. God sent His Son to save us and the fact that His Son is co-eternal and co-equal (see John 1:1-2), not a created being, shows the great length God will run to throw His forgiving arms around you.

John 1:15 – John the Baptist used a riddle, as it were, to get people to think. John's riddle is, "He who came after me actually came before me." People wondered what he meant by that.

I believe the apostle includes this quotation because that is how he first discovered who Jesus was. Here John the Apostle is telling us that he saw for the first time who Jesus was when he heard John the Baptist (whose disciple he was for awhile), say, "This one who came after me is the one who was before me." Putting that all together, John caught on to the fact that this Jesus of Nazareth, this Stranger of Galilee, was a human tent in which was hidden a remarkable glory, a glory full of grace and truth.

John 1:16 – Jesus is full of glory, full of grace, full of truth, full of deity. That means we have available an unending daily supply of grace. Grace is the generosity of love reaching out toward us, giving itself to us. To those who come to Christ, God's promise is that every day we can take a new supply of his love. We can know that we are loved. We know we are cherished, protected, and blessed. We are strengthened, kept, and supported by his love; grace upon grace, day after day. The experience of grace should be continuous and progressive in the life of God’s people.

John 1:17 - Notice the reappearance in Verse 17 of the words "grace and truth," and the contrast which John draws between them and the Law and Moses. The Law makes demands. It is hard, cold, unyielding, without mercy.

John says that the Law was given by Moses. Moses did not originate it, but he gave it. Moses may disappear, but the Law remains -- cold, unyielding, demanding, without mercy.

But, John says, "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Take away Jesus and you take away grace and truth; he is the channel of them. What John is saying in this section is that law is demand, but grace and truth are supply. Grace and truth are given to meet that demand.

Many people think that law and grace are contradictory, that they are opposing principles. But in the sense in which they were originally intended they are not. Law and grace supplement one another. Law makes its demands, rightfully and justly, and no one can meet them, but grace and truth is given in order to meet that demand. In Exodus 20 there is the remarkable account of the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai; the Law, which came with smoke, thunder, earthquake, fire, fear and trembling. But in the very next section we read the detailed plans for the building of the tabernacle -- God's provision to meet the demands of the Law. That tabernacle is a picture of Jesus, the meeting place where God's demands are fully met in terms of the sacrifice of blood, of a life poured out. Thus John saw in the coming of Jesus the fulfillment of that tabernacle.

John 1:18 – Jesus has revealed, explained (exegeted) God. The only begotten God who dwells at the heart of reality (who lives in the bosom of the Father), has made God known. (The verb is "exegeted" him.) Jesus has explained him and made known that the heart of God is a Father's heart. God is a Father. In John 14:9, Jesus told Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’”

When we come to God through Jesus Christ we discover a loving Father; around us are a Father's forgiving arms; a Father's wisdom guides our way; a Father's power protects us and guards us.

Are you living in the fullness of God’s grace and truth today? What is the basis of your knowledge about God? What is the basis of your relationship with God? 

Jesus as the Tabernacle (John 1:14)

When it comes to knowing God, having a relationship with Him, we must have a proper explanation of who God is, what He is like, and how He must be approached. God is transcendent and so it follows logically that if man is going to know the truth about Him with any certainty, God must condescend and reveal Himself to man.

There has been no greater revelation of God than when His Son, the eternal second person of the Godhead, became flesh and dwelt among men. Jesus Christ revealed the Father. He explained Him (John 1:18). Through Jesus we have the proper explanation of who God is, what he is like, and how He must be approached.

John 1:14 presents Jesus as the tabernacle, the place where holy God and sinful man could meet in intimate relationship based solely on the initiative and grace of God. The Old Testament tabernacle was the foreshadowing of the coming of the Son of God as a man in order to reveal the Father, redeem sinners, and rule in righteousness.

The tabernacle housed the glory of God because it housed the presence of God. We read that after Moses erected the tabernacle that the glory of God filled it and Moses couldn’t enter it because of the heaviness of the presence of God – “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Exodus 40:34-35). The same thing happened again when the ark of the covenant was brought into the Temple built by Solomon – “It happened that when the priests came from the holy place [they had set the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies in the Temple (verses 4-8)], the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:10-11). This glory of God was referred to as the shekinah glory.

So what can we learn from the tabernacle that would be fulfilled in Jesus?

First, the eternal God would become a man – “And the Word became flesh.” Here we see the biblical teaching of the incarnation – a doctrine that is absolutely crucial to our redemption – God became a man in order to live a sinless life and then die a substitutionary death to fulfill His own holy demands so that He could justly save us from His wrath and enable our relationship with Him. God’s wrath against us is removed through our faith in the work of Christ for us and our love for God is generated through our faith in the work of Christ for us. In order to accomplish the work of redemption for us, Christ had to become a man.

·        

Second, we learn from the tabernacle that God would dwell among men – “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” The word “dwelt” means “tabernacled or tented.” God became a man and tabernacled among us. He pitched His tent among humanity. The Old Testament tabernacle was where God’s presence was among His people. The tabernacle offered access to God on God’s terms. The tabernacle was the place of sacrifice, the place of cleansing, the place of light, the place of life, the place of intercession, and the place of mercy.

Third, we learn from the tabernacle that the glory of God was revealed there – “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” The “we” John referred to was those who received Christ in John 1:12. John was saying, “We, the ones who received Him, saw His glory.”

Glory is from the word “doxan” from which we get the word “doxology.” To see someone’s glory is to see his worth, his honor, his majesty, etc. Those who receive Jesus do so because they see His worth, they see His glory! For instance, after water got sunburned by the glory of Jesus and turned into wine at the wedding in Cana, we read, “This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (John 2:11).

The glory of Jesus was not a reflected glory but a radiating glory (Hebrews 1:3). We are created to reflect God’s glory, but Jesus radiates God’s glory – “glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” “Only begotten” means unique, only one of His kind. It does not mean that Christ was created (see Hebrews 1:5). He is God’s only Son. “From the Father” shows that God sent His Son, His only Son whom He loves, to redeem sinners. There is no greater demonstration of love than God sending His only Son whom He loves to live a sinless life and die a sacrificial death to redeem us and restore us.

Fourth, we learn from the tabernacle that God is full of grace and truth – “And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Grace is undeserved kindness. While the tabernacle proclaimed that God was full of underserved kindness, Jesus Christ demonstrated it. Truth is absolute rightness. We can say that truth is strict righteousness. Truth is unyielding faithfulness. The tabernacle proclaimed that God was full of truth by proclaiming that access to God had to be on a basis that upheld the righteousness of God and His Law. Jesus Christ demonstrated it.

The kindness of God never nullifies the righteousness of God. Grace and truth are to never be pitted against one another as though one is more important than the other. When God forgives it is only on the basis of the Law upholding work of Christ. Do you see in Jesus that God is full of grace and truth? Do you see the worth of God in the face of Christ?  

We Saw His Glory (John 1:14)

“God is great, God is good,” is not just the beginning of a prayer for God to bless our meals that we teach our children – it is the absolute truth about God that not everyone has seen. Until people have seen the greatness of God they think either they are His equals or that they can manipulate His power. Until people have seen the goodness of God they think either they are as good as He is or that they are better than He is. At the root of mankind’s sin is self-esteem – we value ourselves more than anything else and each one is his own god.

This truth that at the root of mankind’s sin is self-esteem – valuing ourselves more than anything else – may appear that it is not absolute, but it is. Let me try to explain how this works so that we can see that self-esteem is our root sin problem. We readily admit that those with an unmistakable high self-esteem are “full of themselves.” What is not so easily seen though is that those with low self-esteem are also “full of themselves.” The problem for those with low self-esteem is that along the way their self-esteem has been overshadowed, dominated, and depressed by either others that would not acknowledge their worth or their own actions that diminished their self-worth. People with low self-esteem are miserable. They cannot achieve their desired goal – glory from others – ascriptions of worthiness from others.

So, whether one has high self-esteem or low self-esteem (or somewhere in between), he or she desires praise from others – he or she wants to be valued by others. This desire exists in every person because it was the sin that Adam and Eve committed when they disobeyed God and listened to the lie of the devil that they would “be like God” if they ate from the forbidden tree. The desire to be like God (self-ruling, self-sufficient, great, good, worthy of praise, etc.) is so deeply ingrained in fallen mankind that its only remedy is its uprooting by seeing the greatness and goodness of God. We must see His glory!

John wanted his readers to know that the glory of God is seen in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). John selected specific events out of the ministry of Jesus so that we too could see His glory and value Him as our Lord and Savior.

First, the glory of the Lord was seen at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). There both the greatness and the goodness of the Lord were seen. The Lord’s greatness was seen in His ability to turn water into wine. The Lord’s goodness was seen in His concern for a poor family unable to meet the needs of their wedding guests. The worth of the Lord was revealed – “and [He] manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (John 2:11). The Lord is great, the Lord is good.

Next, the glory of the Lord was seen at Jacob’s well in Samaria (John 4:1-42). There Jesus encountered a Samaritan woman who was not known for her marital fidelity. She had already had five husbands and the man she was with was not her husband – she was shacking up (John 4:18). What did Jesus do? He told her all about herself and who He was (John 4:18-26). Jesus revealed His greatness through His accurate description of her sin and He revealed His goodness by revealing that He was the Messiah (Christ) who did not come to condemn her but to set her free. What happened? She went and told those in the city and many believed – “From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, ‘He told me all things that I have done’” (John 4:39). His glory is full of grace and truth! The Lord is great, the Lord is good.

Then, the glory of the Lord was seen at Cana through the healing of a royal official’s son (John 4:46-54). This man’s son was at the point of death and when Jesus came back into Cana he implored the Lord to come down and heal his son. Jesus simply said the words, “Go; your son lives” and the man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him (John 4:50). The next day while the man was on his way home his servants met him and told him that his son was alive. The boy got well at the exact same time that Jesus spoke the words, “Your son lives,” and this caused his whole household to believe with him (John 4:51-53). The Lord is great, the Lord is good.

After these things the glory of the Lord was seen in Jerusalem at the pool of Bethesda through the healing of a man who had been sick for thirty-eight years and had no one to put him into the pool when the waters were stirred up (John 5:1-14). Jesus saw the man lying there and asked him if he wished to get well. The man answered that he had no one to put him into the pool. Jesus said, “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk” (John 5:6-8). “Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk” (John 5:9). The Lord is great, the Lord is good.

Then, the glory of the Lord was seen in Jerusalem again when Jesus was teaching at the feast of booths (tabernacles) and a woman caught in adultery was brought to the Lord by the scribes and Pharisees demanding that He uphold the Law of Moses and stone her to death (John 8:1-11). Instead Jesus gave her grace, convicted her accusers of sin, and set her free (John 8:7-11). The Lord is great, the Lord is good.

Later that day the glory of the Lord was seen outside the temple when Jesus healed a man born blind (John 9:1-41). This man had a problem that no one else could heal. Jesus had both the power to heal him and the grace to heal him. The Lord is great, the Lord is good.

The religious leaders wanted to kill the Lord because He was messing with their glory by revealing His glory. The Lord withdrew to the Jordan and ministered there until His friend Lazarus died and He returned to Judea to do the impossible  - He raised Lazarus from the dead after four days in the tomb (John 11:1-45). The Lord is great, the Lord is good.

The greatest revelation of the Lord’s glory was seen when He died as a sacrifice for sin, was buried, and on the third day arose from the dead (John 19:17-18, 28-30; 20:11-16). The Lord is great, the Lord is good!

Have you seen His glory?

A Biblical Philosophy of Pastoral Ministry (Eschatology)

Eschatology

An inadequate soteriology will misguide ecclesiology and distort eschatology. Ultimately, a misguided ecclesiology culminates in a distorted eschatology that believes the end-times will be characterized by unhindered success in ministry, ecumenical unity based on deeds not doctrine, and a sweeping world-wide revival. This is a distortion of biblical eschatology.

First, a distorted eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by unhindered success in ministry. This belief manifests itself in the idea that now is the best time to be a minister. Rick Warren promotes this idea in The Purpose Driven Church. He said:

In my opinion, we live in the most exciting time in history for the church. Unparalleled opportunities and powerful technologies are available to our congregations. More importantly, we are experiencing an unprecedented movement of God’s Spirit in many parts of the world today. More people are coming to Christ now than at any other time in history . . . . The largest churches in the history of Christianity are in existence at this very moment. Most of them are not in the United States. While the stories of these churches are exciting to hear, I believe that the greatest churches are yet to be built.[1]

The idea that the last days are going to be characterized by difficulty for those in the ministry, particularly because people will not endure sound doctrine, is not included among those operating out of the church growth philosophy of ministry.[2] Warren said, “I’ve often heard pastors complain that unbelievers are more resistant to the Gospel today than in the past. I don’t think that is true at all. More often than not, resistance is just poor communication.”[3] A distorted eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by unhindered success in ministry. 

Second, a distorted eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by ecumenical unity based on deeds and not doctrine. This is the logical conclusion of church growth philosophy that engages in doctrinal minimalism and methodological pragmatism. Ecumenical unity is unattainable under a biblical philosophy for pastoral ministry that maintains sound doctrine. Therefore, church growth philosophy seeks to minimize sound doctrine and replace it with methodological pragmatism. Doctrinal differences are set aside for partnerships in common deeds “believed” to be the activities the church is supposed to be doing in the world. The end result will be an ecumenical unity that is deemed a “second reformation.” Rick Warren said, “The first Reformation with Luther and then Calvin was about beliefs. I think a new reformation is going to be about behavior. The first Reformation was about creeds; I think this one will be about deeds. I think the first one was about what the church believes; I think this one will be about what the church does.” [4] Warren’s strategy for a second reformation is to promote deeds as essential and doctrine as non-essential. He said:

The first Reformation actually split Christianity into dozens and then hundreds of different segments. I think this one is actually going to bring them together. Now, you're never going to get Christians, of all their stripes and varieties, to agree on all of the different doctrinal disputes and things like that, but what I am seeing them agree on are the purposes of the church. And I find great uniformity in the fact that I see this happening all the time. Last week I spoke to 4,000 pastors at my church who came from over 100 denominations in over 50 countries. Now, that's wide spread. We had Catholic priests, we had Pentecostal ministers, we had Lutheran bishops, we had Anglican bishops, we had Baptist preachers. They're all there together and you know what? I'd never get them to agree on communion or baptism or a bunch of stuff like that, but I could get them to agree on what the church should be doing in the world.[5]

In this manner the principle, in the essentials unity and in the nonessentials liberty, can serve as a diversion from the doctrinal minimalism of church growth philosophy. Journalist Elsa Walsh asked Warren about her perception of his doctrinal minimalism. She asked, “So are you saying doctrine won't be important or is not important if you bring together all these?” Warren answered, “No, no. I think, though, it's what Augustine said: ‘In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.’ And I think that's how evangelicals and Catholics can get together.”[6] The only way evangelicals and Catholics can get together is through unity in deeds (methodological pragmatism) and liberty in doctrine (doctrinal minimalism). There should be no denying that a distorted eschatology believes the end-times will be characterized by ecumenical unity based on deeds and not doctrine. 

Third, a distorted eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by a sweeping world-wide revival. Unhindered success and ecumenical unity must logically culminate in a sweeping world-wide revival. Warren believes that the largest churches in Christianity are yet to be built.[7] He also believes that the second reformation of ecumenical unity based on deeds and not doctrine may create a great revival. Warren said, “I am working toward a second Reformation of the church which could create a Third Great Awakening in our nation or world.”[8] For those with an inadequate soteriology, misguided ecclesiology and distorted eschatology, this is “the most exciting time in history for the church.”[9] The foundation of a building determines its structure and the structure determines its apex. For church growth philosophy the apex is a distorted eschatology that believes the end-times will be characterized by a sweeping world-wide revival.

In contrast, an adequate soteriology will properly guide ecclesiology and correctly shape eschatology. Properly guided ecclesiology will culminate in a correctly shaped eschatology that believes the end-times will be characterized by difficulty in ministry, an ecumenical unity that compromises sound doctrine and violates biblical separation, and a sweeping world-wide counterfeit revival.

First, a correctly shaped eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by difficulty in ministry. This truth is explicitly taught in the Word of God.[10] The reason the last days will be difficult for true ministers is because of large numbers of unregenerate church members that have the form of Christians without its content and who will not endure sound doctrine but instead heap to themselves doctrinal minimalizing teachers.[11] Resistance to the Gospel will not be the result of poor communication but the overabundance of false teachers offering inoffensive, man-centered entry into the kingdom of God.[12] The difficulty is multiplied when the leaders of church growth philosophy accuse faithful ministers of poor communication skills, unloving attitudes, and prideful arrogance. [13] Faithful ministry in this context can lead to the appearance of failure that in and of itself will make ministry difficult. Jim Elliff succinctly articulated this dilemma. He said:

The disturbing thing about the American church in general is that our mentality about evangelism does not reflect Christ’s. We often correctly lead the unbelievers up to the door of salvation but then reconstruct the door wide enough for them and their rebellion. We cannot stand for the truth to create resistance. We have a hard enough time with our image anyway. (Nobody wants to be a leader in the Church Loss Movement!)[14]

Ministry in these last days will be difficult for faithful ministers who are judged by their lack of success in the face of the unhindered success of the false preachers that compromise the truth to remove its resistance. Speaking of the false preachers, the Word of God says that they will speak as from the world and the world will listen to them.[15] This is the advice Rick Warren gives to remove resistance from the Gospel. He said, “If you want to advertise your church to the unchurched you must learn to think and speak like they do . . . . Churches need to stop saying people are closed to the Gospel and start finding out how to communicate on the unbeliever’s wavelength.”[16] The implication is that if a pastor’s church is not growing it is because of his poor communication skills or some other deficiency. However, a correctly shaped eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by difficulty in ministry, not because of poor communication skills or some other deficiency, but because of faithfulness to the Word of God in soteriology and ecclesiology. 

Second, a correctly shaped eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by an ecumenical alliance between denominations and religions of opposing beliefs. This ecumenical alliance though will be understood by those with a correctly shaped eschatology as a God-forbidden partnership. This will be an explicit violation of the Word of God that commands separation from unbelieving denominations and religions.[17] A correctly shaped eschatology understands that ecumenical alliances are the logical conclusion of church growth philosophy and that they are the necessary harbingers of the apostasy that must come before the coming of the Lord and the gathering together of His people.[18] This ecumenical unity based on methodological pragmatism and doctrinal minimalism will serve as a deluding influence and judgment of God on those who will not believe the truth.[19] The “second reformation” that is supposed to unite Christianity will be an ecumenical unity that is explicitly forbidden by God.

Third, a correctly shaped eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by a sweeping world-wide counterfeit revival. Once again this is the logical result of church growth philosophy that utilizes methodological pragmatism and practices doctrinal minimalism not only to gain “converts” but to also form ecumenical alliances. All of this will culminate in “the” apostasy.[20] The apostasy will have the appearance or form of revival but not the reality of revival. This too is taught in the Word of God. Jesus’ parable of the tares, a parable on eschatology, teaches that the tares, weeds that have the form of wheat, are counterfeit Christians that will be bundled up first before the wheat, true Christians, are gathered to the Lord.[21] The eschatology of the apostle Paul is in perfect harmony with Jesus’ eschatological parable of the tares. Jesus said that the tares would be bundled up first and then the wheat gathered into His barn.[22] Paul said that before the Lord comes and His people are gathered together to Him, the apostasy (bundling of the tares) must come first.[23] The bundling up of counterfeit Christians will have the appearance of revival but will only be a counterfeit revival. A correctly shaped eschatology believes that the end-times will be characterized by a sweeping world-wide counterfeit revival.

Conclusion 

Devising a biblical component model for pastoral ministry requires biblical fidelity in the three theological categories of soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology. Soteriology is foundational, ecclesiology is structural and eschatology is apical to a pastoral philosophy of ministry. Each theological category gives guiding and guarding principles for a biblical component model of pastoral ministry.

First, an adequate soteriology dictates that a regenerate church membership can only be attained by the means of the unadulterated Gospel. Since the Gospel is the only means that sinners can obtain salvation, pastors are to have complete confidence in its power to bring salvation. Neither methodological pragmatism nor doctrinal minimalism will be effectual in regeneration. This means that seeker-sensitive services and all other Scripture violating church growth philosophies are to be avoided for use in evangelism. Evangelism will primarily be go and tell not come and see.

Second, a properly guided ecclesiology will cause the church to be structured to ensure that the disciple-making process is not oversimplified. Worship will be saint-sensitive rather than seeker-sensitive. This means that expository preaching during the worship service is irreplaceable. Fellowship will be grounded in a biblical understanding of church membership and guarded by biblical church discipline. Discipleship will equip the saints to be sound in doctrine, sure in discernment and strong in defending the faith. This means that teaching sound doctrine will need more avenues than just the worship services on Sundays. Discipleship classes structured toward doctrine, discernment, and defending the faith should be regularly offered. Also catechisms should be utilized with the church’s members. Ministry will be more than discovering spiritual gifts and meeting human needs. Ministry will also include equipped church members actually engaging in spiritual discernment, spiritual loyalty, and spiritual warfare. This means there will be alliances to establish and alliances to avoid. Also both apologetics and polemics will have to be employed.

Third, a correctly shaped eschatology will remind pastors of the reality that their ministry will be characterized by difficulty. Pastors therefore should stand strong in the Lord and become part of a small group or network of like-minded pastors. Also pastors should understand that the counterfeiters who compromise sound doctrine and violate biblical separation will create a strong pull towards an ecumenical unity. This means that they will have to redouble their efforts in equipping the saints to stand against the schemes of the devil and getting the church to be the pillar and support of the truth against the rising tides of apostasy.[24] Finally, pastors should understand that the last days will be characterized by a sweeping world-wide counterfeit revival. This means that they will have to work extra hard in exposing counterfeiters,[25] reminding their people that this is what the Word of God reveals,[26] and contending for the faith so that some can be snatched out of deception.[27]

These three theological categories, soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology, are invaluable for constructing a philosophy of pastoral ministry. They give guiding and guarding principles to ensure that pastoral ministry is genuine and not a form of pastoral ministry without its biblical content.

---

[1] Warren, Purpose, 15.

[2] 2 Timothy 3:1—4:4 explicitly teaches that the last days will be difficult for true ministers of God and that sound doctrine will not be endured. Only doctrinal minimizers will find the last days easy.

[3] Warren, Purpose, 189.

[4] Warren, “Myths” http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Evangelical-Protestant-Churches/Myths-of-the-Modern-Megachurch.aspx (accessed May 1, 2012).

[5] Warren, “Myths” http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Evangelical-Protestant-Churches/Myths-of-the-Modern-Megachurch.aspx (accessed May 1, 2012).

[6] Warren, “Myths” http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Evangelical-Protestant-Churches/Myths-of-the-Modern-Megachurch.aspx (accessed May 1, 2012).

[7] Warren, Purpose, 15.

[8] Warren, “Myths” http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Evangelical-Protestant-Churches/Myths-of-the-Modern-Megachurch.aspx (accessed May 1, 2012).

[9] Warren, Purpose, 15.

[10] 2 Timothy 3:1.

[11] 2 Timothy 3:1—4:4.

[12] Matthew 7:13 and 1 John 4:1, 5.

[13] Warren, Purpose, 189, 337-338.

[14] Jim Elliff, “The New Gospel: Appealing But not Revealing” at Christian Communicators Worldwide, http://www.ccwonline.org/appeal.html, accessed May 9, 2012.

[15] 1 John 4:5.

[16] Warren, Purpose, 189.

[17] 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

[18] 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.

[19] 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.

[20] 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

[21] Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43.

[22] Matthew 13:30.

[23] 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.

[24] 1 Timothy 3:15

[25] 2 Corinthians 11:12-15.

[26] 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.

[27] Jude 3-23.