Are there any Reformed Baptists in Lynchburg?

One of the things we have been prayerfully considering at CRBC is the possibility of establishing a Reformed Baptist preaching point in Lynchburg on Sunday evenings sometime in 2012.  We have had folk, from time to time, visit us from Lynchburg, and we do not know of any 1689 affirming churches there.  We have put a blog site Grace for Lynchburg and are looking to make contact with anyone who might be interested in starting a Sunday evening Bible Study meeting or worship service in the Lynchburg area.  If you are intested or want more info send us an email at info.crbc@gmail.com.  If you know of someone who might be interested, point them to our blog.

JTR 

The Vision (1/26/12): Small children at worship services--Why are they present?

Note: Pastor Steve Clevenger recently posted this article by retired RB Pastor Walter Chantry at his Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog. It is a timely article for any church, especially one which has families with young children, like ours. What can we learn from the ideas Chantry shares about how his church encouraged young children to participate in corporate worship? Here’s the beginning of the article:

There certainly is no Bible verse which tells us when children should begin attending worship services. The customary age at which parents begin to take their children into meetings varies from church to church. It may properly vary among members of the same church, though it tends to follow a pattern because of church decisions touching the nursery, etc. The practice of local churches in this matter comes under the statement made in our Confession of Faith: Chapter I, section 6, paragraph 2:

“We acknowledge that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of churches, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed..”

In our church, parents usually begin to bring their children into our services at the age of two. Our nursery offers to keep children only under two years of age. That policy is not without reasons; though again, it must be emphasized that it is a matter of judgment on the basis of general prudence and general rules of God’s Word.

It is our judgment that children who are two-years-old are usually mature enough to understand when their parents tell them to be quiet and to sit reasonably still for one hour. Furthermore, by the time a child is two, his parents should have progressed far enough in their training of children to be able to enforce such basic orders, which their child can understand. Though teaching this behavior to children may not be easy, it is not unreasonable. It has been done by parents of children with many different character make-ups. Your child is not that unique!

We do wish to provide a nursery for parents when it is really necessary. But, the operation of a nursery takes a number of adults and young people out of our worship service. To extend the age of the children would demand that our women, who serve faithfully and cheerfully, would be absent from worship still more frequently. It is important for all Christians to benefit from the fellowship of the body of God’s people gathered for worship. We feel that regular attendance at worship is so important that we should not be urging others to be absent any more than is absolutely necessary. When it is not demanding too much of parents, thus reasonably to control their children, we do not feel that a nursery should be provided. Of course, exception should be made for all visitors who are not part of the congregation and used to our ways of doing things.

Furthermore, parents of young children are taking an important step by training their sons and daughters to be still and quiet. They are taking the steps necessary for a child to participate in the worship of God. Two and three year olds recognize some of the hymns they have heard in Sunday School and at home. They know a little about prayer. It is interesting to observe that when rare times of special solemnity come in worship, even the youngest children understand and sense something of the presence of God; for even they are unusually still and hushed. Admittedly, these times are few and the youngest children perceive little of the spoken word. Yet it is vital to forge the pattern of whole families coming before God regularly for worship. It is an important part of Christian family life, and it is important for young children to be part of the family.

Some parents seem to feel that when they have won the battles of stillness and silence, their task is done. So long as Junior doesn’t squirm too much or speak out, all is well. But it will not be long before the child can participate in some things. He is taught the doxology in two and three-year-old Sunday School. The pastor may read Scriptures not unfamiliar. He may mention Daniel, David, or Peter – favorite characters already to young hearts. Surely a four-year-old can be taught to pay some attention.

And fathers should be sensitive to how Bible truths of the worship service apply to their young children. The pastor cannot often bring the application down to pre-school children. But, a father can recall the points and apply them at home later….

Read the entire article here.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Translation Note: "fellowdisciples" in John 11:16

In some devotional reading the other day I was struck by the word “fellowdisciples” in the AV of John 11:16:

KJV: John 11:16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

This compound term only appears here in the KJV. It is the translation of the Greek tois symmathetais (dative masculine plural of symmathetes, which is a hapax in the NT taken from the common base word for “disciple,” mathetes). The NKJV simply adds a space and translates by “fellow disciples.” When I checked my facsimile of the original 1611 KJV it also includes the space and reads, “fellow disciples.” One wonders if the collapsed “fellowdisciples” came through a later printing error omitting the space or whether it was intentionally chosen by a later editor. However it entered, I like the compound “fellowdisciple” for its accurate representation of the unusual Greek word that appears here.

JTR

Textual Note: Matthew 5:44

THE ISSUE:

When preaching last Sunday on Romans 12:14-21, I made comparison throughout to Jesus’ teaching on the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7). When it came to Romans 12:14 (“Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.”) I drew comparison to Matthew 5:44. The traditional text, however, is quite different from the modern critical text. A comparison of English translations makes clear the differences:

Translations based on traditional text (emphasis added to phrases omitted in modern text):

Geneva: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies: bless them that curse you: do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which hurt you, and persecute you.

KJV: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Translations based on modern critical text:

NIV (1984): Matthew 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

NASB: Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

ANALYSIS:

External Evidence:

A look at the critical apparati for Matthew 5:44 reveals some minor variations in the disputed phrases but, in general, the traditional text is supported by D, L, W, Theta, family 13, 33, and the Majority text tradition.

The modern critical text is, predictably, supported by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Burgon, with typical bite, chides Wescott and Hort for the “deplorable error” of omitting these phrases: “You relied almost exclusively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B and Aleph: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other copies besides:--of almost all the VERSIONS: --and of a host of primitive FATHERS" (Revision Revised, p. 410).  Among the fathers who support the traditional text he cites the following: Justin Martyr (140 AD); Theophilus Ant. (168 AD); Athenagoras (177 AD); Clemens Alexand. (192 AD); Origen (210 AD); Apostolic Constitution (3rd century AD); etc.

Internal Evidence:

One of the canons of modern text criticism is that the shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer reading. It is assumed that longer readings usually represent expansions and harmonization. In this case, it is assumed that the traditional text of Matthew 5:44 reflects a harmonization with Luke 6:27-28, where both the traditional and modern text agree. Compare:

KJV: Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

NIV: Luke 6:27 But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Metzger concludes, “Later witnesses enrich the text by incorporating clauses from the parallel account in Luke 6:27-28” (Textual Commentary, p. 14). He adds that if the traditional reading is original, its omission in early witnesses would be “entirely unaccountable.”

In answer, however, one might ask whether some pious scribes might have been offended by the non-retaliation ethic of Jesus in the traditional text of Matthew 5:44. A similar motivation might have led to the effort to remove John 7:53—8:11. It seems that the “harmonization theory” also assumes a situation where a scribe was intentionally making comparison with Luke 6:27-28 and intentionally tinkering with the text. Is this a plausible scenario? We might also ask about the early witnesses to the traditional text as cited by Burgon. Of course, my guess is that a modern text critic would dismiss these by arguing that the texts of the Fathers were also harmonized to reflect the traditional reading.

CONCLUSION:

In the end, it is the same old story. Do you base your reading on the traditional text that came to be most widely accepted and copied or on the minority reading as reflected in the reading that was ultimately set aside and not copied? The traditional text was, of course, also adopted by the Reformers and became the basis for the Reformation era “vulgar” translations. This traditional reading brings into harmony the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27-28 and is also reflected in the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 12:14 (demonstrating Paul’s familiarity with the earthly ministry and teaching of Jesus, another contested point in modern scholarship, true even if one only had Luke 6:27-28 to compare). Of course, modern critics see this kind of harmony as suspect. From a preacher’s perspective, however, it is most useful. Surprise: I prefer the traditional text.

God works in mysterious ways

After years of service in Africa, the missionary Robert Moffat returned to Scotland to recruit helpers. When he arrived at church one cold wintry night, he was dismayed that only a small group had come out to hear him. What bothered him even more was that the only people in attendance were ladies. Although he was grateful for their interest, he had hoped to challenge men. He had chosen as his text Proverbs 8:4, “Unto you, O men, I call.” In his discouragement, he almost failed to notice one small boy in the loft pumping the bellows of the organ. Moffat felt frustrated as he gave the message, for he realized that very few women could be expected to undergo the rigorous life in undeveloped jungles. But God works in mysterious ways. Although no one volunteered that evening, the young fellow assisting the organist was deeply moved by the challenge. As a result, he promised God he would follow in the footsteps of this pioneer missionary. And he remained true to his vow. When he grew up, he went and ministered to the unreached tribes of Africa. His name was David Livingstone!

As shared by John Thackway in The Bible League Quarterly, January-March, 2012, p. 167.

"Tebow Law" in Virginia gaining ground?

The AP had an article yesterday reporting that with Republican control of the senate in the Virginia General Assembly that there will be another effort to pass a so-called "Tebow Law" in Virginia that would allow homeschoolers to participate in public school sports, as they do in 15 other states.  The VHSL is fighting tooth and nail against it.  Here's part of the article from the Virginia Pilot (note the debate in the comments; it was in today's print version of the Daily Progress):

For years, a bill that would open public school sports teams to home-schooled athletes living in their attendance districts has come before the General Assembly and just as often, it floundered, usually before the Senate Education and Health Committee.

But with the Senate under new conservative management with this month's disputed Republican takeover, three bills by Republican House members revive the issue. Sponsors call it the "Tebow Law," named for Tim Tebow, an evangelical former homeschooler who won a Heisman Trophy and led the Gators to a 2008 national title at the University of Florida, then quarterbacked the Denver Broncos into this season's NFL playoffs.

"These people pay taxes that support their public schools. You can't just shut them out from the facilities and activities they're paying for just like everybody else," said Del. Rob Bell, a 44-year-old Albemarle Republican who sponsors one of the bills and is burnishing his conservative credentials for a 2013 race for attorney general.

Florida is among at least 15 states across the country that put no restrictions on home-schooled students who want to play interscholastic sports at public schools in their communities, according a state-by-state summary from the Home School Legal Defense Association. At least 13 states allow home-schooled children conditional or partial opportunities for extracurricular involvement at public schools.

JTR

Watson on Providence

I continued the Spurgeon Baptist Catechism series Sunday afternoon with a message on What are God’s works of providence? I was helped by reading the section on this question from Thomas Watson’s A Body of Divinity (orig. 1692; Banner of Truth, reprint). Here are a few quotes from Watson on the doctrine of providence:

“God is not like an artificer that builds a house, and then leaves it, but like a pilot he steers the ship of the whole creation” (p. 120).

“God takes care of every saint in particular, as if he had none else to care for” (p. 120).

“God’s children sometimes scarce know how they are fed, except that providence feeds them” (p. 120).

“Providence reaches to the very hairs of our head. ‘The hairs of your head are all numbered.’ Matt x 30. Surely if providence reaches to our hairs, much more to our souls” (p. 121).

“Suppose you were in a smith’s shop, and should see several sorts of tools, some crooked, some bowed, others hooked, would you condemn all these things, because they look not handsome? The smith makes use of them all for doing his work.” He concludes, “Thus you see God’s providences are wise and regular, though to us they seem very strange and crooked” (p. 121).

“The falling of a tile upon one’s head, the breaking out of a fire, is casual [accidental] to us, but it is ordered by the providence of God…. Things which seem to fall out casual [by accident], and by chance, are the issues of God’s decrees, and the interpretation of his will” (p. 123).

“God’s providence is greatly to be observed, but we are not to make it the rule of our actions…. Providence is a Christian’s diary, but not his Bible” (p. 123).

“The providences of God are chequer-work, they are intermingled. In the life to come there shall be no more mixture; in hell there will be nothing but bitter and in heaven nothing but sweet; but in this life the providences of God are mixed, there is something of the sweet in them, and something of the bitter” (p. 124).

“If God’s providence should be withdrawn but for a while, creatures would be dissolved, and run into their first nothing” (p. 124).

“Our clothes would not warm us, our food would not nourish us, without the special providence of God” (p. 124).

“Does any affliction befall you? Remember God sees it is that which is fit for you, or it would not come. Your clothes cannot be so fit for you as your crosses” (p. 125).

“The church is the apple of God’s eye, and the eyelid of his providence daily covers and defends it” (p. 127).

“There is no providence but we shall see a wonder or mercy in it” (p. 127).

The gospel: sanctification or evangelization?

The other day I ran across D. H. Hart’s recent post If Wrapping Yourself in the U.S. Flag is in Bad Taste, What About Wrapping Yourself in the Gospel? It has a link to a review by Matthew Lee Anderson of Jared C. Wilson’s book Gospel Wakefulness (Crossway, 2011).

I have been struck for some time by the use of the word/concept “gospel” in New Calvinistic circles. The word “gospel” is prominent in the names of para-church ministries and conference (e. g., “Together for the Gospel” and “The Gospel Coalition”). A number of recent books that have come from New Calvinistic authors have made use of the word “gospel” in their titles and as their subjects. Language about the “gospel” tends to permeate New Calvinistic preaching and teaching, where phrases such as the following are frequently heard:

“We need to remind ourselves of the gospel every day.”

“We need to preach the gospel to ourselves.”

“We need to meditate on the gospel.”

The problem with this language is that it seems primarily to make the “gospel” a focus of personal contemplation and a means of spiritual growth for believers rather than the good news (euangelion) of God’s work in Christ that is to be preached to non-believers. The idea of Christians preaching the gospel to themselves has undertones of the “Sonship” theology. The normative use of the “gospel” in the Scriptures, however, relates to its proclamation to unbelievers. Typical would be Mark 13:10: “And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” Or, the Great Commission in Mark 16:15: “Go ye and preach the gospel to every creature.” In fact, a little concordance work will show that when the word “gospel” is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts it is almost always done in the context of evangelistic preaching (with “preach” or “preaching” from kerusso). When Paul says he is “separated unto the gospel” (Rom 1:1), he most certainly means that he has been called to an apostolic ministry of preaching the gospel (cf. Rom 15:20: “so have I strived to preach the gospel [euangelizomai], where Christ has not been named”). He can also refer to the gospel as the core content of the evangelistic message that he preaches to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 15:1). It is orthodox and not “another gospel” (Gal 1:6).

I once heard a “Sonship” influenced speaker claim Romans 1:15 as justification for the New Calvinistic way of speaking about the gospel. Indeed, Paul does say to the believers, “I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Rom 1:15). See, the speaker said, Paul was preaching the gospel to those who were already Christians in Rome. He went on to stress all the ways a Christian might apply the “gospel” to his life. The dative pronoun humin (“to you”), however, more likely has the sense of “among you” or, even, “with you” in Romans 1:15, as Paul anticipated engaging with the Roman Christians in evangelistic preaching. In context, Paul makes clear in the very next verse the evangelistic focus of the gospel of which he is not ashamed, as it is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom 1:16).

Hart drew on the book review cited above to make the point that rallying around “the gospel” is pointless without also rallying around other defining doctrines. He’d rather be part of the “Presbyterian Coalition” than the “Gospel Coalition.” For me, the review of Gospel Wakefulness points more to confusion in New Calvinistic circles of the “gospel” with “sanctification” rather than “evangelization.”

JTR

Mueller on Post-Reformation Reformed Views on the Text of Scripture

I recently started reading Richard A. Mueller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (Baker, 1993). Of special interest is chapter six “The Canon of Scripture and Its Integrity” (pp. 389-463). Mueller stresses the difference between how the post-Reformation men approached the text of Scripture, emphasizing its providential preservation in the extant copies (apographa), in contrast with the modern Princetonian emphasis on the elusive inerrant original copies (autographa). This is the kind of book where I find I want to underline just about every sentence. Here, at least, is part of one outstanding paragraph:

By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the sources of all versions…. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to the autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic” text of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments of a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility (p. 433).

JTR

Owen contrasts the inspiration of the Bible with the Koran

In John Owen’s The Divine Original of the Scripture (Collected Works, Vol. 16), he draws a contrast between the innate authority of the Christian Scriptures in comparison to uninspired writings. Of these, Owen refers to the Koran in particular:

“…‘the Scriptures,’ have that glory of light and power accompanying them, as wholly distinguish them by infallible signs and evidences from all words and writings not divine; conveying their truth and power into the souls and consciences of men with an infallible certainty. On this account are they received as from God by all that receive them, who have any real, distinguishing foundation for their faith, which would not be—separated from these grounds—as effectual an expedient for the reception of the Koran” (p. 325).

JTR