Commending SCOTUS Overturning of Roe v. Wade

Commending SCOTUS Overturning of Roe v. Wade

by | Jun 24, 2022 | Politics, Public Theology

Today, the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. I can’t quite express my thankfulness to God for His common grace in what, just a couple of years ago, would have been considered a near impossibility. The shackles of federal sanction and regulation of infanticidal murder have been broken it seems. The decision-making process has been rescinded to the states. While work must continue at the more manageable state level, this victory at the federal level means something…

Christian Values Have Prevailed Over Pagan Ones

When Cortez and his men first arrived in what is now Mexico, the initial interactions with the natives were cordial. However, upon discovering the Aztecs were a cannibalistic society that regularly and ritualistically sacrificed their own kin, Cortez opted for a change in relational dynamics. Similar cultural-turned-military conflicts took place in North America as well. It wasn’t white colonists that first afflicted the natives. The pagans were eating themselves. Pagans always eat themselves. Such is the world without Christ. Our own society, as it has drifted further and further from Christian virtue, has proven this on several different occasions.

Not only have we, as a nation, murdered well over 60 million infants in the womb since the 1970s, but we’ve also largely neglected the elderly, have refused to accept obvious biological differences between male and female, and have mocked heterosexual marital relationships to scorn. But today, by the providence of our sovereign Lord, a decision has been made that has the potential to nudge the cultural trajectory in a more suitable and virtuous direction. This decision, for rather than against life, marks the application of what used to be normative Christian thinking in the West. There has never been an idyllic “Golden Age,” to be sure, but there used to be a time when killing the innocent was generally unthinkable in modern Western society. It is Christian society that creates a context wherein innocence and life are enshrined with the dignity of divine imagery (Gen. 1:27).

In a Christian society, it is recognized that people are not evolved organic biological machines formed over millions of years by happenstance. People are God’s image bearers, highest in the order of creation second only to angels. As such, they are inestimably valuable and purposeful creatures (Matt. 6:26; 10:31; 12:2; Lk. 12:7, 24). Considering the rejection of the nature of man as having come from the hand of Almighty God, it’s no wonder pagan societies eventually devour their own, finding little to no objective value in themselves or their societies. The Greeks and the Romans killed invalids, the Aztecs murdered men, women, and children as sacrifice to their deities, and the Western secularists have murdered millions of children. There is no other alternative. It’s either Christ or death.

Today, however, a dark cloud of doubt looms over the world’s sense of “progress.” There is a renewed civil hope that our great God may revive rational and ethical thought after all. And certainly, if this is the beginning of societal repentance, only blessings await.

May we continue to pray, preach, and fight for life.

Israel or Christ? Who Is God’s “Firstborn”?

Israel or Christ? Who Is God’s “Firstborn”?

by | Jun 21, 2022 | Biblical Theology, Christology, Eschatology

The obvious answer to the question for any Bible-believing Christian is, “Jesus!” And while that is true, the answer could potentially be otherwise, which raises another question: How can there be more than one firstborn? A legitimate question in its own right. After all, politico-national Israel is also called the “firstborn” son of God in Exodus 4:22, “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.”’” Are there two firstborn sons? It would appear so. The question, therefore, is, In what sense(s) are either really ‘firstborn’?

The law of identity tells us that a thing cannot be what it is and yet another thing at the same time and in the same relationship. A door cannot be an elephant at the same time and in the same relationship. Could a door turn into an elephant? It would be highly unlikely, but at least framing the door-elephant situation in terms of transformation wouldn’t necessarily violate the law of identity since the door may become the elephant but would not be the elephant at the same time and in the same relationship. Can Israel and Christ both be the “firstborn son” at the same time and in the same relationship or sense? No. Otherwise, all reasoning, biblical and otherwise, would collapse upon the hypothesis that the law of identity does not hold. We would essentially be granting that anything could be anything. In such a case the very concept of “rationality” would explode into nonsense. “Coherence” itself would become ridiculous. To grant the violation of the formal laws of logic is to grant the reality, possibility, existence, and non-existence of everything and yet nothing at once. A foolish prospect to be sure.

So, what should we think about the relationship of Israel to Christ? If they are both called “firstborn” sons of God, in what sense is it so?

An Analytical Truth

An analytical statement occurs when the subject necessarily and definitionally entails its predicate. “All bachelors are unmarried men,” is the most popular example of an analytical statement. A bachelor just is an unmarried man. Likewise, “the firstborn son is primary in the order of filial relation,” is an analytical statement. To be “firstborn son” just is to be “primary in the order of filial relation.”

The Hebrew term used for “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22 is בָּכַר and means “firstborn” or “eldest” offspring. Jesus is likewise called the firstborn in Romans 8:29, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” The term πρωτότοκος, or “firstborn,” is the Greek equivalent to the aforementioned Hebrew term. These terms substantially carry the same meaning. And so, beyond the shadow of any doubt, we can affirm that both politico-national Israel and Christ are called “firstborn.”

It is important, therefore, to discover in what sense both can be “firstborn” given that to be “firstborn” just is “to be first in the order of filial relation. There can only be one. If both were “firstborn” at the same time and in the same sense, then a logical contradiction would appear in the pages of holy writ. And we can’t have that! To be “firstborn” just is to be “first in order of filiation.” So, who is really first? Israel or Christ? How should we overcome this dilemma?

An Important Qualification

Before we travel any further, I would like to avoid the risk of confusing the divine and human natures of Christ. There are two senses in which the Son of God is “firstborn.” Romans 8:29 calls Christ the “firstborn among many brethren.” And in Colossians 1:15, we read, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Romans 8:29 seems to link His “firstborn-ness” to His human nature in relation to the resurrection whereas Colossians 1:15 appears to link His “firstborn-ness” to His begottenness of the Father, which serves as a reference to the eternal relation of origin—of Son from the Father (cf. Jn. 1:18).

Our Lord, according to His divinity, is not “firstborn” in the sense of coming into existence, but only in the sense of eternal generation. According to His human nature, however, our Lord is a creature, born into this world through the womb of His virgin mother by the power of the Holy Spirit. These two natures, divine and human, are ineffably united in His Person “without conversion, composition, or confusion (2LBCF, 8.2).”

In this article, I speak about “firstborn” as it relates to Christ. And when I do this, I refer to both senses—that He is begotten before all ages, consubstantial with the Father according to His deity, but also that He is firstborn by special creation of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin by incarnation and then firstborn from the dead through His resurrection. These taken together signify Christ’s ultimate, true status as the firstborn of God the Father.

We might add at this point that if this consideration establishes Christ as the firstborn, we are then left wondering in what sense Israel was or is God’s firstborn son according to Exodus 4:22.

A Proposed Solution to the Dilemma

Remember the dilemma: Both politico-national Israel and Christ are called God’s “firstborn son.” But, as we’ve seen, the notion of “firstborn son” is analytical. There can only be one at the same time and in the same relationship. How do we break the tie?

First, it would be helpful to state at the outset that there is no tie. Israel and Christ are not in competition for first place. Rather, politico-national Israel is an historical institution whose divinely-appointed purpose was to reveal the true firstborn Son of God to the Old Testament elect saints. I do not merely mean that Israel is the earthly origin of divine revelation concerning Christ. That much is trivially true (Rom. 3:2). I rather mean that Israel itself is an historical institution that types forth Christ through its mission and movement. This is, perhaps, most clearly seen in the purposeful parallels between Jesus’ wilderness temptation in Matthew 4:1-11 and Israel’s wilderness temptation recounted in Deuteronomy 6-8. It is also made quite clear in Matthew’s record of Christ’s own exodus from Egypt where Hosea 11:1, a text about national Israel, is said to have been fulfilled in Jesus’ return to Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15).

This is the sum and substance of typology. A type is a person, place, institution, or event that figures another and greater person, place, institution, or event. Examples include the first Adam as he types forth the last Adam (Rom. 5:14), Israel as the land of rest as it types forth glory as the land of rest (Heb. 4), David as king as he types forth Christ as king (Ps. 110:1; Matt. 2:45), etc. The type is the thing that reveals, the antitype is the thing that is revealed. Adam is the type, Christ is the antitype; David is the type, Christ is the antitype, and so on.

But wait, there’s more!

It’s not altogether uncommon for the type to bear the names or titles of the antitypes to which they look. For example, Jesus is the King, but David is still yet a king. Jesus is the prince of peace, though Melchizedek is called the king of Salem (or the king of peace). Therefore, when politico-national Israel is called the “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, it is actually bearing the filial title of the antitype to which it looks—the Lord Jesus. This especially becomes clear in the way in which Christ recapitulates the acts of Israel in His baptism, wilderness wandering, and wilderness testing. These three basic acts repeat Israel’s passage through the red sea, wilderness wandering, and wilderness testing. What is more, Christ successfully thwarted Satan’s agenda whilst Old Testament Israel failed time and time again.

Politico-national Israel, then, is the type of its other and greater antitype, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the true and only firstborn Son of God. Israel’s purpose was revelatory in nature. Israel revealed something of what Christ would do, but it also revealed man’s desperate need for Christ through its failure to attain that to which it was called—obedience and the land of rest promised as a result. Israel failed in its obedience. Christ succeeds. He is the new and greater Israel, the firstborn Son of God.

Conclusion

Typology is a valuable tool in the Bible-reader’s toolbox because it gives us a category to understand the way in which an all-sovereign God uses history itself for His own revelatory purposes. Scripture is not a document among other human-authored documents, like Homer’s Iliad or Odyssey. As great as both those works are, they cannot touch Scripture. Scripture is the sovereignly-inspired record of sovereignly-affected events in history established by an all-sovereign God. God uses things to signify other and greater things. In this case, God has chosen the physical descendants of Abraham to reveal and signify our great need for Christ and what Christ would do. They further typed forth a people not born of genealogical descent, but by the Holy Spirit of God.

God has not only worked in history, but has molded history itself to reveal yet more glorious historical developments. Israel of old, as sinful as it was, has been employed under divine providence to reveal something of our Savior and what He would accomplish on behalf of the entirety of God’s elect.

The Biblical Basis for Creeds

The Biblical Basis for Creeds

by | Jun 16, 2022 | Biblical Theology, Confessionalism

The use of creeds really do not need to be proven, given the self-evident need for Christians to confess both that they believe and what they believe. As soon as someone articulates what they believe in their own words, they articulate a creed. The term creed simply means “I believe.” It is, in short, a statement of belief. Every time a baptism occurs, a creed is expressed, either by way of question and answer, or by way of a plain statement. If someone were to say, “Creeds should not be used in the church,” I would simply respond, “do you believe that?” If they were to say, “yes I do,” I would want to simply point out that they are using a creed, i.e. a statement of belief. In order to reject creeds one must use creeds. And to use a creed in order to reject the use of creeds is not only self-refuting, it is hypocritical.

Scripture is clear on the use of creeds. It is the apostolic pattern as can be seen in several places. One of the clearest examples where a creed is employed is in Acts 8:37. Philip has already evangelized the Ethiopian eunuch by explaining to him the gospel from Isaiah 53. In v. 36, the eunuch asks, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” What is Philip’s response? Philip states the requirement for baptism, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch’s immediate reaction is creedal in nature, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In Romans 10:9, Paul makes creedal statements nothing less than a requisite to salvation, “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” In v. 10 he even says, “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” In 1 John 4:1-3 we read:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

The term used for confess in this passage is ὁμολογέω (homologeo), and it means “to say the same thing as another,” and, “to declare openly and voluntarily.” Historically, churches have recited creeds together in a congregational setting. It was thought that such a creedal recital was a picture of Romans 10:9 put on weekly display within the assembly of God’s people. Paul says, “You must confess and believe.” The church’s response from that time on is, “Here is our confession, recited together in unity with one another.” A most proper response to be sure.

First John 4:2 places the term ὁμολογέω in the present tense, meaning this confession is not a one-time event that occurs at a person’s baptism, but is a continual act that characterizes the Christian church. Furthermore, the text assumes it is a public act—an act done within the context of community. John is, after all, dealing with how we know a person is a fellow Christian. How do we know a person is of God, that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit? “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that is confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.” And in v. 7, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.” Thus, creedal proclamations, or confessions, is the first line of evidence indicating a person is a true Christian. Whether or not that person loves in accordance with the spirit of that confession is another line of evidence.

Creeds and confessions weren’t new to the New Testament. Perhaps one of the oldest creeds is the shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” Jesus recapitulates this creed in Mark 12:29. In John 17:3, Jesus refers once more to it when He says, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” And Paul mentions it as well in 1 Corinthians 8:4, “Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.”

In 1 Kings 18:20-40, when the prophets of Baal raised their arrogant voices to heaven in opposition to the one true God, Elijah called down fire from Yahweh to consume a sacrifice. Despite the altar being soaked in water, the Lord faithfully answered Elijah the prophet, incinerated the sacrifice, and licked up all the water in the process. This, of course, was to the great humiliation of the Baal worshipers. But when the Lord manifested His glory by means of such a stunning display, the people fell down to worship. And how did they worship? They uttered forth a corporately confessed creed, “The LORD, He is God! The LORD, He is God (1 Kgs. 18:37)!”

Rebuke, Refute, & Reprise: Three Themes of John the Baptist’s Ministry

Rebuke, Refute, & Reprise: Three Themes of John the Baptist’s Ministry

by | Jun 15, 2022 | Biblical Theology

In Matthew 3:5-12, we witness a stunning display of righteous zeal in the face of religious and political corruption. Soon after John the Baptist began his public baptism ministry, the Pharisees and Sadducees formed an unrighteous alliance designed to assess the nature and effectiveness of John’s popularity, presumably in preparation for sabotage. We read, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, ‘Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?’ (Matt. 3:7).” The Pharisees and Sadducees set aside an essential component of orthodox confession, the bodily resurrection from the dead (concerning which the Sadducees denied altogether), in order to link arms for a common purpose. We can file this in the “how not to do ecumenism” folder. Ecumenism or communion must be formed on the basis of truth, not merely a common purpose or goal.

John, apparently playing upon the already dubious reputation of these two factions, issues a strong rebuke. He did not feel the need to engage them in dialogue. He was already aware of who they were and why they were there. He leads strongly, “Brood of vipers!” in v. 7. In v. 8 he continues the rebuke through issuing the means of restoration, “Bear fruits worthy of repentance.” And then, in v. 9 he anticipates and refutes what we might call “the argument from Abraham.” Finally, in vv. 10-12 he issues three statements of reprisal or judgment threats: (1) the threat of the ax; (2) the threat of Holy Spirit judgment; and (3) the threat of unquenchable fire. Below, we will briefly open the text under the headings of rebuke, refute, and reprise, making some contemplative remarks along the way.

Rebuke

John began his diatribe against the unrighteous alliance (Pharisees and Sadducees) with the phrase, “Brood of vipers!” Brood should probably be rendered “generation” (cf. KJV) due to the repeated use of “wicked generation” elsewhere in Matthew (Matt. 12:45; 16:4). Moreover, John’s purpose seems to be the same as Jesus’ in John 8, where these religious elites are identified as the offspring of Satan, the great serpent of old. There, Jesus makes the observation: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it (Jn. 8:44).”

We are shown here that there exists a proper time and place for rebuke. Of course, the whole of John’s personal intent behind the rebuke cannot be discerned with any measure of certainty, but it must partially have been motivated by a love for Christ and His people. Those who hate Christ and act according to such hatred, attempting to disrupt the people of Christ and demean their Lord, must be met with a sound rebuke, “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come! (1 Cor. 16:22).”

Refute

In v. 9, John moves to the refutation of an anticipated argument. Neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees actually make the argument in Matthew 3. But we can get an idea of what the argument would have been since a similar one is raised throughout the course of John 8. In summary, the argument there runs as follows:

  • If we are Abraham’s seed, we are not in bondage and Jesus is unnecessary
  • We are Abraham’s seed

Therefore,

  • We are not in bondage and Jesus is unnecessary

Of course, there are several problems with this argument. First, physical genealogical descent from Abraham never made a Jew a Jew, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh… (Rom. 2:28).” Ethnic Jews were but types of true Jewry that consists in a regenerate people—whether ethnic Jew or ethnic Gentile. This becomes clear in places like Galatians 3:29, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Second, physical descendants of Abraham were never told they were excepted from the bondage of sin in the Old Testament. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Psalm 14 tells us, “There is none who does good.” And in Romans 3 Paul interprets this as being applicable to all people notwithstanding their social status, genealogical heritage, etc. 

John the Baptist anticipates this argument and immediately refutes it by saying, “and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones (Matt. 3:9).” It was never physical birth, ethnic connections, or genealogical records that made a Jew a Jew. Much less was it the ordinance of fleshly circumcision. It was always a unilateral work of God in the hearts of people notwithstanding ethnic distinction which was according to the law. Hence, God, if He so chose, could turn rocks into true Jews. And indeed He has achieved something even more unexpected and difficult. He has turned Gentiles into true Jews by His Word and Spirit.

Reprise

Because of the hardness of their hearts, and those of their followers, John issues three threats. These threats are not original to John, but are grounded in the Old Testament. There is the ax threat (Mal. 4:1), the Holy Spirit judgment threat, and the threat of unquenchable fire (Is. 5:24).

In v. 10, he says, “And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” If the repentance mentioned in v. 8 is not sought, the ax threat represents the demise of the Israelite nation. And seeing how this ax is laid to the root, this is not a mere pruning of the nation, but a wholesale destruction and removal thereof. The typological people, if they do not repent in and through Messiah, will be cut off and judged as God haters. If we were to fast forward to the end of Matthew, we would see that the people en masse solidify themselves in their rebellion, and they eventually opt for the capital death of the innocent Christ rather than that of the murderous Barabbas.

Judgment culminates in the destruction of the temple and removal of the Jewish nation in 70 A.D. Which had been a judgment predicted by Christ Himself in Matthew 24:2, when He says, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

The next threat is mixed with a promise. The promise, of course, must be referred to God’s elect, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit…” It’s the last two words of v. 11 that represent the judgment, “and fire.” Fire may be an allusion to Pentecost. However, in the immediate context, fire is only used for judgment in vv. 10, 12. So, I take the fire in v. 11 as referring to the judgment upon unrepentant Israelites whilst the baptism of the Holy Spirit applies to those whom God will graciously save in and through Jesus Christ.

The third threat is that of the wheat and chaff. The Lord will separate the two with His winnowing fan until all that is left is a truly regenerate people. Such corporate purity is a promise of the New Covenant in contrast to the mixed (corpus permixtum) nature of the Old Covenant, “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more (Jer. 31:34).” If ethnic Jews are not true Jews through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ, not only will their nation be destroyed (since the Old Covenant is now annulled, cf. Heb. 8:13), but they themselves will be cast into the fires of judgment along with all the unbelieving Gentiles, “His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire (Matt. 3:12).”

Conclusion

What a sobering reminder that the only distinguishing factor between Christians and those who will experience eternal judgment is the Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot claim the faith of our parents at the judgment. Our family lineage will be irrelevant. And any pleas made upon the notion of our good works will be met with divine wrath. Only God can make children of Abraham. Only the grace of Christ can assemble a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9). And only Christ, the final Adam, can bring His people back to God. We should, then, see Matthew 3:5-12 as a warning: Do not make the same fatal error of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous (Lk. 18:9).” The only proper object of our faith is God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Confessional Baptist Ecclesiology (Part II)

Confessional Baptist Ecclesiology (Part II)

by | Jun 2, 2022 | Confessionalism, Ecclesiology

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. (1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22) 

~ The Second London Baptist Confession (1677), 26.2 ~

Our 17th century Baptist forerunners continued to make the distinction between the invisible/visible,  and thus universal/local church, as becomes obvious upon a reading of 2LBC, 26.1-2. However, there is a careful departure from the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and even the Savoy Declaration. Whereas the Westminster Confession makes the visible church universal/catholic in 25.2, the 2LBC locates the visibility in the saints rather than in the institution. The framers of the 2LBC cautiously avoided conceiving of any kind of visible institution that would sit over and above the local church. A further point of departure is seen in the 2LBC’s omission of the WCF clause, “The visible church… consists… of their (believers’) children.” The children of professing parents should not be admitted into the visible or local church simply because of their birth to believing parents. Visible saints, those who outwardly profess Christ, are those who ought to make up the visible church, which is necessarily local.

What Makes a “Visible Saint”?

The 2LBC lists three characteristics of visible saints. First, they profess faith in the gospel. Second, there is a measure of obedience that justifies their profession before fellow saints. Third, they are orthodox in all matters integral to a true profession of faith. We should look at each of these elements as they come to us from the Scriptures.

First, visible saints are those who profess faith in the gospel. Some argue there is no such thing as an invisible saint, therefore, visible is an adjective without real significance. Saints are saints. However, saints are invisible in the sense that the certainty concerning their status before God belongs to God alone. Creatures may approximate such a certainty through the evidence of the fruits faith produces. But the question of whether or not those fruits are produced by a living faith or by existential wherewithal to appear a Christian before others is a question that often goes unanswered. Therefore, “visible saints” are those who have vindicated their profession of faith before men (Jas. 2:26; Tit. 1:16), men perceiving such fruits to the best of their Spirit-given ability in accordance with faith.

Those who profess the gospel are to be considered saints, as is clear from the Scriptures, “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom. 10:9).” And in 1 John 4:2-3 we read: “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.”

Second, obedience justifies the profession. James 2:26 says, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” This isn’t speaking of our justification before God, which is wholly through the blood and righteousness of our Lord. James has in mind our justification before the church, as v. 18 seems to make clear. Visible saints are not only those with a profession, but also those whose profession is justified before men with a measure of visible fruits “worthy of repentance (Lk. 3:8).” Those professing Christians who persist in unrepentant sin, ignoring all calls to repentance and brotherly admonishment, should be considered unbelievers since there is no fruit vindicating their claim to faith. They could have been true believers, but those saints to whom they’re accountable would have no sufficient reason to believe they were.

Third, visible saints hold to orthodox theology. This does not mean that all visible saints know all that is orthodox. Indeed, no creature knows all there is to know about God or things related to God. But, generally, visible saints confess orthodoxy. And since the orthodoxy of the creature is always subject to error, visible saints are receptive to correction by the grace of God. And furthermore, because creatures do not know everything, visible saints are willing to learn more. It’s not that the visible saint has perfect orthodoxy, it’s that the visible saint will, by the grace of God, believe what a Spirit-wrought faith believes.

Visible Saints, But Not Visible Church?

The framers of the 2LBC understood there to be a doctrine of the universal church. But they did not understand the universal church to be a visible institution which would require a universal government. Rather, for Baptists, the catholic or universal church is all God’s elect throughout time and place which makes it transcendent of time and place. Their only universal head is Christ, who is in heaven governing through His Holy Spirit. The only way in which this universal church appears in this world is the instance of the local assembly. This is why the last portion of 26.2 says, “of [visible saints] ought all particular congregations to be constituted.” Thus, the universal church is invisible, because it is transcendent of time and place, it exists in heaven and on earth, and it has stretched throughout the centuries. Christ is its only head. There is no single place a person could point at on a map or on a timeline and say, “That is the universal church.”

The local church, on the other hand, is the assembly of saints in time and place—saints who themselves belong to the larger project of the universal church (Matt. 16:18)—but who nevertheless are bound to associate on a smaller, temporal scale given their limitation to time and place. Christ is the only one who can “see,” and thus rule over, the universal church. As creatures, we are limited to time and place, heaven or earth, then or now, but not all the above at once. The issue of a “visible universal” church is the issue of confusing creature with Creator. By nature, creatures are unable to visualize a universal except through the particular. The creature is bound to experience the universal through the particular, hence the necessity of the local (or particular) church. 

The Confession uses the language of “particular congregations” to distinguish the institution of the local church in 26.2 from the universal in 26.1. Visible saints must necessarily become part of visible congregations which are necessarily particular, not universal. Benjamin Keach employs an analogy of a vineyard and its vines, “So in the universal Church are many particular congregations or communities of Christians, who are as so many choice Vines in God’s sight; it also abounds with plants, some fruitful, and some barren, as is signified by our Saviour.”[1] Commenting on 2 Corinthians 11:2, John Gill helpfully distinguishes between the universal church and its particular instances in “particular congregated churches” when he writes:

Christ stands in the relation of an husband to the church catholic and universal; to the whole general assembly and church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven; even to all the elect of God, that ever were, are, or shall be; and so he does to particular congregated churches, as he did to this church at Corinth, and so he does to every individual believer: which character he responds to, by loving them with a love prior to theirs, a love of complacency and delight, which is single, special, and peculiar, strong and affectionate, wonderful and inconceivable, constant, and what will last for ever; by sympathizing with them under all their afflictions, temptations, desertions, and exercises of every kind; by nourishing and cherishing them, which phrases are expressive of the spiritual food and clothing he provides for them, of that intimate communion he admits them to, and of that whole care he takes of them; by paying all their debts, supplying all their wants, supporting them with his right hand, protecting them against all their enemies, giving them grace here, and glory hereafter; and, last of all, by interesting them in his person, and all that he has, in all the blessings and promises of the covenant in his wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.[2]

The particular congregations are related in terms of time and locality. They are included within the universal church, as parts are included within the whole. Yet, the visible churches under heaven remain distinct (yet not separate) from the universal church since the universal church is broader than the local church, including also the saints in heaven.

Conclusion

The universal church is the whole—all the elect across time and place. This is imperceivable to the creature, who is confined to a particular time and particular place. Such a natural limitation requires the natural necessity of the local church. Ecclesiological systems that visualize the universal church fail to account for the inherent limitation of creatures which God has accommodated through the local church. Such local churches, being composed of visible saints, are the only instances that “visualize” the universal church. This is why we say that what goes on in the local church is a small glimpse into what the entire gathered universal church will look like at the end of time. In the following installment, I will discuss the relationship of the church to the kingdom as we look at 2LBC 26.3.

Resources

[1] Keach, Benjamin, Tropologia, (William Hill Collingridge, 1856), 687.

[2] Gill, John. John Gill’s Exposition on the Entire Bible-Book of 2nd Corinthians. Graceworks Multimedia. Kindle Edition. Loc. 3885.